Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I have been unable to reach understanding with Geogene who persists in reverting my contribution to the Cat predation on wildlife article and has received full partisan support from SMcCandlish. I reject their unsubstantiated claim that my contribution has contravened Wikipedia guidelines and suggest that their actions are driven by a partisan point of view regarding the article content. The article is closely related to a scientific (and in part NGO-driven) controversy about the global impact of cat predation on wildlife and biodiversity, and effectively replaces an objective coverage of this debate on Wikipedia. Geogene and SMcCandlish, who profess complete agreement on the matter, deny that such a debate has any scientific merit and seek to foreclose any discussion of it, as they happen to side with one extreme of it. They have produced no direct evidence (to counter that cited by myself) that the debate has either not existed or been resolved. Their claims rely on a selective original interpretation of sources (i.e. they echo the claims of one side to have won and to be the only "scientific" one).

Geogene raised an original research objection against properly sourced content and made bad faith allegations that I am trying to push a fringe viewpoint and that I am effectively "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation". That is something that ought to be demonstrated through adequate citation of evidence. Equally objectionable is their pattern of dismissing entire sources based on their date (without additional justification as per guidelines), arguments advanced, perceived influence etc. This appears to be a way in which Geogene and SMcCandlish have exercised their effective ownership of the article this far. Such a priori judgments about the reputation of a source constitute a personal viewpoint (POV) and if they were to be included in the article, they would constitute original research (OR).

Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate. They have sought to outright disqualify my contribution and any sources I have cited based purely on their opinion and by attributing a nefarious agenda to it, and invoked either a local editorial consensus between the two of them or an unproven scientific consensus in support. An eyebrow-raising claim they uphold is that "modern science" only dates from the year 2000. There is a considerable scientific literature omitted from the article due to its one-sidedness. (There would also be no ground on which essays, opinion pieces or journalism can be flatly excluded - not least because such sources are already cited.) Judging from their behaviour so far, Geogene and SMcCandlish will dismiss information based on sources that contravene their viewpoint out of hand.

The discussion history can be found on the article's talk page and on the NORN noticeboard. The talk page section in which SMcCandlish seeks to discredit a source may also be relevant.

As far as I am concerned, the only way to assess various claims is through adding verifiable content, and the way forward is for everyone involved to focus on building the article, rather than edit warring and making unsourced claims. I have not been able to persuade Geogene or SMcCandlish about this, however.

Due to their persistent refusal to recognise any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint and to engage in editing the article instead of edit warring, I consider the actions of Geogene to be vandalism, committed in defence of their POV and their effective ownership of the article. I think it is more than stonewalling because the guidelines on OR and OLDSOURCES were twisted to fit a purpose, and because Geogene has resorted to action despite the failure to evidence their claims or offer persuasive arguments in discussion. I am concerned about the two editors' propensity for escalating unfounded accusations and treating them as proven from the start, and about their shared habit of seeking to discredit sources a priori.

I am asking for an investigation of the conduct of the two editors, since it is their attitude and not a dispute over content (i.e. they prefer to focus on reputation and general outlook over the detail of evidence) that stands in the way of resolution.

To be clear, I am far from arguing that my contribution was beyond criticism. It is the resistance with which it met that was unwarranted and gives ground to suspecting that any further attempts to edit the article will be met with the same hostility. I am requesting an intervention to restore the possibility of constructive engagement with the article. VampaVampa (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While your message isn't entirely about a content dispute, a lot of it is and that's not the sort of thing this noticeboard is for. I did my best to read and comprehend that talk page discussion and I just keep coming back to the same question: why hasn't anyone tried an RFC yet? City of Silver 20:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved.

I grant that it may look like a content dispute. However, what I encountered was a wholesale revert and an attempt to paint me as a conspiracy theorist, therefore I fail to see what specific question in the content of my contribution could be the subject of an RfC here. The question of the existence of the debate has emerged as the underlying point of contention, but please note that this was not covered by my contribution and its sources. The broad framing of the entire conflict is something that was imposed on me by the two disagreeing editors. To address that larger question comprehensively, a whole new edit would need to be proposed - and I would actually happily spend time preparing one, but I want some assurance I am not going to be met with unjustified edit warring again. VampaVampa (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VampaVampa, that's part of the instructions of things to try before opening an RfC (use WP:DRN if more than two editors). Schazjmd (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I did not think it was a content dispute but if there is a general agreement here that it should be treated as one, then I could try to open either an RfC or a DRN discussion. However, would there be sufficient space to cite the evidence in support of my position in the RfC or DRN summary? I cannot expect all contributing editors to do their own reading. As I tried to explain above, the matter is not covered by my contested contribution. The literature is substantial and not discussed on Wikipedia to my knowledge. I will appreciate your advice. VampaVampa (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VampaVampa, it is a content dispute. I've read through the discussion on the article's talk page. My personal advice is to drop it. If you choose to pursue DRN or an RfC, I strongly suggest that you learn to summarize your argument succinctly. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds please - (1) content dispute, (2) drop it, (3) summarise succinctly? VampaVampa (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VampaVampa, you asked for my advice; I gave it. I don't know what more you want. Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, I have asked you for advice with how to tackle the fact that I am expected to defend myself from exaggerated charges that are not really covered by my edit, since RfC or DRN was suggested. I did not ask for advice on whether you think I should accept emotional blackmail and character assassination from other editors.

Since we are a community on Wikipedia your advice has as much value as your insight into the matter. Therefore I asked to know why you think what you think. And if you think my case has no merit, then it is even more necessary for me to learn why that should be the case. VampaVampa (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geogene's actions are not vandalism, and I suggest you refrain from describing them as such. This is a content dispute, not a conduct one, so there is very little that administrators can do here. If you want to add your changes to the article, get consensus for them first, possibly through an RfC. —Ingenuity (t • c) 20:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you disagree with my description of Geogene's actions as vandalism but could you offer any reasoning for this? As for RfC I considered it but decided it was not appropriate (as explained in my reply above). I will appreciate your advice on how to frame it as an RfC. VampaVampa (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VampaVampa Edits made in good faith, even if they are disruptive, are not vandalism. Vandalism implies a wilful intent to harm the encyclopedia, and if such intent is not obvious, then continuing to call edits vandalism constitutes a personal attack. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am wrong on this, but for me to assume good faith means that I can add information to the article without being asked to meet the two arbitrary conditions suggested by Geogene in their opening post of the discussion:

(1) use sources more recent than the cut-off date for whatever Geogene considers "modern" in every instance, and

(2) censor myself to avoid "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint on cat predation" at any cost (i.e. twisting everything to suit a predefined viewpoint).

If these two arbitrary conditions are not attempted to be enforced through edit warring then indeed I can work together with Geogene. VampaVampa (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to dispute the vandalism point unnecessarily, but it would seem to follow from a relevant guideline that if "Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's content policies is not vandalism", then removing content when it is not inconsistent with policies may constitute vandalism. I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong. VampaVampa (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is like griefing: if someone thinks that their edit is improving the article it's not vandalism. It literally means, like, when somebody replaces the text of an article with "loldongs" et cetera. What you are referring to is "disruptive editing". jp×g🗯️ 05:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Are you saying my edits are disruptive? Any ambiguous statements on that are likely to encourage further problems here. And isn't the I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong. evidence of the real problem here? Geogene (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene: Yes -- the thing that VampaVampa is accusing you of is "disruptive editing", not "vandalism". I am not VampaVampa and have no idea whether this is true or not. jp×g🗯️ 10:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification - I was wrong about the definition of vandalism. Geogene's conduct is much more sophisticated than that. As far as disruptive editing is concerned, I think it is intentional. VampaVampa (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VampaVampa, I'm glad you have accepted (albeit after some significant repetition) the feedback of the community here regarding what does and does not constitute article vandalism--though I do very much suggest you take a look at Formal_fallacy#Denying a conjunct, because with regard to your proposition here, your conclusion does not follow from your premises. However, it is actually your last sentence in said post ("I explained in the discussion on the talk page why I reject the charges of WP:OR and WP:OLDSOURCES and was not persuaded that I was wrong.") that I think still needs addressing. Because it is no way required that you be convinced that you are incorrect before your edits can be reverted--and in suggesting as much, you are actually turning the normal burden of proof and dispute resolution processes on their head. Rather the WP:ONUS is on you to gain clear consensus for a disputed change, and WP:BRD should be followed in resolving the matter.

Now, I haven't investigated the article revision history in great detail, but from what I can tell, the article has somewhat been in a state of flux over recent years, reaching the current "Cats are the greatest menace to biodiversity of the un-wilded world" state relatively recently. Neverthless, your changes were to fairly stable elements of the article that had at least some existing consensus support from the then-active editors of the article. When your edits are reverted in these circumstances, you are required to overcome the presumption of a valid reversion by gaining consensus for your addition/preferred version of the article. It is not always a fun or easy process, but it is the standard for how article development and dispute resolution proceed on this project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:VampaVampa - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Yelling Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute is a personal attack. This is a content dispute, compounded by conduct. I don't know what the merits of the content dispute are. I can see that the conduct includes the personal attack of yelling vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is clear enough and I stand corrected - there is indeed nothing in the list of vandalism types that corresponds to what I reported Geogene for. I engineered it backwards by proceeding from "removing content when it is inconsistent with policies is not vandalism" to "persisting in removing content when it is not inconsistent with policies (and argued repeatedly not to be so) may be vandalism", but I realise that has no logical purchase and is nowhere close to any of the definitions. I retract the charge of vandalism and apologise to Geogene for the unjustified accusation on this particular point. VampaVampa (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the last discussion of the talkpage and stopped reading details in the first paragraph when one of the editors described the RSPB as holding a 'fringe scientific view' on cat predation on birds in the UK. There is little point in even entering a discussion with someone who says that, as you are never going to convince them by reasoned argument. If you are in a content dispute revolving around sourcing with an editor who is never going to change their view, your options available are a)move on, b)Try and get a neutral third opinion, start a clearly worded RFC and advertise it widely to draw in more than the usual niche editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, useful to actually read the material and the cited sources before pronouncing that specific editors are "never going to be convinced by reasoned argument"... because the RSPB in the past has indeed been pleased to throw their weight behind badly reasoned minority interpretations of the science on this topic. That is the point of this dispute. Please spare the stentorian pronouncements if your time is too precious to read up on the material. - That being said, there seems to be no reason for this discussion to continue here, as multiple avenues for expanding the discussion on the article's talk page do exist, and the editor has indicated that they want to pursue them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the advice. Depending on the outcome of this incident report, I will consider an RfC and find suitable places to advertise it through. Elmidae seems to be suggesting that a potential RfC could revolve around how the respective positions of RSPB and Songbird Survival on cat predation of wildlife should be introduced in the article. However, as is clear from Elmidae's comment, this would likely end up triggering a much broader dispute about the respective merit of the current "majority" and "minority" conclusions drawn from available scientific evidence (assuming all of this evidence is methodologically unproblematic to either side), which could easily be the subject of a book. I think everyone's energy could be spent much more productively in editing the article, but if the only option is to debate the extensive literature in a talk page then so be it. I am open to any option that involves a careful examination of the evidence and the arguments. VampaVampa (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick word re the amount written hare and on the Cat predation talkpage. I've learnt over the years through my own errors, less is more. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will try to learn from my mistakes. VampaVampa (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from not being an ANI matter, this proceeding is also redundant with an ongoing WP:NORN proceeding involving the same parties and material (specifically here). I.e., this is a WP:TALKFORK. "Geogene and SMcCandlish not only represent an extreme stance in the debate, but also deny that any debate is legitimate" is blatant falsehood on both counts. The first half of that is what the NORN thread is about, with VampaVampa attempting to rely on 1970s primary research papers and a defunct advocacy website (and later an "attack other academics" op-ed that is the subject of the long thread of RS analysis immediate above VV's repetitive PoV-pushing thread at the article talk page), to defy current mainstream science on the topic. The second half is just made-up nonsense. In point of fact, at the article's talk page, I specifically suggested that we might need a section in the article about the history of the public debate about the subject. But to the extent that VV may instead mean entertaining perpetual opinion-laden debate on Wikipedia about such topics, see WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY. We are here to reflect what the modern RS material in the aggregate is telling us, not cherrypick half-century-old surpassed research claims that someone likes the sound of, and argue circularly ignoring all refutation, in an "argue Wikipedia into capitulation" behavior pattern, which is what VV is bringing to this subject.

PS: VV is completely incorrect that "RFC is not suitable for disputes in which more than two editors are involved", and has simply misunderstood all the material there. RFCBEFORE in particular makes it clear that RfCs should be opened after extensive discussion has failed to reach a consensus. That process almost always involves more than two parties. Where "more than two" appears on that page, it is simply noting that another potential venue one may try, for trying reaching consensus without an RfC, is WP:DRN (and VV notably ignored that advice and ran to ANI to make false accusations instead). The section below that, RFCNOT, certainly does not list "disputes with more than 2 editors" in it as something RfCs should not be used for, and that would be absurd. However, an RfC would not be appropriate at this moment, while the NORN proceeding is still open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to the WP:NORN, we have reached a dead end there:

(1) no party uninvolved in the dispute has intervened,

(2) you have not replied to my last post,

(3) most crucially, in this last post of mine I invited you again to build the article and warned that I would report your conduct to the administrators if one of you reverts again, which Geogene proceeded to do. You left me no other option.

As to RFCNOT, you are probably right and I am happy to be corrected on procedures. But at this point my dispute is with your and Geogene's conduct. VampaVampa (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of such noticeboards is to patiently solicit uninvolved input. There is no deadline, and starting talkforks at other noticeboards is not conducive of anything useful. Under no circumstances am I obligated to respond to your circular attempts to re-re-re-argue the same matters endlessly, and doing it at NORN would be counterproductive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One user against two shouldn't be able to preserve their disputed content indefinitly just by bludgeoning the talk page until the opposition is tired of arguing. That's the disrputive editing here Geogene (talk) Geogene (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy about consensus which says polling is not a substitute for discussion. VampaVampa (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:NOTUNANIMITY. Geogene (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For that good faith would have been required. VampaVampa (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VampaVampa, after nearly being WP:BOOMERANGed for arriving here with false accusations of "vandalism", has now turned to demonizing those they disagree with via false and undemonstrable accusations of bad faith. That is not exactly a wise move.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It's actually worse than I thought, with VV more recently accusing someone else (EducatedRedneck) of having "a nativist agenda" [1]. At this rate, I don't think we're very far away from simply removing VV from the topic area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor's claim that an RFC about content is unnecessary because they're right is prima facie proof that an RFC is necessary. The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene.

Much to the surprise of nobody, the NORN discussion is going nowhere because the three involved editors are bickering there exactly like they have been here and at the article's talk page while nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute. (As an aside, any of these three who has complained about anyone else running afoul of WP:WALLOFTEXT is a massive hypocrite.) An RFC will compel these three to state their cases in far fewer words, which will be nice, but much more importantly, it'll attract uninvolved editors who'll review the content issue and work towards a consensus on the content, which in the end is all that's supposed to matter. These threads won't accomplish anything because none of these three editors has shown a willingness to compromise to any extent and their tendency to link policies, guidelines, and essays across multi-paragraph messages ad nauseum guarantees they'll keep speaking past each other. City of Silver 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@City of Silver: Re nobody else has weighed in on the actual content dispute Three editors (@EducatedRedneck:, @Elmidae:, @My very best wishes:) have weighed in on the article's talk page since this thread was opened. Still no evidence of support for VampaVampa's revision. Your "blame all sides" is not helpful. Geogene (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene: Before anything else, edit your message to strike the quotation marks around "blame all sides" and add a note saying you were wrong to quote me as saying that. In your note admitting you falsely ascribed words to me, please include my username so it's clear to others. I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are. You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the website. I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people. But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC? City of Silver 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before anything else, edit your message Edit your message to remove the personal attacks, including "hypocrits". I never came even close to saying there were sides in this issue because I absolutely do not believe there are. I said you are blaming all sides, which you are. I put that in scare quotes to express my disagreement with them. You, VV, and SMcCandlish are all on the same side, the side of improving the website thank you for that. I find editing Wikipedia to be an extremely thankless enterprise, this thread being a great example of it. I also entirely disagree that any substantial part of any discussion has been anything more than two people talking past one person and that one person talking past those two people. and then the one flings bad faith assumptions at the other two at ANI to try to eliminate them from the topic area. But if you've got consensus, why not start an RFC? Normally it's the one who wants content added who starts the RFC. I noticed above you said, The decision as to whether or not an RFC happens should be made with zero input from VampaVampa, SMcCandlish, and Geogene. I don't recall stating any opposition to an RfC. Geogene (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And see also Brandolini's law; if someone text-walls with rambling claims that are a mixture of personal belief, repetition of and reliance on a defunct advocacy website, and OR extrapolation from and other reliance on ancient primary research papers from the 1970s, then later adds in op-ed material from one academic personality-smearing another and badly confusing public-policy political arguments with scientific evidence, then the response to this is necessarily going to be detailed and lengthy, because it involves multiple forms of refutation of multiple wonky claims and bad sourcing. The alternative is simply ignoring VV's input entirely, but that would be rude and less constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding because I've been pinged. I agree with City of Silver that it feels more like people are talking past each other rather than to them. It's hard not to respond to what one hears, rather than what is actually said, when a debate has become drawn-out. Based on the most recent exchange with VV, which SMC alluded to above, I fear that now includes me as well. (Accusing me of a "nativist agenda" is making it harder for me to view the matter dispassionately, and I'm not sure I'm hearing what VV is trying to say at this time.) EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this post because I could see from it that you genuinely tried to mediate, and it perhaps just so happens that with regard to the "objective" differences in worldview, which we have to somehow work past on Wikipedia, you seem to stand closer to Geogene and SMC, without necessarily having been aware of it. So I offer apologies for the accusation.

I also declare myself ready to work with Geogene and SMcCandlish on the condition that none of us tries to seize the upper hand in advance of putting in the work to edit the article. I should make clear that to me that involves seeking to discredit sources that do not unambiguously contravene Wikipedia guidelines (not to exclude genuine debates on the talk page, that's a different thing). I regret but I cannot compromise on this point. VampaVampa (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@City of Silver: Thank you for this - even though I don't think I claimed I was right.

