Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

JacktheBrown

I have reviewed the edit history of @JacktheBrown and observed that they have been involved in several edit wars, consistently motivated by a personal, seemingly nationalist POV. Their aim appears to be the removal of non-Italian influences or antecedents to certain dishes that they consider to be Italian.

In the article on Cappuccino, they first removed a referenced statement, claiming it was not reliable, even though it came from a professor of food history. They have now labelled this professor as "controversial" within the article.[1]

Same in the article Carbonara: [2]

Here they changed the place of origin of White pizza, removing America without any discussion or reference: [3]

In Zeppola, they refuse to include a mention of the American version of the dish, saying it’s “absolutely not necessary” while other users asked for it in the talk page: [4]

They have also been engaged in edit wars on the article Orzo, removing names and versions of the dish that are not Italian, with another editor restoring them: [5]. The only argument they have is saying “they are Italians so they have more knowledge”: [6]

Furthermore, in the article Porchetta, they had an edit war and refuse to acknowledge that the dish is also typical of another region outside of Italy. The discussion in the talk page [7], in my opinion, lacks respect and demonstrates an inappropriate behaviour for Wikipedia, by refusing to engage in discussion. Here they even ask to remove an ANI: [8]

In Penne alla Vodka, they removed an entire sourced paragraph that claimed that the dish was probably American: [9]

I noticed that today they edited the Mont Blanc article to list Italy before France in the infobox, even though alphabetical order would suggest the opposite. This change was made without explanation. This small detail reveals their nationalistic bias, as they always seem to prefer placing Italy in the first position: [10]

In the article Cappuccino, there was a consensus to include both Austria and Italy in the infobox, as seen in versions prior to February 2024, for example here: [11]. I wanted to change it to include only Austria but did not reach consensus. However, I noticed that Jackkbrown decided to remove Austria in April [12] without reaching a consensus and does not accept any changes.

I believe that they are not contributing positively to Wikipedia. Their bias consistently leads them to advocate for a subjective nationalist point of view instead of considering the facts. Additionally, they never use references to support their changes or statements. They claim to have expertise ([13]) in Italian cuisine, but I only see someone who avoids using references, refuses to engage in discussion, and promotes a nationalist perspective. I think this does not help Wikipedia, and such behaviour should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapsby (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sapsby: only from the sentence "Here they changed the place of origin of White pizza, removing America without any discussion or reference" it can be clearly stated that the seriously problematic user isn't me; you just want to hurt me. The white pizza (Italian: pizza bianca) has always been Italian, it's like saying the calzone is American... JacktheBrown (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack, I'm totally open to the idea that Pizza bianca is the precursor to White pizza. But I'm also open to the idea that they are two different foods that have a similar name. Pizza Bianca Romana alla Pala del Fornaio seems to be more like focaccia, and pizza that is sauced with bechamel and topped with cheese seems like a very different food. I value that you can search in Italian, are bilingual, and are knowledgeable about and interested in Italian cuisine, we definitely need that, but you do seem to be having trouble editing without getting yourself into trouble in even areas that would normally be assumed to be noncontentious, which is fairly unusual for someone with nearly 70k edits and 20 months' experience. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: a few minutes ago I changed the article, now the origin is both Italy (precursor) and the United States (modern version): Special:Diff/1241158526. Update: the change has been cancelled; perhaps it's best that I abandon the encyclopaedia completely for a while. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Jack, I'd actually recommend not abandoning now, as there are two open discussions at ANI, but you could certainly stop making major edits without prior discussion while those discussions are going on. That reverted edit was not bad, it was just not how we generally handle a food item (modern version/precursor) in an infobox. If I were enwiki food czar I'd leave place of origin off the infobox until I'd decreed there needed to be two articles, one for Pizza Bianca Romana alla Pala del Fornaio (which as an apparently recognized DOI food if I'm reading correctly is the kind of thing enwiki could really use your work on) and one for the 'white pizza' known outside of Italy. :) Valereee (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO an important thing to remember is that if you find unsourced content that you think is wrong, the solution is rarely to replace it with other unsourced content that you think is right. Instead it's either to find sources and adjust the content if needed, or failing that just remove it. You can also tag it, but if you're really sure it's wrong but can't find any sources easily, it's entirely reasonable to just remove it IMO. (I mean you can remove it even if you think it's right, but it's far harder for an editor to complain about you removing unsourced text without giving others a chance to fix it or making enough effort yourself; if the reason you removed it is because you think it's not only unsourced but also wrong.) But the other thing is, AFAICT, this is a dispute largely over the infobox with almost nothing in the article to support it either way. What really should happen is someone needs to introduce text about the origin of white pizza and it's possible connection to Pizza bianca. As it stands, the infobox is source of whatever, since the article just discusses two different things without connecting the two in any real way. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This type of constantly shifting problem has been a regular issue for this editor, who has been here already recently for things like spamming the Teahouse, making rapid-fire edits to fit their style desire, ignoring WP:ENGVAR, and the likely GENSEX topic ban above. The thread of nationalism has always been there, but the hope was that he would direct this impulse towards productive editing, not warring. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all of the diffs presented fully, but I am concerned about edits such as this, where an academic is vaguely described as 'controversial', in defiance of MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarifications for anyone perplexed like me: JacktheBrown was JackkBrown until an account name change on 17 Aug 2024[14], but their sig had been JacktheBrown for a while. The above saying “they are Italians so they have more knowledge” refers to two edit summaries last month, both ending I am Italian, and I have no right to own this page, but I have more knowledge than you, because it is an Italian food, justifying capitalising the infobox alternative name of Orzo, from "risoni" to "Risoni",[15] and putting single quotation marks around pine nuts[16]. The tban from Gensex proposal is above at #Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown). NebY (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Involved comment since I decided to participate in the Cappucino discussion but other than the MOS:CONTROVERSIAL violation by JacktheBrown, it seems like the point around cappucino is entirely a content dispute about whether Austria should also be listed as a place of origin along with Italy. Sapsby says "there was a consensus" though it is through simple editing which is the weakest form of consensus on wikipedia. Some of the recent additions of Austria being in 2021 with this edit, removed at some point and reverted by the same editor in 2023 with vandalism claims, all of which were not subject to any talkpage discussion. The two most recent discussions on the issue where both JacktheBrown and Sapsby are involved resulted in what I can best describe as no consensus and weak consensus in favor of removing Austria, with pretty low participation in both cases. No other form of dispute resolution was seeked.