With regard to Geogene's reply, can I just point out that the impartiality of such third-party interventions cannot be assumed? VampaVampa (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VampaVampa: Please don't make edits unless you think they're right. And I hope you don't expect "impartiality" from other editors. My very best wishes hasn't said a single thing that could get them excluded from an RFC and neither has anybody else who's weighed in. City of Silver 02:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I mostly agree with your comments and comments by Geogene and SMcCandlish above. As about user VampaVampa, they obviously made this posting to get an upper hand in a content dispute. That does qualify as a WP:BATTLE, in my opinion. That user is clearly not working collaboratively with others, at least in this dispute about feral cats. My very best wishes (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy mother of walls of text... I strongly agree with the most useful feedback that has been given here: this is clearly the stage at which RfC is not only warranted, but arguably the only path forward if one side or the other is not prepared to give way.

That said, I strongly suggest the involved parties attempt torecruit a neutral to word the RfC prompt and that the most vociferous single parties from each side (and I would hope you both know who you are) exercise some considerable restraint in not bludgeoning the resulting discussion (either in terms of volume of response or the length of individual posts). As in, your positions having been well established already on the talk page, you should each make your contributions to the RfC roughly on the scale of 1/30th of what you've had to say so far. Given the relatively small number of sources being debated, the existing diatribes are way out of proportion and, bluntly, well into WP:disruptive territory at this point. And I say this as someone who isn't exactly always the soul of brevity themselves here at all times. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed analysis of material and claims based on them requires a considerable amount of text. But I've already done the work, so of course I have no need to do it all over again, especially at the same page. Any politicized subject (see, e.g., virtually any major thread at Talk:Donald Trump and its 169 pages of archives) is going to be longer than some people like, both due to the detail required and due to someone trying to get their contary-to-RS viewpoint promoted being likely to recycle the same claims repeatedly, leading to recurrent refutations; rinse and repeat. This is a common "try to wear out the opposition" tactic, in which refutation is ignored and the same claims are re-advanced (proof by assertion fallacy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, McCandlish, this isn't Donald Trump's BLP, and even if it were, what you have been doing on that talk page was clearly excessive. You added 24KB (31 paragraphs!) of text in one post, most of it dedicated to micro-analyzing every aspect of one source, down to caption summary of the careers of everyone involved with it. At the time you posted it, it was larger than all of the rest of the comments from all other editors on the talk page in all threads, put together. All to support an argument that said source was more editorial than a typical MEDRS primary source, and should be afforded less weight accordingly--an adequate case for which could have been made with one paragraph, and an excessive one with two. Nor is it the only titano-post from you or VampaVampa, who I think only slightly trails your numbers.

Look, I think you're an often-compelling participant in discussions, in part because of your propensity for thoroughness. But there's practical limits before it becomes a WP:Bludgeon issue (however inadvertently). And whatever compelling interests you may feel that you have to press your reading of the sources, they can't come close to justifying the extent of the wordcount arms race you and VV entered into. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON refers to re-re-re-responding to every or nearly every post in a discussion (RfC, etc.) with many participants. It does not refer to producing a source analysis that a particular person disapproves of because of its detail level. And you're not getting the chronlogy right. That material long preceded VV's participation at that page; notably, when VV attempted to recycle the same bad source, I did not post a lengthy re-analysis of it, but referred to the one already done. My responses to VV have been directed at unrelated claims and sources put forward by that editor, and when they turned to circular argumentation that ignored prior refutation, I walked away rather than continue. So, there is no "wordcount arms race". We are at ANI now because one particular person, VV, refuses to drop the stick, despite there already being two (article-talk and NORN) discussions open trying to resolve the underlying content-and-sources matter. Whether this subject rises to the subjective importance level of, say, Donald Trump is irrelevant; it is certainly as polticized and emotive, attracting the same kind of misuse-bad-sources PoV pushing, which is the point I was making.

In the spirit of what I just wrote regarding circular argument and just walking away, I am not going to respond here any further unless pinged directly. There is no ANI matter to settle, except possibly VV's renewed personal attacks in the same subject area (see diff of one against EducatedRedneck above). VV's ANI is WP:asking the other parent. Either NORN will address the sourcing problems, or will not and then we'll have an RfC, but ANI is not for content disputes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two Unpleasant Comments

I have not tried to read the content discussion, and don't know what the content details are. I have two mostly unrelated comments that are not about content, but this is not a content forum.

First, multiple posters have posted overly long posts, that were literally too long, didn't read, which is one reason I haven't studied the content. However, I can see that the original poster has misread two Wikipedia policies, and posted based on their misreadings, and has since backed off from their original comments. One of the guidelines was worded in a complex way because it is complex, and so it could have easily been misread. The other policy could not possibly have been misread by anyone who read it with an intent to understand it, because it is very clear about refuting misconceptions. The first was that User:VampaVampa said that RFC was not applicable if there are more than two parties. That is part of a sort of flowchart-like guideline, and could easily be misread, and was misread. The second was that User:VampaVampa said that Geogene had engaged in vandalism. The vandalism policy is very clear on what is not vandalism. It is sufficiently clear that anyone who argues that overzealous editing in a conduct dispute is vandalism hasn't read the policy. They obviously know that vandalism is one of the worst things that an editor can do, but they haven't read what it is and is not. In other words, VampaVampa insulted the other editor first, and only read what the insult meant after being called to account. So, if I do read the content details, I know not to give much weight to what User:VampaVampa writes, because they are an editor who makes sloppy claims. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the dispute has not been addressed except by the original parties at the No Original Research Noticeboard because WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard. It apparently has no regular editors, and it is very seldom if ever that anything is resolved at WP:NORN. It is a noticeboard where content disputes go to fester and die. The suggestion was made, and not followed up on, that perhaps it and one or more other noticeboards should be merged. So VampaVampa is not asking the other parent here. There is no parent at WP:NORN. But they appear to be following a policy of post first and think second. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comments fair, with one exception. I wish to contest the reputational charge that I am "an editor who makes sloppy claims", which is a generalisation from two instances, for one of which you have found extenuating circumstances. (Incidentally, a generalisation is also at the heart of the content dispute.) This criticism of yours comes after I have already admitted having overreacted, in the spirit of seeking reconciliation. In my defence I also plead inexperience in raising matters for dispute; I suspect that many a user with no exposure to procedural affairs would have been intimidated by the sheer conduct of Geogene and SMcCandlish to drop the content dispute. I finally wish to use my freshly learned lesson in logic to note that even if I were to be wrong in all of my claims it still would not follow that the other party to the dispute cannot be seriously wrong in theirs. VampaVampa (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:VampaVampa - It is true that whether you have been right or wrong is independent of whether Geogene and SMcCandlish have been right or wrong. You have stated that they have been guilty of serious conduct violations. You have stated that they have been guilty of serious conduct violations. You have used many words in making that statement. However, I have not found your argument to be persuasive. You haven't made your case, at least not to me, and I am not planning to read your walls of text again, especially since I have already seen that you made two mistakes, one of which suggests that you post first and think second. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggests that you post first and think second. .. Does this imply a lack of good faith on the part of this editor ? Botswatter (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning the good faith of User:VampaVampa. Posting first and thinking second is not bad faith, although it is sloppy and undesirable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Botswatter This is your 4th edit. Your 3rd as to add yourself as in training at DRN - something you aren't doing and have no experience to do. I don't know why you inserted yourself here, but there is a saying "good faith is not a suicide pact". There can come a time when good faith no longer be offered, and this looks like one. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am however agreeing with User:Doug Weller in questioning the good faith of User:Botswatter. I wonder whether they inserted themselves here and also at DRN in order to snipe at me. I wonder if they have a grudge against me from some previous unsuccessful mediation at DRN, perhaps one that ended with them being indeffed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to share VampaVampa's latest diff, continuing to personalize the content dispute [2]. I had just reverted a POV rewrite of the lead that was sourced in part to a likely front group. Yes, there are apparently front groups out there on the web pushing scientifically dubious views on outdoor cats. This controversy may not rise to Donald Trump levels of importance, but neither is Scientology or Young Earth Creationism. That doesn't mean it's unworthy of the Wikipedia community's concern. Geogene (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your action in reverting that edit is illustrative of the conduct that I have submitted a case against above (i.e. seeking to exercise ownership of the article and to prevent the representation of legitimate views by falsely construing them as fringe and denialist). This is not the place to enter into content disputes. However, you are using your experience to discourage new contributors to engage with the article through unnecessary hostility. I am not sure why you should seek to draw more attention to your behaviour yourself, but that is welcome as far as I am concerned. VampaVampa (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Law of holes comes to mind here, VampaVampa. What you're claiming as ownership is not, and in fact that claim is making it more clear you do not understand our rules and guidelines. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  HandThatFeeds What do you propose calling it instead? Eight of the last 50 edits on the page are Geogene reverting something, most of which in my opinion would have improved the article and the rest still had some merit to them. (3 in an edit war with VampaVampa, the rest from various different editors.) Iamnotabunny (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say you need to propose changes on the Talk page & get consensus first, rather than just bludgeoning ahead to get those changes into the article. Especially since they appear to be an attempt to insert a POV into the article, something you're going to find is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Enforcing our NPOV rule is not OWNership. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Geogene is doing such a good job of enforcing neutral point of view that he immediately removed the maintenance tag about "Too few opinions".

  When I made those 2 edits, I was unaware of exactly how controversial the article was. As you can see, all of my edits since then have been to the talk page rather than to the article. And let it be clear that I dispute that the article currently has a neutral point of view, which is a matter for the talk page and not for here. I assumed Geogene's claim that the source I used was a "front group" was so obviously false (it does not even speculate who is secretly behind them!) that it would boomerang on him without me doing anything. Iamnotabunny (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short Summary

A short but not unbiased summary of this whole thing, as I see it.

0. Earlier article edits that set the scene, June 2022 and December 2023: Xhkvfq (previously went by the username StrippedSocks) makes edits that are reverted by Geogene. Xhkvfq adds a source Lynn et al 2019. On the talk page, SMcCandlish describes the source as, among other things "a butt-hurt rant".

1. Article editing happens. Geogene reverts many things (to me, looks like based on whether they are pro-cat or anti-cat rather than whether they match the sources). SMcCandlish edits the article to more closely match what the sources say. Geogene and VampaVampa revert each other a bunch.

2. The NORN noticeboard. Geogene opens a question regarding one of VampaVampa's edits. SMcCandlish answers in the affirmative, goes on to call Xhkvfq a drive-by editor, and complains about people who are okay with bird species going extinct as long as feral cats don't get culled. There seems to be an implication that VampaVampa is one such person, which I don't think is accurate nor warranted.

3. VampaVampa opens this discussion here, beginning with an accusation of vandalism due to a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. Once that was explained, VampaVampa changed the accusation to disruptive editing my mistake, "status quo stonewalling". Many words about both wikipedia policy and article content have been written here, but not much has been said.

4. Not knowing any of this, I come across the article, attempt to make an edit, and get dragged into this discussion. GG's mention of that edit here was to complain about VV's reply "personalizing the content dispute" by saying GG's revert was based on unevidenced assumptions, but if that's a personal attack then so is GG's claim that my edit was "profringe". Something being "profringe" implies it is based on unevidenced assumptions.

5. With the help of other editors to keep the discussion on track, VampaVampa and Geogene are able to have a mostly civil conversation (compared to previously) on the talk page about the content of the article.

My own experiences involving Geogene have been quite negative (edit: perhaps there was some misunderstanding going on), but as it appears he and VampaVampa are currently making progress on article content, perhaps it is not worth bringing them up. Iamnotabunny (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on: I just realized the above makes it look like VampaVampa is blameless. That was not what I intended, but I feel that part of things is already covered quite thoroughly earlier in this thread. Iamnotabunny (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Options ?

I think that this has gone on long enough, and that nothing new is likely to happen, so it is time for some sort of close. User:VampaVampa is the original poster of this thread, and says that there have been serious conduct violations by User:Geogene and User:SMcCandlish. I haven't seen any evidence of conduct violations by Geogene or SMcCandlish, either in VampaVampa's walls of text or on my cursory look at the article talk page. There have been two specific conduct allegations. The first was a claim that Geogene's editing of a content dispute was vandalism. The second conduct allegation is that Geogene and SMcCandlish have asserted article ownership. It appears that what they have actually asserted is that they have a rough consensus, and two-to-one really is a local rough consensus. There haven't been any other conduct allegations that I could parse. I don't intend to try to read the excessively long post, because I know that VampaVampa is not a good judge of good and bad conduct. So no action should be taken against Geogene or SMcCandlish.

I see three possible options with regard to VampaVampa:

1. Close this thread, doing nothing.
2. Close this thread with a warning to User:VampaVampa for the personal attack of a bad allegation of vandalism.
3. Close this thread by topic-banning User:VampaVampa, at least from this article.

What do the other editors think? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus that the accusations by VampaVampa about other contributors were ungrounded, and he admitted this himself. However, option 3 might be an overkill. If there are any problems with the editing by VampaVampa, this is their tendency to produce walls of text and argue to infinity on multiple pages, not just that page. But option 2 seems to be warranted based on the discussion above. My very best wishes (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One further conduct allegation I have made was status quo stonewalling, which I wrongly claimed was vandalism when premeditated. I think a cursory look would not have detected that, so I can cite relevant passages if needed. I was concerned with the immediate accusation of "fringe" views against me and with the caricaturing of my arguments and intentions. That said, I am more aware now of various policies such as WP:BRD and the requirements for gaining consensus, so I can partly see where my opponents were coming from, at least procedurally. Having since participated in some RfCs and talk page discussions, I remain concerned about the amount of leeway for editors to keep dismissing reasonable arguments under superficial excuses, and I still do not think my defence of my edit had been given a fair hearing by Geogene and SMcCandlish before they sought to force-close the debate and escalate it from the specific edit to my agenda. But I am prepared to accept that succinct evidence-based discussion and RfC would be worth trying. VampaVampa (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this thread is still open? I got pinged back here, so I'll respond. For my part, I'm not one to assert that two editors against one at a poorly watched page actually constitutes much of a "local consensus", just as a thing in and of itself. What's far more important here is that we have WP:Core content policies and they apply equally to this article as any others, and VV's PoV edits are not in compliance with them (or if you prefer, multiple editors have raised multiple policy concerns about them). The WP:ONUS is on VV, and VV has not addressed much less dispelled these concerns. VV's position appears to basically boil down to assuming they have a right to make the changes they want, and anyone who disagrees is just some vandalistic stonewaller.

As for WP:SQS, VV apparently has either not read that page, even its first line, or has serious difficulty understanding it. (Cf. also apparent severe trouble understanding WP:RFC, WP:VANDAL, the content policies themselves, and the meaning and relative import of the source material; this is starting to look like a WP:CIR issue.) Let's quote directly: Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good-faith discussion. Both Geogene and I have raised very detailed substantive rationales based in policy, and our participation in good-faith discussion has been so extensive that various parties above have vented about it being too detailed and long-winded. VV has utterly failed to demonstrate that any sort of SQS happening.

PS: WP:NORN is a dormant noticeboard. I was not aware of that (and it seems weird and unfortunate). Given that RfCs are expensive of community time and attention, probably the thing to do would be to close this ANI, close the going-nowhere NORN thread, and re-open the matter at WP:NPOVN or WP:RSN; all of these policies and guidlelines are implicated in inter-related ways in this issue, so either venue will do, really; it would just be matter of writing it out in a way that pertains more to one noticeboard or the other. That's assuming a T-ban doesn't happen. I think one could arguably be justified because of the repeated incivility and other problems evidenced above after this ANI was opened. But I'm also not one to seek to "silence the opposition". I give benefit of the doubt (sometimes maybe more than I should) that an editor may prove to be productive on the project in other ways despite a recent WP:DRAMA flare-up. And in this case, I really have no policy-and-sourcing doubt about how the underlying content and sourcing dispute is going to turn out in the end.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 for now, with the assumption that VV will read the room and drop the stick. I feel warnings are most effective when people can trust the good faith efforts of the editor to heed the warning. If this topic continues with more walls of accusational text, then I think the topic ban becomes necessary. The late, poorly document allegations of WP:SQS are not helping matters at all here. Geogene and SMcCandlish should have the right to not be in a position where they have to continually defend against amorphous allegations. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2. My experience has been that VampaVampa has, several times, assumed bad faith, leaping to conclusions about my intentions, alleging bias, and displaying a battleground-esque mentality. I maintain they are a net positive to the project, and have demonstrated that they are WP:HERE, but believe that the warning for personal attacks should be construed to include a caution against WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ABF. It should also include a caution against WP:WALLOFTEXT. I'm often guilty of that myself, but dang. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to be able to vote option 1, based on "I retract the charge of vandalism and apologise to Geogene for the unjustified accusation on this particular point." If the charge of stonewalling is also withdrawn, I will be happy to do so, but for now I vote Abstain Not 3. Iamnotabunny (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 and/or option 3, as I think both have a role to play in this editor's behavioral development on the English Wikipedia. The need for civility by avoiding aspersions is not met by a restriction from their trigger article, and vice versa ——Serial Number 54129 13:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anonymy365248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been warned repeatedly not to tag articles with merge proposal notices without opening a discussion on the talk page, as can be seen on their talk page (sections "Your proposal to merge articles" and "Merge proposed without starting discussion"). In spite of this, they have continued to engage in this behavior, most recently at the article Malek Rahmati (diff1, diff2). I also noticed from their talk page that this user has a history of disruptive editing. Thank you for your consideration. Davey2116 (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have a habit of removing warnings and advice from their user talk page but not heeding the warnings nor taking the advice, and in fact they nominated their own user talk page for deletion (just prior to the most recent username change) because "I don't want any topics on my talk page." They have a previous short block on their record for disruptive editing, and I just cleaned up a batch of malformed AfD nominations which they recently submitted. I won't question their good faith, but their level of competence seems to me to merit closer scrutiny. --Finngall ^talk 17:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their response so far on this ANI thread has been trying to edit Davey2116's post: Special:Diff/1228266845. Though they did say something in the user talk recently: Special:Diff/1228325353. – 2804:F14:80E0:5601:B09C:126D:624:271 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of effort they have made to cover their usernames is suspicious to me. Originally I had assumed okay maybe it was just a user wanting a clean start, but you found not 1 but 2 name changes "in less than six months"? [3] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: Not “found”, exactly–they appeared on my radar under their original username when they tried to unilaterally reopen an AfD discussion which they had started but which didn’t go their way, so they’ve been on my watchlist since last year. --Finngall ^talk 04:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malek Rahmati and the user keeps changing how signed comments can be viewed and just now tried to remove the first line stating,

"* Anonymy365248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)" Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my unofficial username that's why I keep replacing it with the word "anonymous" as part of recognizing me anonymously. Also, I didn't want that username to be place in any discussion. Anonymy365248 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad, because we need to know who we're talking to. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I just want to clarify if there's a second chance for and Article for Deletion. Anonymy365248 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that even after being told here to stop messing around with their signature, Anonymy365248 is still doing it. [4] If the isn't trolling, it is a WP:CIR issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry if what I did was an act of messing up the signature, but I swear I'm not trolling, I just want to know how to be recognized as an anonymous user. Anonymy365248 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's posts are followed by their usernames, period. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymity is pretty much impossible on Wikipedia unless you edit without an account (aka edit as an ip). While it is technically true that a link only to a users talk page suffices under WP:SIGLINK, if it is causing disruption, which seems to be the case here, the signature falls under WP:SIGPROB, which says that editors can request a problematic signature be changed, and says that problematic signatures may result in a quicker block for other problems with their editing. In addition, your username still appears in the page history, which is legally required because the copyright license that Wikipedia operates under requires attribution to the contributors. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 17:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit as an ip? Anonymy365248 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit as an IP you simply log out of your account. But you should be aware that if you do then every edit you make will reveal your IP address at the time, which is a fair bit less anonymous than editing under a pseudonym. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. See WP:ANONYMOUS. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Just simply log out of your account. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 21:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just an fyi, I don't think you need to use the non admin comment template in a discussion like this, I think that would usually be used only in places where non admins don't make comments that often, like WP:UAA or WP:AIV. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 22:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh, sorry about that hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 22:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 22:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was drawn to this discussion via this deletion request that Anonymy365248 opened on June 8. Their conduct throughout the discussion has made me wonder if we are dealing with a WP:CIR issue. They stated three times in that discussion that they wanted the article deleted because of their personal preferences, despite being told that personal feelings are not ground for keeping, deleting, or renaming articles. This is basically a pattern that has appeared in pretty much all the pages they have nominated for deletion:

• "I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran"
• "I prefer the information of this article to be transferred in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes"
• "I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well"
• "I prefer the information about this article should be other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Since those websites didn't need a big description of an article about someone", etc.

Maybe the user does not know how to express himself/herself but this is not the correct way of listing articles at AfD. Keivan.f^Talk 01:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the good examples of nominating an article for deletion? Anonymy365248 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could start here first of all. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to start a new thread here, then I saw this one. There are some clear WP:CIR issues here. A day after the last comment above, Anonymy365248 continued disrupting AfDs, such as:

• Unstriking their own vote as nom, despite being warned on their talk.
• Another AfD, and when most !votes are keep, a merge proposal, and voting "support".
• !voting thrice in one discussion.
• Again, messing with their own signature.

Looking at their AfD stats, it's clear they don't understand relevant policies. Something needs to be done here. A pblock from the Wikipedia: namespace, maybe? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay look, I'm sorry, if what I'm doing is disruptive again. However, I would like to clarify how is unstriking your own vote a disruptive editing.Anonymy365248 (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Miscellaneous advice. Liz has already explained this on your talk page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a WP:CIR block may be in order at this time. Again, they may be acting in good faith, but in the end they've done little except be a timesink for more experienced editors whilst providing little if any positive contribution to the project. --Finngall ^talk 15:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 16:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor wanted to delete their user talk page, and now does not want to have a name. This appears to be an editor who, in clueless good faith, wants to be an invisible editor. That seems to be an idea that is inconsistent with the idea of a wiki, a collaborative endeavor. The question for us, the Wikipedia community, is simply how much patience we have with this completely clueless good faith idea. I suggest that we ignore them as long as we can, but no longer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I change my mind. I don't care about my username being recognized anymore, even if I want to be seen as an invisible editor. My username doesn't seem to matter anyway. Anonymy365248 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: The issues with the article have been resolved, the POV tag is no longer required. I request that someone archive this. Cheers, -Konanen (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted the page Reiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) after another user has veered towards edit warring, and they saw fit to also remove the POV tag that I had included roughly a fortnight ago, seen here: Special:Diff/1226277414/1228846541. The POV tag was included following a discussion which was started by another user at the Talk Page, which I agreed with and have subsequently brought to WP:NPOV/N. The discussion is still on-going there.

On a subsection of the article’s talk page, I have requested that the user revert their edit insofar as to re-include the POV tag, as the article’s NPOV was currently actively under discussion with some consensus pointing towards the article being insufficiently neutral, and out of courtesy, I have reiterated this on their talk page [5] with the note that POV tags should not be removed as long as the discussion was on-going. Their reply to me on the Talk Page was lacking courtesy [6] at best, and was tone-deaf and clearly violated policy at worst.

After tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) badgered my talk page [7] extolling about the virtues of being biased on Wikipedia, they threatened me [8] with being topic banned, even though they had no cause to do so.

I strongly object to the behaviour of both editors, and ask that other editors intercede. I will be immediately notifying them on their talk pages of this article. -Konanen (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be as diplomatic as possible, appealing to your rationality and your capacity for self-restraint. Whitewashing quackery is not a virtue, and certainly not a Wikipedic virtue.

I mean this is the second experienced editor at Reiki who seems to know every rule of Wikipedia but somehow did not get the memo that Wikipedia lambasts quackery. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two things can be true at the same time.

• 1: Reiki does not adhere to the scientific method.
• 2: The article about Reiki does not neutrally summarize reliable sources.

So, simple accusations of "whitewashing quackery" are not adequate responses to other editors' choice to add a POV tag. Scanning the discussions that OP links to, I see @WhatamIdoing, @Dustfreeworld, @North8000, and @Masem, among others, making some interesting points. I also see some rather snotty remarks from other editors. Looks like a legitimate content dispute that doesn't require administrator attention, other than perhaps a gentle reminder to remain civil and refrain from telling editors that disagree with you to "stop". Pecopteris (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify (apologies if I have not made this clear): I am genuinely not trying to start another NPOV debate, that is already being carried out on other venues. I am only objecting to the POV tag on the article having been removed without cause and the subsequent jeering response to it, as well as the threat of being topic banned when I have not even edited the article, except to add the POV tag (and then once to add further details onto the POV tag). -Konanen (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I told the OP at my talk page to "Discuss this at the article, not here." I was fully willing to discuss the matter further there, with the participation of other editors. That a POV tag got caught up in my revert was not a deliberate act. It just happened. I was willing to see if other people agreed or if it should be restored. Only the OP objected.

I think the OP is a bit trigger-happy and not exactly cooperative. The discussion on the talk page should continue, with proper dispute resolution processes, IOW an RfC, if necessary. This move is a crap move. That's not right. It just creates more heat than light and shows a battlefield mentality. It is not an attempt to de-escalate a conflict, but rather an attempt to escalate a conflict. Not a good attitude. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Do you think the article should have that POV tag? City of Silver 18:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@City of Silver: my reply below should answer your question: "In the interest of calming the waters, I have restored the POV tag, even though it's just a badge of shame that doesn't serve a constructive purpose as long as the discussion is ongoing. Anyone else is free to delete it." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Dang, if I'd waited one more minute I'd have been astounded to see you answer my question before I'd even asked it. And yep, that clears that up for me so thank you for letting me know. City of Silver 19:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding of the purpose of a POV tag. As per Template:POV, a POV tag is to be removed 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. This conversely implies that the POV tag is specifically indicated when discussion is on-going about an article’s neutrality. -Konanen (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• OP writes: "Their reply to me on the Talk Page was lacking courtesy [9] at best, and was tone-deaf and clearly violated policy at worst."

My comment on my talk page was "Discuss this at the article, not here." That is not "lacking courtesy" "tone-deaf", or "clearly violated policy at worst." My response was neutral and appropriate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notified you on two venues that my POV tag was apparently included in your reversion, and asked you to amend your actions. Your answer to my request on the talk page was Konanen, your own statements above, and those of a now topic banned editor, don't count for much in a discussion of this topic as you reveal a lack of understanding of how we allow biased terminology in articles when they are backed by RS. Quackery is not exactly synonymous with pseudoscience, and is a properly-sourced term. Enough with the whitewashing of Reiki. The word is in the second paragraph, not first, so be happy for that.

I cannot see that this is neutral, or appropriate. You say you were fully willing to discuss the matter further there, and that my revert was not a deliberate act. It just happened, but that is not what your terse reply shows. Indeed, your last sentence reads gloating about the fact that... what? The article’s tone is sufficiently pejorative, and I should be greatful it is not worse? That is a non-starter and a show of bad faith, and I have no desire to continue a debate in such a tone. Your disregard of the matter and wilful ignorance of your mistake in including my POV tag in your reversion, and then doubling down on it when pointed out was what escalated the situation. -Konanen (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(scritches his head) You know that's not the comment the OP linked, right? Ravenswing 18:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The OP linked to more than one comment. Search for "lacking courtesy" to find this one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine people thinking it's discourteous for you to tell them that "your own statements above...don't count for much in a discussion". The statement might be true, because we do run on a meatball:VestedContributor system (e.g., so that I can argue that quackery isn't the right word much more safely than a new editor), but it still hurts people to be told things like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I was talking about their comment on my talk page and thought they meant my talk page when they wrote "talk page". My bad. Yes, that comment, on the "article" talk page was countering Konanen's pushing of the very same POV that got Dustfreeworld topic banned, so it was a bit sharp. Pushing that same party line is tendentious and I responded accordingly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It's important to note that Konanen's only ally was the now topic banned Dustfreeworld, and it is that same mentality Konanen is furthering here. We don't need that mentality at Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sorry, I did not know a debate of facts, and about the tone of an article required allies for points to be heard and taken seriously without resorting to personal attacks. I'll try to WP:CANVAS people the next time. -Konanen (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I think that topic ban was heavy-handed, but I don't think that's relevant. We do need people with different POVs here. There needs to be someone willing to ask whether that's the best word choice, or whether particular derogatory labels are properly applied. For example, I quoted a source on the talk page that says "Reiki traditionalists simply claim to channel their god’s divine energy." The response to this was that, at least wrt Reiki, religion is just another kind of pseudoscience. This has happened multiple times: Feng shui wasn't pseudoscience in ancient China; it was practical science (e.g., don't build your house down in the flood plains, but also don't build it on cold, windy hilltops). The version we see in the US, however, is a combination of pseudoscience and straight-up superstition (and probably greed). We aren't sophisticated enough to set aside the point-scoring mentality (gotcha, you evil little pseudoscience!) and provide fuller explanations. We just want to get as close as we can to "Pseudoscientific ____, which is a pseudoscience, pseudoscientifically uses pseudoscientific methods to harm people who encounter this pseudoscience. Also, it doesn't work, because it's pseudoscience". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  you wrote "pseudoscience" or a variant of it 10 times in this comment, wow cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Konanen, I was willing to continue the discussion, specifically about the POV tag, but the actual discussion was a mixture of lots of things, and my objection was primarily to your continuing to push the same fringe party line that got Dustfreeworld topic banned. You were warned about going down that road, but instead you came here. Not a good move. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was no discussion to be had. There is an on-going debate about the article’s POV without a clear consensus having been reached, and as such, there are no grounds for removing the POV tag as per the rules on the Template’s page itself. I told you the debate was on-going and to please amend your reversion, yet you rejected the notion.

  Instead of entering into an editing war with you, I opted to go the ANI route, because your responses seem belligerent. I am sorry you do not like it, but I am not sorry I brought this to the ANI. -Konanen (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In the interest of calming the waters, I have restored the POV tag, even though it's just a badge of shame that doesn't serve a constructive purpose as long as the discussion is ongoing. Anyone else is free to delete it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven’t deleted it but in the interest of calming the waters as well, I opened a specific section on the talkpage for any editor to express any further NPOV concerns they have (beyond the one being discussed) - if after a week or more there isn’t really any discussion supporting the tag, we can remove it - no rush. I second the comments from Valjean and others above regarding the conduct of some editors trying to “whitewash” the topic to avoid calling a duck a duck, and will remind everyone there is an ancient arbitration case with a still lasting designation as a contentious topic that may need to be invoked to deal with the disruption at this article. While allowing for discussion with other editors is ideal, that should not extend to forcing other editors to bend over backwards to cater to pseudoscientific views/proponents. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not understand why there needs to be consensus about a Template whose job it is to notify viewers of an on-going debate, so they can direct their attention to it. Does the mere existence of dispute and dissent about the article’s neutrality irk you so that you need to… require consensus about whether we are even allowed to debate the matter? What in the Orwell is this? -Konanen (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see why a POV tag is required, as the article is factual and neutral. If people want to pay large amounts of money for something that will have no effect on their physical health then that is up to them, but we should at least be informing them that they are being scammed. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. We tend to resist attempts to drag an article back to the dark ages using bogus "neutrality" concerns. Accurate terminology used by RS is not a violation of NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article being factual and neutral is currently under dispute and being actively debated on WP:NPOV/N, hence the POV tag. -Konanen (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really. There's a discussion about one word (and frankly, we could get rid of the sentence that contains that word without the article really changing at all). The other 99% of the article does not appear to be under discussion. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Konanen, the very fact you think this needs to be litigated ANYWHERE is itself a problem. You are not a newbie. You should understand that NPOV is not violated. Only certain types of editors tend to go down that road. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You (and another editor who’s now been topicbanned for their refusal to actually discuss) blabbing words is not a “debate”. There is more than enough consensus to remove the tag now. In deference to you as an editor with an opinion, I offered a new section on the talk page to address exactly what you think is NPOV - other than the quackery/pseudoscience words, because those have a consensus for them already. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sick and tired of the personal attacks and ad hominems. Enough! -Konanen (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You still haven't commented on the section I created on the talk page. Do you think there's a NPOV problem meriting a tag or not? If you do, then you should be able to comment there to explain what exactly you think is the NPOV problem in the article. If not, you are fighting a battle here you will not win. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Berchanhimez: what a blast from the past! That Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience case was a big deal, and we should resurrect awareness of it. The community very strongly opposes pseudoscience, and Reiki is right up there with Homeopathy as classic woo-woo. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree - and while I have tried to stay out of this (because of two reasons - one I hate drama boards, two I haven’t edited significantly in a while but have time again), I figured my input would be helpful to the discussion. I’ll probably shy away from the drama board here for now (unless anyone else thinks my further input would be helpful). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The OP started this to get more input from uninvolved editors, so your input is exactly what is needed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have demonstrably not [10]. -Konanen (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My bad. I was only AGF. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  PS gets constantly invoked nowadays still at WP:ARE, and is far from the only Arbitration from that time to be a regular appearance. (IP and EE are both also regulars there; PIA would be if PIA4 didn't exist.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see why, if you felt that the POV tag should be restored, you did not just restore it. Its removal was evidently an honest mistake; by confronting the other editor instead of just fixing it you invite drama, and with drama come the boomerangs. The tag has been restored; there is likely nothing more that any administrator is going to do here unless some of you fail to move on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Having said that, as the OP points out themselves, a POV tag should be removed "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant". No-one has opined at the WP:NPOV/N discussion for a week apart from the OP (and a single short rebuttal to their post). Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True, I didn't want to point it out in the context of a report about alleged personal attacks but there is a whiff of civil POV pushing here. NPOVN seems to have been discussing not whether to call reiki quackery but how to call it quackery, with OP and a now-topic-banned editor the only ones suggesting it should not be described that way at all. I don't find any of the discussion to have been particularly uncivil, despite Konanen's own sarcastic sniping. I think it would be a good idea for them to stop that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is not anything more to be done, the status quo ante has been restored. As to your question, I hesitate to revert reverts, and as the original reverter did not, in fact, see fit to amend their error or engage in a civil discussion of the matter as shown in their reply, I chose this route. -Konanen (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You chose this route rather than opening a discussion on the talkpage for the issue. I’ll note that I opened a talkpage section for you for this tag, and you have yet to post there what your actual reason is for this tag being included and how you propose to remedy it. I recommended a week at most to allow you (and other editors) to discuss it - but if you continue to ignore your responsibility (as the only editor advocating for the tag at this point) to actually specify and discuss your specific concerns, you will likely find yourself being removed from the topic area. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector Please do not circumvent [11] this ANI procedure which had (evidently, in my opinion) resulted in the status quo ante being restored by the responding user. There has been no ruling because no ruling has been deemed necessary, but on-going torpedoing of the intent of finding consensus and unilateral decision that I have to justify the existence of the POV tag apart from the fact that I have referred to the on-going discussions on NPOV/N and the article’s talk page are nothing but brow-beating and badgering of the situation. I have responded that the discussion is still on-going, and there has been enough dissent about the articles’ NPOV that the tag’s existence is warranted.

Please cite WP policy & guidelines for removing the POV tag while discussion is still not concluded. -Konanen (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those policies have already been cited above: you cannot stonewall as the sole person disputing the POV tag, when multiple people have disagreed with you. See WP:SATISFY. If the consensus is that the article is NPOV, then you cannot simply demand the POV tag remain & drag out the discussion to keep it there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I do not see that there is consensus in any direction. And while there are other editors contributing to the discussion, I just do not see the harm of keeping the POV tag on the article. It is just a tag, I have not gone wild and added untenable claims in support or in denial of the subject matter. All I am asking is that proper time be allowed for the discussion to conclude. I have a hard time understanding why that is so bad. Some tags, issues, discussions, and requests seem to linger for far longer than a fortnight, and nobody bats an eyelid. What is it that editors seem so moved by when it comes to this specific topic? –Konanen (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can have a discussion without the tag. So let me flip it around: why are you so moved to keep the tag in place? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure others are aware of the discussion taking place. Most people do not check the talk page – and I believe the more, the merrier when it comes to judging an article. Everybody’s opinion gets us one step closer to objectivity in our very subjective human minds. It is a useful tool, and it is harmless enough. But, as I said elsewhere, the tag is no more needed, because other editors have done great work towards neutrality. –Konanen (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I try to avoid drama boards, I've felt roped in here as a prior medical editor (who hasn't had time to edit in the past couple years, for transparency). Konanen's last comment when I tried to start a discussion on the NPOV tag shows they cannot constructively contribute to this topic area, and as such I now feel that a topic ban from the area is the best option. They posted a long comment that did not justify the tag in any way, justifying it saying they "didn't have time" basically - this is the modus operandi of pseudoscience POV pushers. Claim it's bad/wrong, don't provide any evidence, and then go away claiming they don't have time to prove their points. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2605:8D80:4A2:8322:7DC3:7286:9F0A:80B7 seems to be rapidly messing with the French legislative election pages, leaving some questionable edit summaries along them. I'm suggesting a speedy revdel. The IP was already pblocked, but personally I think it's time for a full block to be placed. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the /64 for a week (and then had to revoke TPA). Revdel'd some of the edit summaries and DMacks took care of the rest. DanCherek (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it seems to be another Twitter-driven incident started by this and related posts. This sort of thing (complaining about edits and posting screenshots of edit histories etc, driving both disruption and canvassed edits/discussion comments) has increasingly become a problem in the elections topic area in the last year or so. Number 57 05:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a problem for a much longer while than that, and both sides are at fault if I'm perfectly honest. Hyraemous (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the real problem is caused by you changing the formats despite not providing more clarity nor readability and being stubborn about it… Siglæ (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Siglæ, this issue is only happening due to attempts to ram in an alternate infobox design that lacks any consensus. PubleyPetit (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you here haha, I doubt though our complaints will go anywhere given the fact #57 is an admin and we're not, so any changes may require another admin or much more pushback. Hyraemous (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know much about that alternate infobox format issue but I just instantly assumed the amount of personal attacks on number 57 was unacceptable and needed a speedy revdel. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate, the amount of “personal attacks” on number 57 aren’t the cause of the problem, they are the consequence. Siglæ (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a weird thing to say in a discussion about the numerous graphic death threats that were being spread by the aforementioned IP editor. Please don't attempt to rationalize threats of violence against any editor as a justifiable "consequence" of their edits. DanCherek (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well a "consequence" of personal attacks on a fellow editor, whether or not they are an admin, is a block from editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the “consequenses” for enormous changes without consensus done by number 57 should also be a block from editing. Siglæ (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way I'm sure a speedy block is in order for all IPs and accounts sending threats against #57 in edit summaries and such. Isn't this something that we can notify the police about? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that's a bit of an overreaction. This is mainly being driven, rightly or wrongly, by people who perceive No. 57 to have been imposing consensus on multiple election articles. CainNKalos (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for an editor to be crucified because you don't like their new infoboxes seems to me to be the overreaction. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that in my browsing of the talk pages, so I apologise on my part for the comment made. CainNKalos (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CainNKalos A death threat is a death threat no matter what drove people into making it. #57 imposing consensus on election articles doesn't justify the threats being made against #57. It is necessary to take the needed actions to protect user's security if it is ever threatened. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, there seems to be a more relevant discussion about this issue below, so I'm moving there. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been warning L Money Scribe (talk · contribs) for some time about the long walls of text that they regularly add in the plot section of the Holyland (manga) article. On each occasion that I have warned them, the user refuses to obey and does it again. In fact, less than an hour ago I warned them again about the issue and only a short time later they did it again. I'm convinced that they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Xexerss (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I told him I would do it again and will continue to post as I have on other novels in the past of Haruki Murakami, without complaint from y'all when I did BTW. Why? Because if everyone else is allowed to, than so am I.

It is NOT against the rules to add in large amounts of text, as many people have written much more than I have all over this website. The complaint Xexerss kept bringing to me has stated that these edits were disruptive, not much else for description, and I am clearly stating facts for the graphic novel, of which I am referencing right now. His complaint recently also referenced "general overview" and "not replacing the experience of reading it".

This is a graphic novel showing panels of martial arts action and dialogue bubbles. My summary is prose. Pardon my french but, there is no fucking way on this planet that you can possibly replace reading a comic with reading prose summary. And, once again, this IS a general overview of the chapters/volumes. There is a multitude of things I have left out.

Also, I will add, there is no personal opinion of mine stated either. I have done well to represent this mange in every way that I can.

If Xexerss want to read the 18 volumes/182 chapters/3000+ pages of manga that I am working on and put forth the effort to summarize in a way that honors the author and the media, and represents the curiosity of manga aficionados, than he is well welcome to do so and is invited in every stretch of the imagination. Until then, I very much expect for EVERY single synopsis or plot in every movie, tv show, comic book, novel, short story, etc. to be completely deleted root and stem if that is the way y'all roll.

This is unprofessional behavior. And your worker should be ashamed of himself. Going out of your way to monitor a guy not even looking for a fight is something absolutely disgusting. L Money Scribe (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@L Money Scribe: Does it seem reasonable to you to "summarize" a volume in almost 600 words? Does it seem logical to you that a series of 18 volumes may have almost 11,000 words to "summarize" the plot? Judging your reply here and your replies at your talk page makes me wonder if you even understand the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place. Xexerss (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention as well their provocative attitude and personal attacks at their talk page. Xexerss (talk) 07:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there is no dicussion at Talk:Holyland (manga). Phil Bridger (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: I firstly addressed the issue directly at the user's talk page after pointing out the issue through edit summaries several times. However, I did not receive any kind of response from them until now. We have policies, templates and guidelines including WP:NOTPLOT, MOS:PLOT, and Template:Long plot, so I didn't feel that starting a discussion at the article's talk page was the appropriate way to ask the user to stop their behavior. Xexerss (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Among L Money Scribe (talk · contribs)'s responses are Who is your boss? We need to square this. This is ridiculous. I want to know his contact information. ([12]) and I would recommend to consider therapy. ([13]); the former is doubled down as And yes, I still want to know your boss's information. You should be ashamed of yourself. ([14]). This is absolutely egregious and unacceptable harassment. Without any comment on the substance of the dispute, I've blocked per WP:HARASS and WP:NPA. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The block for harrassment is obviously correct, but even ignoring that, there seems to be a serious WP:NOTHERE issue, as evidenced by this comment, in which they admit editing for promotional reasons: "I'm trying to win people over to a manga, which I enjoy and am doing right by, fyi." CodeTalker (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there are a few good reasons to block this editor, but the content issue pointed out by the OP is not among them. That should (if L Money Scribe returns to editing) be discussed on the article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if we have guidelines and rules (the ones I mentioned above) that state that we should not include large and detailed amounts of text to tell the plot of a fictional work, what exactly should be discussed at the article's talk page? Should we reach a consensus on whether we should include the content that the user added or whether it should be removed, even though we have clear rules that indicate that it should not be placed anyway? If even by pointing out the issue directly at their talk page the user was not willing to change their behavior, without at least explaining why they was still doing it, I doubt it would make much difference if this had instead been discussed at the article's talk page. Xexerss (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They had 21 edits to their account. Clearly a new editor unfamiliar with policy guidelines on plot lengths (I've been here 11 years and I don't know these guidelines either). They handled this situation very poorly but, seriously, why do we jump to ANI when an inexperienced editor doesn't get "it", all of the guidelines and rules? I can understand a short term block to get their attention to the problem but indefinite block for a 21 edit editor? Did they seem irredeemable? Were they making no worthwhile contributions? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Keep in mind that the user had not only been editing the article for a few days, they had already ben editing it since some months ago, and while I admit that I could have explained the problem with their edits in a more understanding way, the user at no time tried to address issue or defend their way of editing until yesterday, and in a defiant manner without showing any hint of self-criticism. I should also mention that after being blocked L Money Scribe left one more message at their talk page that makes me doubt if they really planned to collaborate constructively from the start. Xexerss (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harold the Sheep (talk · contribs)

At Steven Hassan, this user has been edit warring (breaching 3rr [15][16][17][18]) to include opinions about the general topic of 'cults' in the article. They added it to the article a few months ago alongside some salient content.[19] This was raised previously as a POV issue by another editor.[20] Harold the Sheep then edit warred to keep even the maintenance tag off the article[21][22].

This is a problematic ownership issue, with the article being used as a coatrack for the views of academics in a different field about the general topic of 'cults' and the use of the word 'cults'. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should perhaps have also mentioned the discussion here which, to my mind at least, resolved the previous issue. However, I'm happy to continue the discussion on the talk page of the article. Harold the Sheep (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion to which you link was over the same issue. There is no resolution in that topic: you simply stopped responding. To you that (combined with edit warring the maintenance tag) resolved the issue? Behaviour like that is why we ended up here. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cambial, can you explain why this issue can't be resolved via WP:RfC or another one our general dispute resolution processes? Other than the brief edit warring (to which you contributed more or less equally), this looks entirely like a garden variety content dispute at the moment. I've reviewed the talk page and most recent archive and found a slight (and I mean very slight) tinge of battleground tone in some of HTS' responses. But ANI is for serious, intractable behavioural issues; it should not be your first stop immediately after entering into a conflict over content and before you've attempted any discussion or process to resolve the matter or form consensus. It seems you waited about three quarters of an hour after making your first talk page comment before you made this filing. Given that Harold seems to have been heavily involved on that talk page for some time, don't you think it would have been more pro forma and potentially productive to have waited for a response there before escalating the matter here?

Please try discussion, and if neither of you succeeds in affecting a change of perspective on the other, and a middle ground solution does not seem viable or appropriate, then seek additional community perspectives on the content issue to achieve a consensus--including via RfC if necessary. In my opinion, your diffs do not come close to establishing strong evidence of an ownership issue under the relevant policy, so please WP:AGF for the time being and pursue the normal dispute resolution process. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: I just now came across this discussion. I am the "other editor" who added the {{POV}} tag on the Steven Hassan article in November 2023 with the edit summary "Recent additions use generalized anti-deprogramming rhetoric to color and frame this article, not specific to this BLP subject". This was after a long series of dozens of edits by Harold the Sheep (current Who Wrote That? tool shows HaroldTS had authored over 1/3rd the article content as of that day). At the same time, I posted my reasons on the talk page (Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 3 § POV issues), and the following day I posted Talk:Steven Hassan/Archive 3 § COI. Though I engaged in discussion with HaroldTS, I don't feel there was any resolution. I found HaroldTS rude, insulting and uncollaborative. Eventually I quit engaging with the user and unwatchlisted the article.

Last year didn't involve Cambial Yellowing, but it's the same issue CY brings up this week—HaroldTS adding generalized cult-topic information not specifically related to a BLP, and using a BLP as a coatrack for POV-pushing. Looking back on the prior month (Oct'23) when I had first tussled with HaroldTS at Talk:New Cult Awareness Network § Notes re Foundation for Religious Freedom, it seems clear he has been obsessively focused on presenting negative content about deprogramming and anyone who had ever been involved in it (despite common practice ending around 3 decades ago), and has been less interested in discussing content of the article subject or focusing his edits on the article subjects. Just my two cents, for what it's worth.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user should be straightly banned. Please see his last 8 edits. Beshogur (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To further explain, Al-Khujandi has been pushing the same edit to Uyghurs over the course of several weeks to avoid edit warring, after they nearly broke the three-revert rule. They have been notified, with clear and specific detail, three times on their talk page and twice on Talk:Uyghurs why their edit is problematic (not citing reliable sources), but they continue to push the same edit. Yue🌙 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur, @Yue, just passing by but shouldn't this go to the edit war noticeboard instead of AN/I ? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the Twitter storm mentioned in the section above, there is now widespread disruption on a large number of election articles – editors driven by the Twitter stuff are ignoring an RfC at 2022 Italian general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and 2018 Italian general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (on the 2022 article, one editor has reverted again despite being made aware of the RfC); made-up election results that were removed are being blindly reverted back into numerous French election articles (e.g. edits like this and this (exactly the same as was happening at the time of this ANI report from January. Can someone please step in – restore the Italian articles to the RfC-approved infobox and lock them and look at what is happening on the French articles. Cheers, Number 57 01:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, disappointed in several long-standing editors actively working with the newly made WP:SPAs to go against a consensus that was established over an entire year. To start with calling out just one from the first article you linked, Μαρκος Δ, explain yourself. Because this is a really bad look for someone who's been here a decade. Silverseren^C 01:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC was achieved through the consensus of four editors. Not to say that it should be gone against, but I think it deserves a new one, given how volatile this issue is and how many editors care about it, currently. Lucksash (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please mind your tone and remain civil and respectful. Do not ping me and say "explain yourself". I voiced my support for reopening the discussion, and that is all. I have not partaken in any edit-warring on any article, unlike several others here. So what exactly is it that you wish to "call out"? I have been opposed to the transition to the new legislative infobox since the very beginning, but have been railroaded by the user above you, and I am therefore happy to see others now wishing to reopen the debate. I voiced this opinion on the talk page in question, as is my right. What part of that, exactly, is it that you need me to explain to you in greater detail? Μαρκος Δ 19:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Italian general election is an absolute shitshow right now. It should be reverted to the RfC-approved version when consensus was established, and then locked to prevent continued disruptive editing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the most recent disruption and locked the page for 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you might want to do the 2018 one as well. Cheers, Number 57 01:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend adding the same level of protection to 2018 Italian general election as well for the same reasons. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what happens if the consensus has changed? Siglæ (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can indeed change, but has it? A new RfC would be required (and I say that as some who favours the older, TIE infoboxes). — Czello ^(music) 07:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t know if consensus has changed yet, that is why some people, including me, are proposing a new RfC. Whereas other, notably people who favour the new format, believe that it is unnecessary because they believe that new discussion arises from “extra-wikipedian reasons” (and I don’t get how that invalidates anything) and consensus has already been established (which also does t make any since, since consensus can change) Siglæ (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, consensus can change – so personally I'd be in favour of a new RfC. Note, however, that new accounts or accounts accused of meat puppetry are likely to have their comments discounted. — Czello ^(music) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am misunderstanding and you actually aren’t insinuating that my account is sock puppet. That is ridiculous, as you can see that it has been active on the Italian Wikipedia since weeks before this debacle Siglæ (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am making no accusations to any single editor, no – I'll always AGF. Regardless, it's undeniable that there is a prominent set of twitter threads that are drawing other users here, and a new RfC would undoubtedly be attractive to them.

What I'm saying is, if you want to start a new RfC you'll need to ensure you can depend on established users rather than people who might have been canvassed. — Czello ^(music) 08:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am genuinely sorry that I misunderstood the wording. Pardon me Siglæ (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to challenge the slander coming from some users. The people who are noticing problems coming from certain editors are also wiki users or editors or contributors. You can complain about their means but don't slander their cause. That's unbefitting of y'all. The people who are rightly indignant that Number 57 and the sort are messing around with election pages, seemingly without reason, and especially WITHOUT consensus, are doing it out of love for a particular community on this website. Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point to the French legislative election pages for this. I haven't got a clue about the Italy situation. If there's an RFC decision for that it should be restored. I would however add that maybe a review of it should happen mostly on procedural grounds. Technically a consensus was formed but from...what...four people? There's clearly popular angst with it. I would reckon that interested parties should be allowed to level representations for that issue. AFIK an RFC decision isn't set in stone. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a way to challenge a RFC, and perhaps the Italy one might change, but the edit-warring at the Italian articles is for sure not the way to go about it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! I'm just explaining more of the situation. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57's edits to French legislative articles are particularly egregious because he cites a consensus for his decisions that doesn't exist. A friend of his cites a discussion (well, actually, three different discussions) where a consensus was supposedly formed except actually for those with eyes to see, the opposite is true. A consensus formed against his proposed edits. My personal opinion is that his actions are driven more by his opinions and tastes than actual consensus. As such, others noticed this happening, yes, on Twitter, but then most (there maybe be exceptions) of the revisions and edits came from wiki editors and those edits (going against Number 57's proposals) seemed to garner a real consensus. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not without consensus. The last major discussion was held last year and led to the current accepted consensus. Of course, consensus can change, and I'm saying this as someone who preferred the old infobox style myself.

But the fact is, the amount of outside interference going on means that it is currently the worst possible time to hold a new discussion on this, and what 57 (and others, including myself) are doing is just trying to keep pages in line with the last RfC consensus, until a new one can be made at a better time. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! But 57's changes aren't limited to where there is a legitimate decision. Talleyrand6 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am only speaking to the Italian articles. If someone is taking the RFC from the Italy consensus and then trying to use that to justify changing infoboxes on election articles of other nations, then there is a problem. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the case for the France articles. Last I recall him and another person claim there was another consensus decision there yet refuse to follow up with proof/provided contradictory evidence as to this. Hyraemous (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talleyrand6, you just became indef-unblocked, after an impressive series of blocks for edit warring and personal attacks (pinging your last blocker/unblocker, Deepfriedokra), and here we find you being part of what seems to be an orchestrated edit war, and making comments that violate AGF. I think you are skating on thin ice. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:. Thin ice? The unblock log reads zero tolerance for personal attacks and edit warring. Please feel free to reblock at will. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not being edit warring.

I made one (1) edit. Talleyrand6 (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And nor have I 'orchestrated' anything. Talleyrand6 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you are casting aspersions which is a form of personal attack. Assume good faith and stop seeing conspiracies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed its a conspiracy. I think his decisions are simply misguided. Talleyrand6 (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no conspiracies when there are facts. Beside the case of the Italian general elections (for which I believe we should acknowledge that consensus may have changed, but that is another discussion) most of other edit wars have been caused by number 57 changing things without consensus and then him or someone other who agrees with him appealing to an established consensus which doesn’t simply exist. Siglæ (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the case of the South African elections where there was the unilateral decision to change the info box without BEFORE reaching consensus, while the talk was still ongoing. Siglæ (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly apologize if my words came off as crass. There was no intention from me to tarnish the character of any admin. If I may be allowed a brief defense, all of my actions were and are singularly focused on the info boxes and related edits. I will be more mindful to avoid giving the wrong impression. Best, Talleyrand6 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)![reply]

(Maybe this is outside of the scope of this thread, but as we're here...)

Clearly there seems to be a question here about which articles have a consensus for TILE over TIE. Italy seems to have consensus for TILE. There's been much discussion about France – where's its consensus? What about other countries? — Czello ^(music) 07:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italy doesn’t have consensus for TILE, as for example in 2013 and before (until 1992) they use TIE (and IMO TILE should be used in Italy only before 1992. Other countries are case by case basis IMO (Eg. Israel should use TILE, but South Africa shouldn’t) Siglæ (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading this correctly, Italy does have a consensus for TILE for most Italian elections (though later on it says TIE is off the table and should not be used for any Italian elections.). — Czello ^(music) 08:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the discussion you cite was limited to the last two general elections in Italy and that the RfC closer clarified the result of the discussion as for most infoboxes within the scope of the RFC, which are most Italian elections after 2018. That discussion was definitely not directly appliable to elections before 2018. Impru20^talk 08:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly misunderstood, thank you. — Czello ^(music) 08:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, most (1946 through 1992). Between 1992 and 2013 uses TIE instead. Consesus for 2018 and 2022 was established last year, but a case can be made that it may have changed, or at least it is worth reopening the discussion. Siglæ (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I will note concerning that specific consensus regarding Italian infoboxes is that it seemingly has a WP:GAME violation in that it was done with solely 6 editors involved and only 4 in favour. There was a short discussion on it and a new RfC hasn't been opened to discuss this consensus on it despite a clear showing in change on this consensus, including that very clearly WP:CCC has occurred, and consensus has very significantly changed. A 4 editor in favour out of 6 consensus might work on an extremely often not browsed page on an obscure topic, but for such an extremely focused on topic of a recent election such a consensus is extremely negative to have such a low interaction from users. CIN I&II (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping in to give my two cents. Just as I commented at Talk:2024 South African general election#Infobox legislative election instead of Infobox election, I was alerted of this issue because of my watchlist becoming full of edit warring notices and the Twitter thread on the issue reaching my personal Tw TL due to it becoming viral. Off wiki attacks on Number 57 are egregious and should receive condemnation, but there are other non-insulting comments and arguments which have been brought forward, which are not without merit and which relate to my own experience for years in election Wikipedia (and, from what I see, to that of many other users). I appreciate Number 57's work to improve election articles for many years. We have both been engaged in clashes and in collaborative efforts aimed at improving election articles. But it is clear that their changes from TIE to TILE across vast swathes of articles (often supported by two or three other users) were, at many times, far from uncontroversial.

Indeed, I can acknowledge to those that keep reverting those articles that specific consensuses were reached for the UK (for future elections only, and only until they happened) and Italy (though as far as I am aware this was limited to 2018 and 2022 according to the specific RfC on the issue, which addressed a particular situation involving the electoral system used for these two. Why was this enforced to other Italian election articles?). But while these were specific, they were often cited by TILE enforcers as some form of general consensus for changing other articles, clearly overextending the scope of the original consensus. For other articles, discussions were either absent, far from reaching a clear consensus or even openly hostile to change, yet many changes proceeded anyway, often citing other similarly-edited articles as justification (when these were edited by the same users) or citing some "new standard" (which was proven as false when you warranted evidence for it) or even justified on the basis of WP:BOLD (which is ok, but then when other users were "bold" and reinstated TIE they were reverted for being "disruptive" or demanding from them a clear consensus for such reversion, something which had not been attained to secure the first controversial edit). Some other cases I can remind of involved reverting users that were blocked by other behaviours, with this being taken to the advantage of TILE's supporters to re-impose their edits as they were not going to be contested by those who were blocked.

Behaviour has been far from exemplary. Number 57 et al.'s proceeding has been to subtly and patiently introduce the TIE/TILE change (many times in smaller, lesser edited articles), then revert anyone who attempted to undo the change, most of the time with very vague edit summaries and in a semi-concerted effort (I am sure there is no "conspiracy" here, but you do not need one: it is not unfrequent for an editor to join another one's cause in any given article when they see it coming, without any explicit concert). I contested some of these throughout the years, but in the last times I mostly let them be as it became a tedious task to contest every single one of these and I was going to be reverted anyway. That did not mean I supported the change, just that I did not have the time to spend it contesting every single of them on my own. It was exhausting. This said, the issue was obviously going to explode some day as opposition mounted, the sense of imposition kept growing and as changes started spilling over to larger articles, and this is what has happened here when this was attempted at 2024 South African general election: the TIE/TILE imposition was attempted with a discussion still underway on the issue, without any consensus being formed, and this seemed to be the last straw for many. Tensions accumulated for many years by many users suddenly unleashed against the latest attempt at imposing a seemingly unpopular edit. Canvassing aside, when you have a whole thread going viral in Twitter, a Youtube video created and such a massive in-wiki response across vast swathes of articles, using sensible arguments and involving not just new accounts but also long-standing users, it is obvious that something is amiss. Impru20^talk 08:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As already said, wholeheartedly agree Siglæ (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've put this extremely well. The best way to diffuse the situation is to allow for local consensus to return without the imposition a small number of experienced wikipedians attempting to WP:BOLD to impose a new consensus across hundreds of articles, then cite distrupiton to maintain it when others attempt to WP:BOLD to restore existing consensus. It all reads of WP:GAME which evidently leads to controversy and when left festering, to unnecessary hostility and distrust towards the small group of otherwise compitent editors. Bejakyo (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could not agree more, the backlash is unfortunate but an extremely clear sign that these years-long series of edits are imposing the views of a few individuals upon the entire site. I've dealt with a similar situation where Number 57 and aligned accounts acted in ways that toe the line of bad faith gaming of the system (stalling, misrepresentation, ghosting) to force through changes that they wanted without proper discussion. Much like many others have said, it got to a point where I just gave up trying to stop it. Almost more egregious have been imposed removals of "members elected" in the name of 'clarity' and 'removing clutter' — there is a common factor (a small group of users) in all of these disputes. This must change or these "disruptive" backlashes will continue to plague election pages (and the disruptors will have a strong point). Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second all this. This whole situation has gotten wildly out of control, and will probably continue to happen again and again until something changes. CainNKalos (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on Impru's comment. Vacant0 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on Number 57 are entirely inappropriate, and they should be protected from a social media mob. However, I also think this issue has reoccurred repeatedly for a reason - there's clearly a gap between the preferences of a small group of experienced elections Wiki editors, and readers/the public as a whole. We have a difficult time understanding the opinions of readers, and they have a difficult time expressing it, but in some instances, like this one, it becomes clear that they have a different perspective. I think it's worth organizing a larger RfC aiming for broad participation on election infoboxes generally, so that the general community of Wikipedians can weigh in, beyond the few who regularly edit election infoboxes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several public death threats made against Number 57 in Twitter: 1, 2, 3, 4. This situation has become alarming Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is all about the infobox?? Not the far-right, or anything meaningful? Secretlondon (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been uhh...incidents like this over a map or maps Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like someone mentioned further up, I think a sound course of action would be to let this entire issue rest for a little while, and then open a civil discussion about it in the not-too-distant future, once the dust from this has settled. Because now, for some reason, it is clear that a lot of users (and non-users as you show us here), feel very strongly about this topic, and it is stirring a lot of overly heated and, in some cases, violent speech, which I think we can all agree is not acceptable. Nobody should face harrassment for their opinions or preferences on any issue on site. I can not see this discussion leading anywhere productive in the current climate, so again, my opinion is that we should all let it rest for the time being. Μαρκος Δ 19:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur FWIW Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the one that is now deleted those just seem like lame jokes, they wouldn't fly on Wikipedia, sure - but we don't need to give any thought nor heed to them. Just ignore them and move on.

A wider RfC is definitely in order given that it was a low turn out RfC hosted on a single article's talk page and the amount of people who disagree with.

What User:Impru20 and User:Watercheetah99 have posted is somewhat alarming about 57's behaviour. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so that's why the IP from earlier was doing that. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection for all effected pages, would be start. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Affected pages by #57? Or just the Italy and France ones? Hyraemous (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So this widespread disruption is contagious: look at the completely unexplained series of reverts by User:Luentez, who appears out of nowhere to throw oil on the fire. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the definition of an WP:SPA. Less than 10 edits prior to this and even those were six months ago. Then they show up now to do a bunch of repeated mass reverts and no attempts at talk page discussions whatsoever. I say admins should block and forget for these types showing up. Silverseren^C 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Silver seren, I agree, and I'm hoping some admin will pick this up--but since a couple of the reverts were of my edits (which I thought were valid given the existence of this very thread), I can hardly do this myself. Plus, one wonders if this is perhaps someone's alternate account. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bigger concern with Luentez is that they are reinserting incorrect/made up information into a large number of French election articles (in this case, three times). A mass rollback of their edits would help. Number 57 21:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see any reason why a discussion on the talk page couldn't override an earlier consensus for 2022 Italian general election; and in fact some editors are engaging in such a discussion. But some of the SPAs are engaging in harassment and edit-warring, and should be blocked for those behaviors. The dispute ultimately does come down to consensus; whether the infobox has pictures of parliamentary leaders is a topic where questions like "what do reliable sources say" will resolve the dispute. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend a block for User:Luentez until he learns how to communicate. Also recommend all of his reversions be rolled back due to lack of explanation or edit summary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Proposal above. The lack of edit summaries are crazy. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I did leave a notice on User:Luentez' talk page advising him of this thread, in addition to the warning template left by User:Drmies. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: I mass reverted all of Luentez's edits reverting drmies on June 16. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Anyways, I'm sure this issue wouldn't have been out of control if it weren't for people throwing a barrel of oil into a small fireplace by making exaggerated videos on youtube and making death threats on Twitter. Can those people freaking get themselves together and understand that such actions don't help at all to resolve this controversy? Can they just go back to watching random videos or making shitposts on Twitter? (Also, weren't death threats a criminal offense? Why not report them?) ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • There has been consensus about how wikipedia infobox should look and how it looks in articles about election in other countries. How many people of election wikipedia community were involved in making this changes? Luentez (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Luentez, there has? Where? Why didn't you reference this in your edit summaries? Where were your edit summaries? Do you have any idea how rude it was what you did? Drmies (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          Articles about the Italian elections in 2018, 2022, 1983, 1979, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1963, 1958, 1953 have different info boxes than the others. The format I reverted them to was used for a long time in most elections before a user named Number 57 decided, along with several other users, to change this formula even though many people did not express their opinion on this topic. This is absolutely unacceptable and needs to be fixed as the wider community was not consulted. Luentez (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          You didn't answer what Drmies asked you. Did you acknowledge the importance of edit summaries when doing things like this? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          You should also consider that, for example in the 1968 election, when the infobox was changed from TIE to TILE on the 25th of October 2023 nothing was written in the edit summaries, neither on the talk for that page, so it shouldn’t be a problem to revert that edit because there wasn’t an edit summary nor explanation of sort Siglæ (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Talleyrand6 in my role as a CU for off-wiki canvasing as well as persistent disruptive editing and edit warring --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 02:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:107.129.97.80 has been making disruptive edits since January, getting more and more frequent and has continued to do so without acknowleding six warnings, including one at level 4.

The user has made POV and original research claims in the body of articles and in their edit summaries and is generally disruptive in almost every edit they ever made. Personal attacks and battleground comments (here, here, here and here and here) in talk pages as well.

Other problem edits are here, here, here, here and here. Kire1975 (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment): This seems to have more its place at AIV, I reported IP there. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked them for 3 months. PhilKnight (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:MagmaFuzzy seem like they want to impersonate my account. It’s really suspicious that the account has a similar name and their first edit is to remove infringement from Filippo Berto FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on this edit, they also issued a legal warning FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

181.117.93.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

1.21.121.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

112.184.132.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

180.35.109.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

124.144.93.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Related to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#IPs that persistently harass me and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#Another Proxy IPs that are conducting disrputive edits. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive proxy IPs

14.51.145.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
106.172.176.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
180.144.64.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
220.211.71.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Another Proxy IP list that are conducting disruptive edits. Related to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#IPs that persistently harass me, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#Another Proxy IPs that are conducting disrputive edits, #Proxy IPs conducting disruptive edits. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Brentonrkaring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC third round (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Over the past few days, Brenton has made unnecessary and disruptive edits against the wishes of other editors, including premature removal of hidden material, i.e. links missing anchors (user edit here, Cewbot's response here), and unhiding of nonexistent categories (user's edit here, Bearcat's response here), all of which are intended to be created later on. Just today, they have tried to edit war with me these exact same changes after I warned them not to make them again. The user has refused to discuss when contested, and has repeated these edits continuously despite warnings against doing so. At this point, we are at wits end with this user, who now needs administrative intervention as per WP:CIR. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 06:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you're all wrong they are official pots for upcoming round 3 draw in 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifying (AFC) as per FIFA ranking release due out this coming Thursday as per Footy Rankings tweet and the match sequence is the same format as the 2018 and 2022 third phase of qualifying. Brentonrkaring (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We understand this, Brenton, but I don't think you understand what we're trying to say here. We're not talking about your recent inclusion of draw pots backed by an unreliable source. I must ask you to wait for the official pots to be released by FIFA themselves in this case (See WP:CRYSTAL for why we don't do this too early). It's the other edits explained here we have concern with, namely your unhiding of content that doesn't exist and other editors reverting you multiple times. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 07:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "official" is that the organization has announced it. Before FIFA does so, anything else is speculative. We are not in a race here, and no one wins any prizes for "scooping" other editors. Ravenswing 07:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tough luck they're not a unrealiable source their 99% right of the time actually.

plus i have another link which is reliable as well they update as soon as matches go final:

https://football-ranking.com/rankByConfederation?zone=AFC&period= Brentonrkaring (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. From this comment alone, has absolutely zero intention of collaborating to build an encyclopedia and doesn't care about Wikipedia policy.

FYI, @JalenFolf you are technically also in violation of WP:3RR as this is a content dispute rather than clear cut vandalism. I would recommend leaving any further edits for another editor to revert. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tough luck. Let me put this as simply and clearly as possible, Brentonkaring: FIFA is the only official source for the FIFA World Cup. I did not use the word "reliable." I used the word "official." Do you truly need an explanation of the meaning of the word? I recognize this response comes off a bit caustic, but I'm genuinely baffled at the concept that any editor who believes themselves competent to edit articles about the World Cup is unclear on the concept as to which organization runs it. Ravenswing 11:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this ANI report was made, the user has not only replied here with an attempt at defending themselves, but have also removed the ANI notice from their Talk page (here). While in understanding that Brenton may have done this to acknowledge their message, this is also typical behavior, as they resume their controversial editing after removing messages, which instead suggest that they are ignoring these messages rather than acknowledging them. This is why WP:CIR should apply here. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 07:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also attempted to delete this topic from ANI. GiantSnowman 12:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenFolf While their attempt at blanking this thread definitely wasn't justified, removing talk page threads such as an ANI notice is permissable as user talk pages are not meant to act as "walls of shame"; if a user removes a notice from their thread, they are presumed to have read and understood it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have issued final edit warring warnings to both Brentonrkaring and JalenFolf. @JalenFolf: I know it can feel difficult when dealing with disruptive editors, but edit warring is no excuse, so if Brentonrkaring continues to make such edits then let me know and I will block them for disruption and for using Twitter accounts to make bogus edits. GiantSnowman 12:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here and here against Loafiewa. Probable block evasion or similar. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for personal attacks and harassment of the most severe sort. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I revision deleted one of the attacks and the other one has also been taken care of. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: You seem to have forgotten to actually revert the pa's. The second edit is not revision-deleted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Schmidt, I got distracted and am almost asleep. I think I got them now. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I don't want to be here, but it is clear that Jack has not learned from the prior advice, blocks:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:JackkBrown (November block}
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145 (archived without action)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#JackKBrown_again (one month block)

Questions about minutiae (cannoli (and a move request here based on the continued English/Italian confusion, pronunciation, ingredients despite being told multiple times that this is not what HD/Teahouse are for and to use the Talk. He has also moved on to deletion without an understanding of policy.

I don't know if it's IDHT or lack of competence, but it's clear the behavior isn't going to change if it hasn't for the last 9 months+.Is there a p-block that would work since they seem to need a physical blocker to stop them from the HD. Thoughts? Suggestions? Star Mississippi 15:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I did my best to improve, I also respected the maximum of two/three questions per month at the help desk; to claim that I haven't improved much is strange. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: ingredients: I never asked this question, as I removed it a minute later; with all due respect, bad idea to report this. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the ingredients thing was quickly fixed, but that kind of highlights the general problem: you're still editing far too quickly and sloppily. And that leads to things like making 20 rapid-fire minor edits to an article or non-constructive PRODs. You're also spending way too much time turning British English into American English and a bunch of editors have been pulling out their hair on your talk page over your intransigence about taking WP:ENGVAR seriously.

It's really unfortunate, too, because unlike a lot of people who end up here regularly, you're definitely here to build an encyclopedia and I don't have any doubts that you have the best of intentions. With your Italian language skills and your apparent love of food, there are so many great contributions that few here could make as well. Valereee even suggested a couple places where your skillset would be most appreciated: Ark of Taste and List of Italian food and drink products with protected status have so many red links and you have the ability to do immense good here. But instead, you're doing things like moving Pignoli (cookie) to Pignoli (biscuit) which don't make the encyclopedia better.

One good, clear, substantive edit is far more valuable than 20 slipshod ones. Wikipedia loses out when you're blocked from editing, which is why the community has been so patient with you. But nobody's patience is endless. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs: thank you. I have made many substantial changes; see, for example, the list of Italian foods and drinks page, of which I'm the largest contributor, and the huge improvements in all Italian foods and drinks. The changes that bothered you represent, perhaps, 1/2% of all my edits. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs: I also improve articles on other nations and cultures. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been keeping an eye on JacktheBrown (Jack) for a while, but had to take his page off my watchlist due to the pure volume of edits. I think list of Italian foods and drinks page exemplifies both the benefit Jack brings and simultaneously the unmitigated problems Jack presents.

That page shows that Jack is the only non-bot editor for over a month, which shows how they contribute to underserved areas of the encyclopedia. It also shows the pattern of many small edits in quick succession (e.g., 6 edits within 3 minutes on June 7, 5 within 3 minutes on May 7). I remember trying to assist Jack by explaining what cosmetic edits were and why to not make them, and then a later discussion on WP:ENGVAR. I am concerned that each time one problem area is addressed (whitespace, Engvar), the disruption seems to move to a different area.

It's disappointing that Jack seems to spend so much effort on the form of Wikipedia (managing lists, copyediting, changing image sizes), tasks which any English speaker could do, and seems to spend relatively little time on the substance of it, such as finding Italian-language sources for articles, a task of which few of our volunteers are capable. Of Jack's past 100 edits, 40 have been to article or talk space. Of those, I found only two (5%) that I would consider substantial, removing one unsourced passage, and discussing pronunciation on a talk page. There's nothing wrong with housekeeping Wikipedia, but Jack seems ill-suited for the task, and yet spends 95% of their edits on such things. I concur that Jack is very much WP:HERE for the right reasons, but their many small edits seem to cause frustration for other volunteers. If others are like me and have unfollowed a page because of the watch list spam, it seems like the best intentions may be harming the encyclopedia. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The flood of inconsequential cosmetic edits make up a lot more than one-per-200 of your edits. A wide assortment of people have commented on these problems. And nobody is saying you don't make substantial changes, but that your insubstantial ones, and frequently ones that are not ideal to make with someone's second language, are overshadowing the very good contributions you do make. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs: I'm sad and also disappointed about it; with myself. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note here that Jack moved one of their comments, changing which one my post replied to. I wrote enough that the intended context is clear, but have seen discussion in which this could've caused great confusion. The move edit summary was in the correct place, and demonstrates the same misplaced confidence shown in their copyediting and unfamiliarity with policy that are causing concern here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EducatedRedneck: the comments you refer to are part of the same comment, but I decided to write them in two comments (for more order); so I thought it was a mistake of the (kind) user who answered me. Try to understand that in this place (ANI) I'm in a panic. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you are feeling panicky. Secretlondon (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this seems to be about unwritten rules. How do we treat ENVAR? Does it matter if its a cookie or a biscuit? Which rules are more important than others? These can be hard for some people. Secretlondon (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. MOS:ENGVAR seems very much written. Am I misunderstanding you? EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but SecretLondon is talking about ENVAR, which remains unwritten. EEng 16:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(content comment therefore off-topic and *sigh*) It matters because biscuit means different things in different varieties of English, whereas cookie (even if primarily a North American word) is unambiguous. Compromise in cases like this is how we help readers find what they're looking for. Did I mention that I'm a Brit? Narky Blert (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I posted about something else, I might as well post here. I think what EducatedRedneck and others mentioned is is highly relevant in this discussion. However much importance various editors may attach to Engvar issues, a key point is that JackkBrown apparently (I have not independently looked at the evidence) is largely doing copy-editing. In that case, getting engvar right is far more important especially when it comes to introducing new errors. If JackkBrown was adding significant new content and in doing do introducing engvar mistakes; I expect editors would be far more tolerant to such mistakes. (To be clear, this would only apply to such changes. If they did that stuff while simultaneous copying editing existing content and making engvar mistakes, they'd probably still cause a high level of annoyance.) Copy editing where some of your changes are a net positive and some are a net negative tends to be viewed poorly for good reason. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Adding new sources to existing content is another area that occurred to me but I excluded it because it's unlikely to lead to Engvar issues but perhaps improving content to better match sources as opposed to simple copyediting is another area where there would be more tolerance. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and in a collaborative environment the best tact to take when something is difficult for you is to recognize that, and perhaps exercise additional caution when that thing crops up—in so doing, preventing yourself from making more of the same work for others over and over. It's difficult to make Jack aware enough of very specific points to change his behavior, but he does not seem interested in extrapolating any larger norms from what other editors tell him. It's an exhausting game of whack-a-mole, and it's beyond our remit at this point to solve the endless new puzzles of how to adequately explain a thing to him—often related to things already explained to him.Remsense诉 18:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question and a comment. First, @JackkBrown: has anyone ever suggested that you take your questions to the reference desk instead? Second, I was annoyed when you started an RfC over comments I had made at Talk: Pied-noir because it seemed like a recipe for drama I was trying to avoid, but while drama did ensue, the spelling problem I was complaining about did get resolved as a result, so thank you for that. Elinruby (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: you're welcome, the important thing is the end result; however, I apologise to you. JacktheBrown (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither expected nor required; I may have expressed some annoyance at the time is all, But seriously, well-done. Elinruby (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: I'm very satisfied, thank you! JacktheBrown (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So did anyone ever tell you to take your strange questions to the Reference Desk? They like strange questions there, and they once even took a heroic shot at "what's the word on the tip of my tongue?" so it's worth a shot. As far as the rest of this goes, maybe lay off a bit on the espresso? I dunno. Hope these suggestions help. Elinruby (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: I think, and hope, that I will definitely stop asking questions, even important ones, except in the article discussion pages. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would hate to think that the thing to do is not ask the important questions. Are the ingredients of cannoli an important question? Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: it would be better to tagliare la testa al toro (Italian way of saying) and exclude any type of question, except in the article discussion pages. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think think that is the wrong takeaway. Why did you wikilink "Italian" there? Did you wonder whether you should do that? Do you know how to look that up? See, sometimes questions are important. By the way, you didn't answer mine. Did anyone ever suggest asking questions at the Reference Desk? Elinruby (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: let's continue the discussion in my discussion page, the response space is really narrowing too much. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y probably also annoying some watchlists. We can do that. But I think the question about the reference desk might be important; could you please answer it? Elinruby (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: if I remember correctly it was recommended to me, yes, once or twice. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so why didn't you do that? Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: I did it for references, two or three times. JacktheBrown (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really don't think redirecting Jack's questions to another venue is going to resolve any issues, and RD is not going to be appropriate for all the wiki-specific ones anyway. We shouldn't be encouraging these kinds of questions at all. JoelleJay (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well either he is supposed to ask questions at the help desk or he is not. I take no position on the matter since I don't answer questions at either board. (well, rarely, at the Reference Desk, if something comes up like Vichy or medieval Church law or the like.) But I think right now his impression is that he is "not" supposed to ask questions anywhere and I can't say I blame him. But that way lies a CIR for sure. I told him (at his user page) to find and read the Manual of Style with particular attention to what it says about the dialects of English, because the editor talking about cookie vs. biscuit has a point. And to find a large and active project if he wants to discuss stuff. Dude needs a Wikiproject: Italian food but there isn't one. If any of what I said was wrong then please let me know and I will tell him so, or just talk to him yourself. I am not certain whether he listened to me or whether I did any good, sure. That was me trying.

But at least now he knows that the Reference Desk isn't just for references. And that there are places to look stuff up. I suspect he has been told both those things before, so I take no position on what should be done here; depends on how often, maybe. But I really hate to see someone conclude that the way to flourish at Wikipedia is not to ask questions. Usually most people have to be told most things more than once, and I haven't really been tracking how many times it takes with him. But I looked at the list of Italian foods, and he was told there to only include "encyclopedic" foods. English is my mother tongue, but I'd be confused by that too. (But by the way that list should be broken up into sublists or something) Elinruby (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitely in favor of JackkBrown being allowed to ask questions 'somewhere' (I have no opinion about the 'where'). That's what I and others had been asking for in December ANI thread and in his talk page when he started editing here. I get his constant questioning can be annoying and frustrating, but the alternative would be having JackkBrown being bold, piling up dozens of mistakes and creating a great deal of additional work to fix them (something we already experienced). How about setting a limit to the questions, eg. JackkBrown being allowed to ask questions just twice a week, so that he himself will be more selective between trivialities like cannoli ingredients and important questions? Or even better, finding a volunteer to serve as some sort of mentor/supervisor and be willing to answer his questions on their talk page? JackkBrown is sometimes problematic (eg. here) and his edits are sometimes unhelpful, but at this stage I don't see a situation requiring blocks or bans. Cavarrone 10:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavarrone: regarding the question limit, I'm already respecting the limit of 2 (maximum 3) per month (of course it concerns the month, so they could both be in the same week). JacktheBrown (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has already had a question limit, and his track record makes it very doubtful if anyone will have the time or energy to mentor him (unless you're offering). Looking increasingly intractable, unfortunately. Ingratis (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm worried about a WP:CIR block. Jack is clearly both enthusiastic and has niches in which his contributions would be invaluable. The trouble is getting him to those niches. Gentle redirection has not seemed to be effective. Perhaps the community could come up with a well-defined area (e.g., "Adding sources or sourced content to articles") and obtain a commitment from him to stick to such an area? We'd have to workshop it if others believe the idea has merit. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like herding cats. I don't know if a set of TBANs would help make such a commitment more likely to stick - I doubt if it would otherwise, based on past history. Ingratis (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request administrators to please review MTV Splitsvilla (season 15). Ravensfire (talk) is disruptivly editing the MTV Splitsvilla (season 15) article and using Wikipedia editing guidelines as shield. Kindly take action. Dr. Trafalgar D Water Law (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Dr. Trafalgar D Water Law: As the text in the red box near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Ravensfire is making corrections to your edits to bring them in line with WP:MOS. How is that disruptive? Why haven't you engaged in the discussion that Ravensfire started at Talk:MTV_Splitsvilla_season_15#MOS issues? Schazjmd (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A massive article with practically no sources whatsoever. You would be better concentrating on making the article conform to our sourcing requirements than complaining about minor formatting changes (all of which Ravensfire is correct about). Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Wikipedia:Walled garden around the various Indian reality television show articles when it comes to formatting, following MOS and using sources. Things like the contestents often require not-so-subtle nudging to get sources, but start/end dates and hosts ususally are sources. Details about the show episodes? Rarely, if ever. There's a fair amount of WP:FANCRUFT in the articles, lots of (unsourced) details, and I think too many tables when text could well provide the same information (MOS:TABLES). The specific article and incidents highlights (to me) the walled garden nature as good-faith editors without a lot of experience outside a few of these articles means they are only exposed to poor example articles, so they repeatedly point to those bad examples. I'm not really happy about Dr. Trafalgar D Water Law reverting the MOS changes without enganging at all beyond a handful of posts a few weeks ago, but it wasn't something I felt raised to the point of raising elsewhere for further attention. Ravensfire (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By an IP address at Special:Diff/1229436000. Can you also protect the page that they edit it. It’s my second personal attacks just today FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'ed, and blocked for a week. Star Mississippi 20:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since its creation two months ago, the user AmechiUdoba1 (talk · contribs) has made a series of questionable edits on pages related to Nigeria. Although there have been a few simple mistakes typical of new editors, there appears to be a concerted effort by this account to remove or diminish notes of non-Igbo ethnic groups and their languages.

To cite a few examples of AmechiUdoba1's conduct:

1. South East (Nigeria) and South South: For context, these two regions are a "geopolitical zones" in Nigeria; the SE roughly lines up with Igboland but includes a few other ethnicities while the South South is extremely ethnically diverse. AmechiUdoba1 first came to my attention when the account (and an aligned IP) removed a language from the South East page without reason. This is a common tactic that has been employed several times before on geopolitical zone pages, with ethnic jingoist accounts associated with major ethnic groups removing the languages of minorities (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). It is a good mark for a user that is not here to build an encyclopedia and was a key piece of evidence in the eventual blockings of two similar users (1, 2). On the South East page, the account first removed English from the page before deleting almost all non-Igbo languages yesterday. To continue this trend of ethnically-charged edits, on the South South page AmechiUdoba1 just removed two languages without reason — likely a slight against ethnic Yoruba people (another large Nigerian ethnicity) and a denial of the Ogba language's existence (Igbo jingoists often attempt to categorize all Igboid languages as Igbo).
   1. Similar AmechiUdoba1 edits are now afflicting other pages: Ngwa people (replacing Ngwa dialect with Igbo language) and Ilorin (removing Yoruba as its language despite adding Igbo for a dozen cities).
2. Akwa Ibom State and Cross River State: For context, these two states are mainly non-Igbo but were included in the Igbo-dominated breakaway state of Biafra during the Nigerian Civil War. Both pages had a sentence stating that Biafran forces persecuted inhabitants due to their ethnicity — backed up by a journal source which AmechiUdoba1 did not remove or contest; AmechiUdoba1 twice switched the words on the pages, changing it to "Nigerian forces." Not claiming that Nigerian forces did not commit atrocities, but the removal of Biafran crimes is a not not-too-subtle attempt to whitewash one side's wartime atrocities.
3. Rivers State: A combination of the ethnic and linguistic edits by simply trying to remove the Ikwerre group and their language from the page. Ikwerre is another group alternatively classified as either a related ethnic group or an Igbo subgroup so AmechiUdoba1's goal seems to be denying their existence.

Although this is a relatively new account, there is reason to fear further disruptive and biased editing as its already graduated to inflating population statistics (another common vandal move on Nigerian pages). Similar accounts left without sanction have led to havoc on Nigerian pages with editors having to revert months of sourceless changes once they were finally found out. There needs to be some form of action against this user, this is a clear and concerted campaign of ethnically-biased edits Thank you, Watercheetah99 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to engage USER:Evru200 on their talk page [24] about not adding unsourced content to pages and adhering to NPOV reporting of election results, but their behavior persists. The opposing team wins in "a mild upset"[25] while next time around the home team wins "in a landslide"[26] although there's no RS that uses there terms to describe the results. They have also been admonished to follow the WP:MOS, but they continue to make edits like this [27]. BBQboffin^{grill me} 23:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Just a brief review of their edits shows that, in addition to the NPOV issues, their changes introduce all sorts of grammatical and mechanical errors--random capitalizations, sentence fragments, etc. Grandpallama (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links: Evru200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Northern Moonlight 02:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this August 2023 change, Devokewater moved all 32 body images into a new gallery with a misleading edit summary "tidy up". This was contrary to general Wikipedia 'house style' (MOS:IMAGES), wp:gallery and wp:image relevance.

The images are without relevance, having been removed from context, hence, IMO, also contrary to wp:burden by creating an extensive, random, gallery without a rational foundation.

I consider this to be disruptive editor behaviour, not a content dispute. Editor has failed to respond to a polite message (13 June) at User talk:Devokewater#Moving images; I consider this to be passive dissent.

Devokewater also had also removed article Talk content  with a bogus edit summary "Fixing style/layout errors"; this was self-reverted within 10 minutes of my specific mention when posting at User talk:Devokewater, and editor has subsequently randomly edited daily.

At the time of creating the gallery, the article was being surveilled by members of the Wikiproject Geography which made no representation, hence posting here.

I don't intend to laboriously manually re-site 32 images, and I'm unsure if any utilility (TW, HG) would facilitate this.

Would an admin please instruct Devokewater to put this article to rights? It's now 2:19AM in England and I'll be off-Wiki for around 12+ hours. Thank you.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re bringing an edit from August 2023 to this noticeboard, when it is explicitly for “urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems”? Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was very messy, there were just too many photos, (in reality many photos should have been removed, however I personally do not like removing other peoples photos) tried to tidy them up with little or no effect so in the end the best option was to put them in a gallery, see my edits on Ulverston for another example where I tidied up a very messy wikipage. Regarding the talk page the comment made no sense it appeared to be an IP editor playing around.--Devokewater 07:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devoke, despite the IP's protestations, I think this very much is a content issue, and from all appearances your changes were made in a good faith effort to improve the article. I don't even really have to AGF to come to that conclusion: it seems self-evident. So I think you can feel comfortable that no one is going to grant the IP's request that an admin force you to "set the article to rights" (the IP really needs to familiarize themselves with WP:VOLUNTEER if they don't understand why their demand is a non-starter) and that no sanction is forthcoming.

...But all that said, in terms of community consensus on the style, formatting, and general content issues, you truly are way out on a limb here. It is absolutely very common practice for articles of this sort (and indeed most articles with large amounts of photos) for such media to be placed in the main body of the article. Galleries are sometimes used when there's an excess of images, but even then the gallery is in addition to the in-line photos, not to their exclusion. I've never seen an article wherein the approach you have used here (all of the photos pushed into a gallery at the end) was endorsed by the community of editors working on an article. I don't know what your definition of "messy" is, but if it's "any inline photos", I don't think it aligns with the community's general stance on such issues, nor the relevant policies/style pages. Especially considering the length of this particular article.

All of which is to say, I think I'd save yourself and everyone else a lot of trouble by not going to the mat on this one; in my opinion, if your force an RfC over this, it's a forgone conclusion that your style preference here is going to lose. Nobody is going to make you put all the images back, but if your goal is tidy up the article and arrive at a stable version, I would consider working with the IP towards a compromise version. Leaving somewhere between 10-50% of the images in the gallery but moving the rest back into locations where they have contextual significance sounds perfectly reasonable to me (what the exact proportions should be is hard for me to predict without deeper study of the revision history and the previous locations of the images, but in principle I don't see why a middle ground solution can't work here. If you really do think that the gallery is in the best interest of the article, it would behoove the article for you to reach a compromise, since I think the IP stands to win consensus if the broader community weights in. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should hasten to add that, I agree that anywhere between 3-7 of those images probably aren't relevant enough (that is necessary enough to illustrate a crucial aspect of the article's subject matter) to be included at all. But any such cuts would also best be achieved via a consensus discussion as well. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, when I first saw the article, it was a photo gallery with a wikipage attached to it, there was just too many photos all over the place, I tested different scenarios on my test page and in all honesty the gallery was the best option. Quite happy for other editors move these photos back to the main article, however I emphasise that when I started editing it was a mess. I never went to the talk page because this wikipage appeared to be "abandoned" unlike say Middlesbrough where there are very active regular editors who edit the page with passion.--Devokewater 14:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, which you didn't test by raising the matter on talk. This edit seems highly disruptive to me. I note that your comments in this section seem from your edit history to be the largest in byte terms in your 6 years of editing. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devokewater was under no obligation to raise the matter on the talk page if he genuinely felt the article was a mess. Like any user, he is welcome to edit the article. Likewise, if someone disagrees with his edits, they are also welcome to revert, edit, or question. Nevertheless, this matter explicitly does not belong here since this noticeboard is for "urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems" - as shown above - which this most certainly is not, being a content disrupte from August 2023. Take this matter to the talk page and let an administrator close this discussion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily hidden File:But he's never had a pint of Mansfield.JPG and File:Not Much Matches Mansfield Beer.JPG as per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy (No. 8). Because the images are stuck in the gallery there does not, to me, appear to be any contextual significance. Devokewater if you move those two back to the correct section they should be OK. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content issue, and even if it wasn't it is far too stale to bring up at this noticebard. Just discuss it at Talk:Mansfield. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, attack me folks, I expected it. I raised it as soon as I saw it. The polite Wikiquette would've been to raise a talk section. Again, the polite Wikiquette would be to respond to an editor-talk section.

The article has been grossed-out by repeated input/changes over several years by a series of IP/sock/block evader edits (that's what the deleted talk section referred to ). A new username was registered as a way of getting around the block(s) preventing uploads, then IPs were used to place (at least some) images. I raised it with a cu off-wiki in Feb 2023 (from memory), but I cannot commit time to ongoing drama. Of course, I know the SPI and can recognise the tell-tale traits exhibited. I haven't followed up (in one edit summary I advised wp:deny), but File:Rosemary Centre 1.jpg (upload 23 April 2023) is an example of a sock/commons identity, and here (diff, 28 April 2023) an IP placed the cropped/zoomed/contrived image showing how only Iceland was left open in the building (now gone). The sockmeister learned how to get round things.

Hope that generally throws some light onto matters - yes, over-zealous inexperienced editors = messy. I've just had to deal with an AfD caused by a newbie cut/pasting my 1500 bytes section content months back into a premature stand-alone article (thanks due to the bot for notifying me) - I got a 'helpful' editor shouting ownership and soapboxing at me......

IMO it is disruptive, drive-by, editor behaviour going against Wiki-precepts, which is why I brought it here. I am very capable but choose not to volunteer my limited time in this situation caused by a cavalier attitude; I will help anyone when/if I can, but not when disrespected by no response to a polite talk message. As the saying goes: 'there's only one chance to make a first impression'. Thanks for your inputs.--82.13.47.210 (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saolazzargorea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting copyrighted material into multiple articles, including [28], [29], [30], [31] and [32], including after being warned. I've done a mass rollback to remove such material from articles, however I'm concerned this behaviour may well continue. Some revdelling may also be needed. Mdann52 (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And continuing following additional warning and notification - [33]. Mdann52 (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revdeletions done (unless I missed one?), thanks to Mdann52 and GreenLipstickLesbian for cleaning up. I've left the user a final warning, but no objection if anyone decides to block. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the page 2024 iran presidential election this user keeps adding unverified telegram link as source of a poll Heart stroke Jaden Baratiiman (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User talk:Heart stroke Jaden#Block. I've also alerted them about WP:ARBIRP. But, Baratiiman, next time you need to notify them on their talk page as per the instructions above (a ping is not enough). Thank you. El_C 13:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A user (User:AllenBealJones) is insisting on adding a blanket pronunciation guide to the Asaph article despite it not applying to all of the members of the list. They also tried to add this pronunciation guide to St Asaph (where it does not apply) and Asaph (biblical figure) (where it definitely does). I reverted the additions to Asaph and St Asaph, but instead of engaging with my reasons for reverting, this user has decided to wage a war of personal attacks against me both at Talk:Asaph and my own talk page, calling me a coloniser and a racist. It should be noted also that this person previously used the account User:RandalKeithNorton, but decided to change to User:AllenBealJones two days ago. Their attitude is clearly not one of collaboration, which suggests to me that their days on Wikipedia may be numbered. – PeeJay 16:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was certainly over the top. I've blocked indef, until the can convince another admin that they won't do that anymore. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:PeeJay, did they announce somewhere that they used to be RandalKeithNorton, or is this just based on really obvious socking? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, i see it now. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye out on the articles in question for any more socks. If I see them, I'll start a discussion at WP:SPI. – PeeJay 17:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might have to play whack-a-mole for a bit. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Swam Hossain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been persistently submitting poorly made drafts. They are about topics that already have articles and suffer from problems like poor sourcing, poor style/formatting and even blatantly false information. Draft:Huricihan Sultan is a particularly egregious example, which passes a fictional character from a historical TV series as a real historical figure. I have warned them (diff), but they have continued with resubmitting Draft:Nurbanu Sultan and Draft:Fatma Nur Sultan. I therefore believe that most of this user's editing history has constituted disruptive editing, and that they have not responded or changed after warnings, so they should be blocked. Air on White (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we generally penalize new editors for writing poorly made drafts. In fact, they are expected and Draft space is a place for editors to learn how to write better articles. I dare say that there are more poorly made drafts in Draft space than well made drafts or they wouldn't be in Draft space. Editors are given a lot of leeway here. Is there something problematic about the content that requires immediate admin attention? Honestly, Air on White, sometimes it seems like you go looking for problems to "solve" that aren't that serious. Granted I haven't examined all of these drafts but "poorly made drafts" is really not a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw man, I am not suggesting a block for writing poorly made drafts. I am suggesting administrative action for repeatedly spamming AfC with bad drafts, including hoaxes, without showing signs of understanding why the drafts get declined. This user is just wasting reviewer time and shows no signs of communication. Their few mainspace contributions seem unproductive too. A combination of disruptive editing, lack of communication and incompetence after multiple warnings from different users is a sufficient reason to block. If you expect communication, improvement and awareness from this user, it just ain't happening. Air on White (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AshenLegion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) joined Wikipedia today June 17 then in 4 minutes made 12 edits to 12 pages, all of which were both trivial and incorrect: typically adding a space in text where there was already one space or where a space was not correct: e.g., Special:Diff/1229637477, Special:Diff/1229637343 and Special:Diff/1229636938. I suspect that was a premature attempt to get autoconfirmed status. The user then went on to make an edit request Special:Diff/1229638509 at Yasuke, which has been subject to recent disruption.

I know this is a bit preemptive, but I don't see this account doing anything good for Wikipedia, and wouldn't be surprised if it were a sock of another account in the scrum on that article's talk page.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed as nothere. Clear gaming and just here to argue about if that guy was a samurai. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably too involved, hence I won't take administrative action but will leave it to others to decide. The users Panamitsu and Alexeyevitch don't get on with one another, which is a shame as they both live in New Zealand and their Wiki interests are similar. In December 2023, I told Alexeyevitch off for following Panamitsu around. My observation is that the warning was heeded, and Alexeyevitch stopped following Panamitsu's contributions. That hasn't stopped the bickering between those two editors. I do have the impression that Panamitsu is following Alexeyevitch's contributions in turn. To put a stop to that, I asked both users to stay away from one another earlier this month. Panamitsu is not listening, and openly admits that he goes through Alexeyevitch's contributions. That's WP:WIKIHOUNDING.

Panamitsu is a productive editor, but this hounding has to stop and he's not listening to me. I invite other admins to weigh in. Schwede66 00:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, I have been following his contributions in the past day. This is because I noticed that he was intentionally replacing New Zealand spellings with American ones, for example here, here, here and here. To undo any further damage, I had to look through his contributions to find any more spelling errors he had introduced. Because I was following the user's contributions for a reason, I personally did not consider that wikihounding, but I could be wrong.

I realise that in the past I had taken it a bit too far, such as my comment on Talk:Christchurch yesterday. I later realised that this was an inappropriate place to talk to the user and which is why I left a message on the user's talk page this morning instead. Because I had spent dozens of hours fixing spelling errors on New Zealand articles, and Australian ones, I became frustrated that my work was being undone. This, and offwiki events have made me increasingly frustrated recently and I have become agitated. This has been a problem with me in the past and I decided that I would take a wikibreak, but this has proved impossible for me and I am starting to believe my Wikipedia use is entering the territory of an addiction.

In the conversation that Schwede mentioned from December 2023, I showed that Alexeyevitch added the location of an image I took. It was of a nondescript petrol station in Paraparaumu, a smallish town in the country, and I had not written anywhere where it was located. Each time I would copyedit his contributions to Christchurch suburbs, I would notice that he would edit articles relating to the area, notably Paraparaumu College, presumably with the belief that I live there and a way to scare me off. At first I thought this was a coincidence, but I made several tests and he continued to do it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66 - I said last month that I do not want to get invovled in disucusions with this user and genreally not to engage with him - but I feel like this is important.

A copule weeks ago I mentioned to Mr. Roger that "we later shifted to Papanui", a few hours later Panamitsu editied the Papanui High School article (I don't think this is a coincidence). This is no longer true that I live in Papanui - a part of my family lives there.

Panamitsu gets too invloved in the pages I edit (this started since the start) - this is not making editing enjoyable and I think he needs to realize that the main goal is to build an online encyclopedia not NCEA teachers feedback or criticism.

I regereted my actions prior to December 2023 - In fact I didn't even know about hounding, I do now and I think he needs to realize that this is hapening to me now.

Ultimately, I think this user should relax about following me on the Christchurch-related pages and I would do likewise and avoid editing pages the he edits.

I think the best resolution to this conflict is to stop all contact between us immediately and entirely. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a correct interpretation of events regarding Papanui High School. Look on its edit history. 26 minutes before I made my edit, an IP had edited a paragraph and I then removed it. It was on my watchlist, added through AutoWikiBrowser, as proven by my edit on 14 April. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh so you're suggesting an interaction ban? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Interaction ban and I support putting one in place. Do other individuals also support this? Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs bear out Panamitsu's explanation:

• April 14, 2024: Panamitsu edits the Papanui High School article, which presumably watchlists it.
• June 6, 2024: An IP edits the Papanui High School article.
• June 6, 2024: Panamitsu removes the paragraph the IP had been editing.

As this means Panamitsu has been watching Papanui High School since well before Alexeyevitch's comment to Mr. Roger, while the claimed alarm is something I can understand and would've felt were I in those shoes, I think it's reasonable to think what happened here was not actually untoward and was just coincidental.

What's harder to square as simply coincidence is Alexeyevitch's behavior regarding Paraparaumu topics, brought up by Panamitsu. Here's a timeline of a handful of events:

• September 18, 2023: Panamitsu edits the article Paraparaumu, which Panamitsu had also done before that.
• September 19, 2023: Alexeyevitch for the first time edits the article Paraparaumu to revert Panamitsu's edit. A few minutes later, Alexeyevitch reverts his own revert. Alexeyevitch's most recent edit to the article was June 9, 2024.
• October 19, 2023: Panamitsu adds an image of a Pak'nSave fuel station to the article Pak'nSave. Panamitsu uploaded that image, self-attributing it as the photographer, to Wikimedia Commons. Neither the Commons page nor Panamitsu's caption of the image mention any location.
• November 9, 2023: Alexeyevitch for the first time edits the article Pak'nSave.
• November 14, 2023: Alexeyevitch adds to the caption of the aforementioned fuel station image, added by Panamitsu, that the station pictured is in Paraparaumu. The Wikimedia Commons page for the image at that time still did not (and currently does not) provide any location information.
• December 9, 2023: Alexeyevitch for the first time edits the article Paraparaumu Railway Station. Alexeyevitch's most recent edit to the article was June 16, 2024.
• January 13, 2024: Alexeyevitch for the first time edits the article Paraparaumu College. Alexeyevitch's most recent edit to the article was June 7, 2024.

Looking at these diffs, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Alexeyevitch's apparent interest in articles related to Paraparaumu emerged upon discovering Panamitsu's interest in Paraparaumu and then—more unsettlingly—possibly leaping to a conclusion that Panamitsu is tied to Paraparaumu. It's hard for me to escape thinking of the possibility Panamitsu raised: that Each time [Panamitsu] would copyedit his [Alexeyevitch's] contributions to Christchurch suburbs [...] he would edit articles relating to the area, notably Paraparaumu College, presumably with the belief that [Panamitsu] live[d] there and [as] a way to scare [Panamitsu]. If this is what's happening, I can't help but find such behavior disturbing.

Banning Alexeyevitch from interacting with Panamitsu seems like a minimal sanction for such harassment. I would ask administrators reading this thread to remember that "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I regret those actions and apologized twice - I had to removed my second apology because he started to rapidly edit Christchurch suburb articles at the time and felt like every NZ article I edited it would be fixed in a matter of minutes, I suggest him doing this stops since this is obviously making editing unenjoyable - Schwede66 gave somewhat of a 'stop' message to him because I raised concern about this.

I recognized the Pak'N Save was in Paraparaumu because I was there in 2022. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aranui, Southshore and Opawa are examples - I feel like there still might be a negative motive to their edits here. I suggest they slow down on this topic because it is upseting me. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Panamitsu's recent activity is wikihounding. Panamitsu's central complaint that got this brought to ANI is correct: Alexeyevitch changing the spelling in articles about New Zealand to American English en-masse is disruptive, and they should stop. MOS:TIES/MOS:ENGVAR is well established. (I note on their talk page they say they do not like New Zealand English, but that is not an excuse to make en-masse disruptive edits). Panamitsu reverting that wide-scale disruption from Alexeyevitch is not problematic; the wikihounding policy states Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles, which is what happened here. Endwise (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I (or schwede66) inteded intended to fix them a day or two later -- we wanted to see if there was some-form of monitoring which there kind of. And most (but not all) articles were stubs or starts which he didn't edit prior. Otago Central Railway was fixed by him - not edited by him prior to my edit. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I (or schwede66) [...] intended to fix them a day or two later -- we wanted to see if there was some-form of monitoring: What do these statements mean? Do you mean you (or even you and Schwede66?) privately collaborated to contribute edits contrary to MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR as—what? Some deliberate 'experiment' to 'entrap' Panamitsu? Wikipedia is not a laboratory, and experiments that negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Shwede66, I think 2-3 times this week and all emails were addressing my concern for his behavior towards my editing, Schwede66 said that they had a large watchlist after AWB edits, so there was a suggestion to do that - Schwede66 selected a few pages and after editing 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa), we confirmed I was stalked. I edited a few (4 NZ pages also). I don't want to pressurize Shwede66, but the point was somewhat proven. My edits prior to these emails were using NZ english when appropriate. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the other day that you also emailed Marshelec. I have his userpage (and Schwede66's) on my watchlist because we have collaborated a small bit in the past, such as on Kapiti Island. Given that Schwede66 was contacted about my editing behaviour, Marshelec, could please indicate whether or not Alexeyevitch contacted you for a similar reason? I hope I'm not forum shopping here, and if I am, I apologise. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is forum shopping on your part, Panamitsu; it seems more as if Alexeveyitch may have been 'admin shopping'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My email correspondence with Alexeyevitch is solely associated with content suggestions and possible sources related to the Southshore, New Zealand article. The context is that I have some knowledge of the area from the time of my youth in Christchurch. Nothing about other users or other articles is included in those email exchanges._ Marshelec (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

confirmed I was stalked: Alexeyevitch, to be frank, all that seems confirmed to me is that you have been stalking Panamitsu and that along with that you've been deliberately introducing MOS:TIES/MOS:VAR-contrary content into articles. As Endwise explained above, cases where using an editor's history is not considering hounding includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In the 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa), you changed "minimise" (British English spelling) to "minimize" (American English spelling) for an article about a South African military unit and in your edit summary you called it fix[ing] a spelling error. Some twelve hours later, Panamitsu restored the spelling of the word per MOS:TIES. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do recall finding the Otago Central Railway spelling mistake by looking through your contributions. This is because I noticed another spelling change and had a look to see if you had made more of those types of changes. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but jumping in to comment that from my observations working with them on NZ articles, that both editors contribute productively to Wikipedia. However they are maybe too productive. It strikes me that both take their role here as editors very seriously, to the point that it has stopped being fun for them. A major part of the conflict is that they are both heavily active in similar areas of Wikipedia, so there is naturally some treading on toes.

Some things I have learned lately that might be of benefit to both editors:

1. You do not need to watchlist every article you edit.
2. You certainly do not need to review every edit to every article on your watchlist.
3. You do not “own” any article or area on Wikipedia.
4. None of us are as important as we might think in the grand scheme of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is huge, and it will never be finished. You are not a legendary knight defending Wikipedia from barbarous hordes. You are an unpaid internet janitor.
5. We are all volunteers, and we are all doing our best. Always assume good faith.
6. Do not attribute to malice what you can attribute to misunderstanding.
7. If you can’t assume good faith, and you think someone else is the problem, then you are the problem.
8. You can - at any time - walk away from Wikipedia for 24 hours if you are finding the experience less than fun.
9. You do not need to reply immediately to every message or edit you see.
10. Think carefully about what you say to others and how they might interpret your words.
11. Be humble. Always blow on the pie.

Please do whatever it takes to resolve this conflict. I would prefer to see both of you continue to contribute productively to Wikipedia, rather than either of you fall victim to a block. I look forward to continuing to collaborate with both of you. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 11:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there isn't much to say from me from now on since I have already made my point here (and an apologization) along with a few other places. Both of us commit to stop following each others edits entirely. "This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict." And also stop contact (which I have already commited to). I understood what Shwede66 said aswell. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexeyevitch, if you're not prepared to use NZ English per [34] then perhaps your time would be better spent not editing NZ articles.
Panamitsu This edit [35] is not a good look. It takes two to edit war. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep this in mind Daveosaurus, and I regret some of the odd choices I made earlier. In the Opawa article I prioritized using NZ English (e.g "The suburb's main retail area is centred on Opawa Road" not "The suburb's main retail area is centered on Opawa Road") I spelled "traveling" once in this article but this was not deliberate. Although I did this: "further development in Woolston, which soon began to [[urbanization|urbanise]] the suburb" it is rendered as "urbanise" for NZ readers I just did this to avoid a redirect. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I read this right? Has an admin (Schwede66) deliberately tried to bait an editor by conspiring with another editor to deliberately make disruptive edits, and then brought the baited editor here for sanctions when they actually improved the articles by reverting the disruptive edits? If this is a correct summary, then please block and desysop Schwede66, as that is truly terrible behaviour. Fram (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly hold responsibility for the actions -- Schwede66's suggestion was for me to edit 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa) and see if Panamitsu edits this page after me. All my edits prior to Panamitsu added a message to my talk page were using NZ English and now I use NZ English in the sutible articles (e.g Opawa). I think they've all been reverted since it's appropriate. I also suggest putting an interaction ban between me and Panamitsu to prevent this from happening. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the impression for a while that Panamitsu is following Alexeyevitch around. That's impossible to prove with New Zealand articles, as they may both have them on their watchlists. Hence, after the latest complaint to me via email, I gave Alexeyevitch some random (four, to be precise) articles to edit, asking to introduce little mistakes. Alexeyevitch edited two of those and Panamitsu tidied up one of those mistakes soon after (the South African article). But that did not have to be used as proof because Panamitsu then complained on Alexeyevitch's talk page, stating that they are following their contributions. For the record, I've had the impression that their contributions have been followed for quite some time; not just "in the past day". Hence me filing this report. Also for the record, the situation was the other way around last December, but after issuing a warning to Alexeyevitch, that behaviour appeared to have stopped.

Alexeyevitch, you absolutely cannot introduce American English to New Zealand articles. I had not seen that happening before, but Panamitsu's four examples in his first post above are clear. That cannot continue as it's disruptive. Schwede66 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying and confirming, but that's really a terrible approach to take. You know that editor X is correcting the spelling errors / MOS issues introduced by editor Y, so you agree with editor Y that they should introduce spelling errors in other articles, helpfully labeling them "spelling correction", so that if X corrects these as well, you can ask for X to be sanctioned? That's really way, way below the conduct which I would consider acceptable for an admin (or any editor for that matter). Fram (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, your message and the MOS:TIES policy. I have a prefernce to use American English in talk pages/discussions and I understood that NZ articles use NZ English. This is behavior that I have exhibited these past two days is ridiculous and I should of known better. I am shameful and sorry for these actions and I assure you all that I won't do this again. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note they did edit 44 Parachute Regiment (South Africa) after you, again they reverted your incorrect spelling. Checking an editors edits for mistakes they repeatedly make us not harassment. Banning them from correcting you mistakes wouldn't be helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point ActivelyDisinterested, I understand what your saying here. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a solution would be for Alexeyevitch to commit to stop making spelling corrections in articles until they have a better understanding of English spelling variations, and both editors commit to stop following each others edits. This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I amicably agree to these terms. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is as simple as that. Schwede66 warned Alexeyvitch in December 2023 and while he has stopped following me on non-New Zealand articles, he has continued with this Paraparaumu thing. After telling him about a month ago that I may report him to this noticeboard due to his thing with Paraparaumu, Schwede66 suggested that we avoid contacting each other. Following this, I did make some copy edits, such as on Foveaux Strait (I had edited/watchlisted this article last year) and it did not go too well after I made copyedits and added a maintenance templates and Alexeyevitch told me to "fix it myself" when I didn't know how, the conversation diff is here. I now wish that I had left it as that and not gone to the talk page. I also copyedited some of his edits on Southshore (I found this from the good article nominees on the article alerts). After "Mr. Roger" (Roger 8 Roger) had made complaints about his edits needing copyeding on suburbs, I added the suburbs to my watchlist so I could copyedit them, and followed with copyedits; this is something I now regret. Due to this Paraparaumu thing, I continued making copyedit tests to check if they were coincidences or not -- they were not coincidences.

I don't believe it is just an incompetence with spellings, but rather some dislike of New Zealand spellings, illustrated the message on his talk page, his previous use of New Zealand spellings rather than American ones on articles, him creating a word salad of American spellings and then indirectly writing that he may ignore comments that are in New Zealand English after I informed him about comma splices. ―Panamitsu (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexeyevitch themself doesn't use New Zealand English, please consider using American English or the Oxford Spelling on their talk page. They might not to respond to comments deliberately avoiding this suggestion. (from the last diff in Panamitsu's comment: Good heavens, literally expressing an intention to ignore comments written in a variation of English not Alexeyevitch's own? Is there such a thing as linguistic chauvinism? This seems contrary to the Universal Code of Conduct's injunction to be collegial and empathetic with Wikimedians of different backgrounds. And the word salad seems like an attempt by Alexeyevitch at mockery, sarcasm, or aggression against Panamitsu, mocking Panamitsu's use of New Zealand English spelling. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexeyevitch's behavior has clearly been inexcusably childish, and they cannot be allowed to continue acting like this. Remsense诉 14:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

both editors commit to stop following each others edits. This way would avoid any bans and stop any further reasons for conflict.: This is premised on a false balance. What Schwede66 and Alexeyevitch call "following" and hounding has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating—in a few cases apparently deliberately, according to Alexeyevitch and Schwede66—MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR and making fixes in accordance with an overtly permitted use of contribution histories: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.

Meanwhile, Alexeyevitch has mocked non-U. S. spelling, has expressed intent to ignore talk page comments not written in American English, and has harassed Panamitsu (more precise diff not possible because of an unrelated thread getting oversighted, but see the timeline of events I created) by following them to Paraparaumu topics seemingly after potentially coming to the belief that Panamitsu had an off-wiki connection to Paraparaumu.

With this level of hostility toward non-U. S. English and this depth of attempted harassment against Panamitsu in play, I'm not convinced that asking for a mutual commitment will prevent future guideline and policy violations by Alexeyevitch. Getting Panamitsu off their back seems to be precisely what Alexeyevitch has wanted, so as to be able to eliminate New Zealand spellings from articles without scrutiny from an editor like Panamitsu. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

has been Panamitsu noticing a widespread pattern of violating ... MOS:TIES and MOS:ENGVAR this is exactly the content of my original response, I'm not disagreeing. I was just hoping to find an informal way to settle the dispute. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently being Harassed by Alex 21 who will not leave me alone after I chose to end a discussion with him.m cos of edit disagreements which we had which I am sorry for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.158.115 (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor made unsourced [36] and edit-warring [37] based edits at Peacemaker (TV series), and I made sure to clarify with the anon editor that they understood why their edits were being reverted, especially after such unacceptable edit summaries such as that in the latter diff. Their contribution history shows a pattern of such behaviour. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for a week for disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the block was fairly lenient, given the IP's harassment of Alex 21 with a barrage of insults, for which the IP does NOT seem sorry. Ravenswing 01:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the best place to report this, given a recent edit summary saying this situation is “standard practice”.

Several (experienced) editors have manually removed formatted citations and replaced them with bare URL citations on 2024 Atlantic hurricane season.

Timeline:

• 22:33, 17 June 2024 — HikingHurricane adds a “current storm information section” (brand-new level 4 header section), cited entirely by three bare URLs.
• 23:26, 17 June 2024 — WeatherWriter (myself) removes the bare URL and replaced them for formatted citations (2 of the three bare URLS)
• 00:06, 18 June 2024 — Drdpw removes one reference and reduced the citation on the other, including removing the archival information.
• 00:42, 18 June 2024 — WeatherWriter restores the 2nd reference removed by Drdpw and restores the full citation information for the first reference.
• 00:44, 18 June 2024 — Drdpw reverts back to the smaller citations/removes the 2nd reference
• 00:46, 18 June 2024 — WeatherWriter adds a “unreferenced section” tag to the “Current storm information” section. Drdpw removed all citations present in that article in the last reversion.
• 01:01, 18 June 2024 — Drdpw removes the “unreferenced section” citation and re-adds the three original bare URL citations originally added by HikingHurricane.
• 01:24, 18 June 2024 — WeatherWriter removes the three bare URLs and replaced them with less-linked, but formatted citations.
• 01:33, 18 June 2024 — HikingHurricane restores the three bare URL citations and stated it is “standard practice”.

Is this actually allowed? Even though Wikipedia:Bare URLs isn’t a formal citation, experienced editors seem to indicate that bare-URLs are “standard practice” over formatted citations on 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources (policy), specifically WP:CITEVAR, in the Generally considered helpful section, it states “improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights link rot;”. I am bringing this to the administrators attention not to get someone warned or blocked, but since there seems to be experienced editors saying something different than policy, and every attempt to remove the bare URL citations is being reverted. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bare URLs in question are not citations. Their purpose is for the reader to be able to access the latest NHC products directly. What WeatherWriter has done is replace these links to live webpages with archive links, which obviously do not link to the live webpages. I have nothing against adding these citations to the end of the section, but they do not substitute for the live URLs. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 02:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per what you just said "the bare URLs in question are not citations", then the section is still unsourced. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with adding a citation to the paragraph from the latest advisory, with the advisory-specific url, so long as it gets updated (every 6 hours) with the information. Drdpw (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded links should be avoided, WP:CS:EMBED. Surely these should be in the 'External Links' section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything against citing the archived advisories at the end of the paragraph like I said, but the links to the live NHC webpages should still be there. Only including the archived references means counting on editors to update the references every time an advisory is released. Instead, the live URLs can just link to the up-to-date webpages directly. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 13:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No they shouldn’t. External Links/Bare URLs should not be in the middle of an article. They go in an external link section at the bottom of an article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It makes the most sense for those links to go in the storm's section. Putting them in the external links section makes them harder for the reader to find and gets increasingly confusing if there are multiple active storms. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 15:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not a news site. We're not a weather advisory site. We do not need people to be able to get live information or updates on a storm. We're an encyclopaedia, not a 24 hour weather channel. No those links shouldn't go into the storms section as per all of the above. Having updated live information isn't what we're here for. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not what we are here for, but it is, nonetheless, what is done for active tropical cyclones in the form of 'Current storm information' and 'Watches and warnings' subsections. Drdpw (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Drdpw here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, yet people still use it to stay up-to-date on weather events. I see no harm in linking to the latest official information in a storm's section. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 16:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how Wikipedia is formatted though. Wikipedia isn't a place for "current"/"live" updates. Even though you both seem to say citing sources is ok, both attempts I did at actually adding citations to the sections (current watches/warning & "current storm info") were reverted directly by both of y'all and you both added the external links inplace of the citations. That is what started this discussion. Basically, why are external links in the middle of an article being used as citations over formatted citations. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a better suited question at WP:MOS: Are external links allowed mid-article or not? Anyone else agree? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User is engaging in edit warring and IDHT as shown here, here and here. Augu  Maugu ♨ 04:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should've gone to WP:EWN, but it's a slam-dunk ECR violation nonetheless. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why had nobody been able to tell me exactly how the edit does not reflect the article? 69.121.182.83 (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:ECR and the templates on your talk page. You cannot discuss or edit about the Arab/Israel conflict unless you have an account that is 30 days old and has made 500 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User seems to have resorted to personal attacks [38] Wiiformii (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of their comment from their own talk page was unnecessary and predictably aggravating to the situation. I wouldn't say that ending a conversation with Whatever you say keyboard warrior. really constitutes a personal attack requiring deletion from their own talk. It's incivility and name-calling at worst. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as the user seems to want attention solely and aggravation won't help. Incivility describes it better as I couldn't find the exact word Wiiformii (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's best to let people scream into the void. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

There seems to be four blocks by C.Fred from 17 April, 2022 for Disruptive editing/ edit warring. Sathyalingam is now edit warring at Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam. There are no edit summaries or responses to the talk page discussion that I initiated and I see that they haven't used their talk page to communicate even once since 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeraxmoira (talk • contribs)

Not just edit warring, adding election boxes for election taking place in 2026 so Sathyalingam is here for the long haul. The Banner talk 07:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone block this IP please so that they can do something more productive with their time? Multiple WP:ARBECR violations with a dash of harassment and vandalism. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) 2605:B100:1131:8BB1:94F7:29D9:5FCC:F20F (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, besides vandalism at RFA and Arbcom, we have this beyond-the-pale comment. Ah now we have it here too. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dealt with by user:Robertsky with a block. Some edits reverted and others are hidden. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. There are some edits which I think are skirting the lines, therefore I didn't revdel those but if any other admin think otherwise, go ahead and revdel accordingly. – robertsky (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USER:LibStar is not editing or redistributing content, but instead, deleting factual content, multiple times now. I am doing my best to contribute to the Wiki project for my hometown, and have put alot of time doing the best job I can. The issue here is not citation but the deletion. For example, for "Notable People".

Instead of taking the facts of this page and updating the notable people's respective articles, does USER:LibStar instead believes that those articles need to form the basis of this article. Why is that? And if these other articles are incorrect (which they are)? Some articles say Sydney - AND, Greystanes is a suburb of Sydney!!!

Furthermore, Amanda_Farrugia - User:LibStar deleted from Greystanes stating "Notable residents: her article doesn't mention this suburb, rm under WP:BURDEN".... But her article clearly states that she's from Greystanes, and of Maltese descent too. You clearly are attacking and discriminating this article and it must stop.

This is not a good enough reason, to form the basis of the content deletion, especially when I can give you addresses and school photos and birthday parties of these notable people, who lived in this area. Your reason being "his/her article doesn't mention this suburb . Rm under WP:BURDEN" - You should update his/her article then, and stop being a WP:BURDEN on this article!

Also, I don't appreciate USER:LibStar's tone. Ownership is not being assumed, I have taken alot of time to edit this article and have done an incredible job here. And does USER:LibStar believe that have the right to come and just delete content that is correct, without researching before they delete? That is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamaria.dmrt (talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you provide some diffs? It's not clear at all which articles you're talking about. Orange sticker (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a content dispute. scope_creep^Talk 09:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is it possible for you to please check and compare the history?

Notable people are being removed when they are from Greystanes.

The last edit for example:

[[Amanda Farrugia]] - User:LibStar deleted from Greystanes stating "Notable residents: her article doesn't mention this suburb, rm under WP:BURDEN".... But her article clearly states that she's from Greystanes, and of Maltese descent too.

He is removing people whose articles say they are from Sydney. Greystanes is in Sydney.

These articles might be wrong, and why should that be the basis of the facts in this article? Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey Scope Creep, there seems to be an error on the page, from a change you made. I don't want to touch it though, in case you are in the middle of something??? Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really sloppy referencing without and incorrect page numbering. I've fixed what I can. scope_creep^Talk 10:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annamaria.dmrt is a very very new editor. scope_creep^Talk 10:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am now Scope Creep, and thank you for your help with this, but there is still an error. Your reference is showing on the frontend.

The grand mansion was demolished in 1946, but its gates still remain intact on Greystanes Road.ref"Cumberland Historical Timeline" (PDF). Cumberland City Council. p. 31.</ref> Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new* Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed that reference up. was missing the opening <ref Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The very issue for why I posted this to begin with, <nowiki>user:theroadislong</nowiki>] goes and starts deleting notable people as well. I just don't get why content get's removed? Carissa Walford has content all over the net about being from Greystanes. Do I need to update people's bio's too? No thanks. But just cause other articles on Wiki are incorrect, does that mean we use them as the basis on the way moving forward, so that all future content remains incorrect?

I am happy to address the citations and delete what cannot be referenced. But the notable people should be researched by the one wanting to delete it, and then if it's found that the person is from Greystanes, the other article should be update. True?

Also, Greystanes IS Sydney. So if it says someone is from Sydney, that is actually impossible. Because Sydney is not a suburb. Greystanes is a suburb of Sydney, so why delete it, if someone's article says "Sydney". It doesn't make my notable people list incorrect. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting close to being blocked, the onus is on the person adding the content to include the source. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

being blocked? For what? More threats. I haven't said or done anything wrong to you, and instead of threatening, stop being aggressive and educate! We all contribute to Wiki, you are not an owner, but a contributor like myself.

All of my citations added for Notable People were removed by Scope Creep, because it's ridiculous and you know it. Show me an article where notable people are referenced? If your Wiki articles do not match my new content, then it is your responsibility if you like, to research that person and update and reference that specific article. Not delete proper and good content from my edits.

Have a think about it. Because you are not making much sense. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being threatened, merely informed that your behaviour is such that you may receive a block from an administrator.

If you'd like to see an article where notable people are referenced visit Derry#Notable people. This is how all articles should look. All content on Wikipedia must be backed up by a reliable in-line citation, except patently obvious stuff (e.g. we wouldn't provide a reference for "the sky is blue"). Just because other editors have failed to provide references elsewhere does not excuse policy violations elsewhere. WP:VERIFY states Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of the three revert rule. I can see five reverts by you in the past hour alone. You must stop reverting other editors. I know it can be frustrating seeing your work reverted, but violating Wikipedia policy may lead to a partial block, where you can't edit specific pages, or a full block, where you can't edit at all, even if you weren't aware of the policy. However, I can see that your latest revert came after @Theroadislong issued you with a warning for edit warring.

My best advice would be, take a break from this article for now. Take the time to read some of Wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:VERIFY, WP:3RR and WP:MOS then come back to this article and make the changes in such a way that it is unlikely to be challenged by another editor. Theroadislong is correct above in saying that the onus is on you to provide an in-line citation for any content you add to an article. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 10:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no worries, I actually didn't see my talk page, and only just saw it now.

I will provide citations on all notable people then.

Thanks to all for your time on this. I will sort it out.

Instead of deleting, can maybe next time, there be a Citation Needed added?

And also, Amanda Farrugia was deleted as a notable person, but her article clearly says she is from Greystanes. Which is what really frustrated me the most. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, her article doesn't clearly say she is from Greystanes:

Farrugia was born and raised in the western suburbs of Sydney in New South Wales. Her parents are of Maltese descent and she attended Our Lady Queen of Peace Primary School, Greystanes.

It only mentions that she attended a primary school in Greystanes, not that she is from Greystanes. Attending a primary school in an area does not necessarily mean someone is from that area. For example, my close friend grew up in the Earnock area of their hometown but attended a primary school in Hillhouse.

I prefer to use cn tags and try to return after a few weeks to remove the content if it hasn't been sourced, but editors are free to remove unsourced content immediately. In fact, there is an unsourced statements drive going on right now in which the objective is to either provide sources for content tagged with citation needed tags or remove the unsourced statement entirely, so you may find that this month an unsourced statement with a tag is somewhat more likely to be removed. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 11:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam mate, understood. I have a job on my hands it seems!@Adam Black

I will sort all the citations out. Thanks for the clarification and for being nice and civil about it all, and sorry for ruffling some people's feathers. Annamaria.dmrt (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and I wouldn't worry too much about ruffling feathers. We can all be guilty of it from time to time and as long as you follow Wikipedia policy going forward there shouldn't be any issues.

I haven't taken an in-depth look at your edits, but if any of the notable people you were trying to add are more historic then Trove can be an excellent source for pre-1950s coverage of Australians. There are several more recent newspapers and magazines on Trove as well, but there are over 1,800 digitised Australian publications dating from the early 19th century to roughly the mid-50's. If you need any help finding references, feel free to post a message on my talk page and I'll help out if I can. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 12:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]