I will also add that white pizza has general issues on sourcing and the edit by JacktheBrown was neither challenged nor discussed and the original statement of originating from America was also unsourced therefore making a fairly weak claim on breaking any WP:RULES in this instance.
No comment on other issues.

Adding: an ip address brought up suspicions of WP:SOCK by Spasby relating to Xiaomichel on the cappucino talk page if someone more familiar than me with WP:SPI procedure could look into it. Yvan Part (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Block, Jack's editing is exhausting and a time sink as he doesn't retain the information despite numerous attempts at helping him. It's benign -- a mix of not having the English-language fluency (not a PA, I don't have it in Italian) to get the nuance and context of discussion. This is happening above in the CTOPS discussion and he has a habit of "retirement" to avoid sanctions, which he also threatened above. It's time to enforce it. Star Mississippi 01:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: according to Talk:Cappuccino#edit war, User Talk:Stephen Hui#Obvious sockpuppets and more, the user who reported me (Sapsby) is, unfortunately, very very problematic.
Furthermore, as I said, I would like to stop editing Wikipedia these days, or weeks (except for active discussions and rare edits to non-controversial pages). I'm very sad; this is the reason for my "retirement". Reply to "he has a habit of "retirement" to avoid sanctions, which he also threatened above.": absolutely not, don't come to unfair conclusions; as I said a few lines earlier, "I'm very sad; this is the reason for my "retirement"." (behind the Wikipedia user, user who always tries to improve, there's a person with feelings). Thank you and have a very great day, Star Mississippi. JacktheBrown (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we need this discussion in two places? Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think I'm semi-involved here because I've participated in some RMs initiated by Jack. I won't comment on the broader issues here, but I don't believe his labeling of "a professor" (Alberto Grandi, since no one else has linked to him directly) as "controversial" is as problematic as others have suggested, though maybe the phrasing could be better. This is because Grandi's claims are in fact controversial. See [17] [18] [19] [20]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• In my close of this discussion from 6 months ago, which resulted in a 1 month block, I wrote "Any further disruption following the lifting of the block is likely to end up with an indefinite block implemented by any administrator." I cannot say I have yet read through this thread in its entirety, but this may potentially apply. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree Jack's nationalist attitude is somewhat problematic, but I think he should be let off with a warning to focus on adding content rather than removing it and to propose potentially controversial changes on the talk page before making them. Regarding the alleged misbehaviour:

• As has been noted, the professor is in fact controversial.
• I've proposed a solution to the dispute at Talk:White pizza. We went through something similar a while ago with Italian sausage.
• Adding the American version to Zeppola may well be a good idea, but all Jack did was object to a proposal on the talk page that it be added. No one has actually added it so Jack hasn't actually removed anything.
• Jack seems to have accepted the changes at Orzo.
• The "sourced paragraph" at Penne alla Vodka was only added recently and the source was a blog. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Jack accepted Sapsby's changes at cappuccino, improving them, although "Unfortunately, I was forced by Sapsby to accept their changes"; see: [21] and [22]. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that the OP of this thread has been blocked as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xiaomichel. Pinguinn 🐧 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information but given the concerns brought up, I don't think this discussion should be closed yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Just pointing out that Jack has been t-banned from WP:GENSEX in the previous discussion, and has reacted gracefully to the notification of that. Valereee (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Valereee. This discussion involves food articles though so not covered by GENSEX. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I just thought it was worth pointing out that this editor seems to be trying to take concerns on board. Valereee (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• I wish I'd seen this discussion when the previous one was going on. Eating a lot of italian and watching a lot of shows about cooking and cooking history I probably agree with Jack on some of these things (Carbonara and Pizza Bianca), however the manner in which they have been WP:POVPUSHING and disregarding consensus is unacceptable. After the comments by admin in the other discussion about their problematic editing elsewhere, and now this, I think a indef block is necessary as a preventative measure to put a stop to further disruption. TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @TarnishedPath: I have never ignored consensus. An example? On the discussion page of the porchetta article I wrote for several weeks with the IP address, but they never convinced me and my idea remained unchanged; if you read the discussion carefully, you will notice that I advised the IP to add what they wanted within the paragraph "In France" (obviously without errors). Furthermore, a very expert, competent and skilled user agrees with me (part of their comment: "In regards to the origin of Porchetta, you need to draw a distinction between "a tradition" and "originates". Just because there is a tradition somewhere does not mean that that's where it originates. Both the "traditions" and origins can be discussed, suitably sourced, in the article. But generally the lead should be focused on the origins and locations that the food is most identified with. Most reliable sources seem to think it is an Italian."). Finally, regarding the cappuccino article, as written on the discussion page, "...the consensus for "Austria" that Sapsby claims to have achieved never existed...".
    In conclusion, the sentence "...and disregarding consensus is unacceptable." is completely, totally wrong. I wish you a very beautiful day, TarnishedPath. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think for all the concerns -- which are valid -- Jack is still a net positive. Oppose indef as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Valereee (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Irrespective of anything else, I have had quite enough of JacktheBrown's endless editing of his comments. After leaving this comment here, JacktheBrown has made 17 edits to it over the course of 7 hours. He has been warned about this in the past but seems unable to stop. Enough already. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• This doesn't really feel like a good faith report.
  At Carbonara, JacktheBrown characterises as controversial a figure in a sentence sourced to Italian academic cooks up controversy with claim carbonara is US dish (Giuffrida, 2023).
  At Penne alla vodka, he removes a single sentence formatted as a paragraph, which had stated a New York origin of the recipe is "a common claim", sourced to the corporate blog of a New York based pasta sauce company, which itself goes on to give three other proposed origins, two of which are cited to cookbooks. The report characterises the removed text as an entire sourced paragraph that claimed that the dish was probably American.
  The manners at Talk:Porchetta aren't exemplary, but I'm having trouble feeling judgemental towards an attitude that seems to amount to "I'm not going to be able to have a productive conversation with you here while you have open ANI reports against me."
  I haven't looked at everything. I'm aware JacktheBrown has filled up at least one or two ANI stamp cards for being such a loyal returning customer. Yall see the absurdity in arguing the "origin" of recipes, right? Like in all the kitchens in all the world, no two people have ever looked at the same ingredients and had the same idea? Folly Mox (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

WeyerStudentOfAgrippa in Existential risk studies

This user has maintained a persistent disruptive and dismissive behavior in the article talk page, making several totally unsubstantiated claims against the article (not a single source was invoked by them), and has been trying to push his POV since the beginning, making changings that go against the present sources. I have already sought multiple instances of mediation, both opening a request for comments and asking for reviews in the philosophy wikiproject talk page. All the users that engaged agreed that the article has no major fault which justifies their claims or the addition of the NPOV flag (which, again, their havent justified at all). Now, after I spent some days without using Wikipedia, I see that they have deleted a massive amount of the article, all of which was substantiated by reliable sources. This is a unbearable degree of permissiveness to disruptive behavior that only hinder the development of the encyclopedia. The user doesnt understand a thing about the subject, has dragged the whole process and failed to present a single source to dispute the content. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. AN/I is only for major conduct issues. It appears there is ongoing discussion on article talk. Don't bring someone to AN/I to win an argument. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior, failure to engage with the discussion, failure to argue based on principles. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears there is ongoing discussion on article talk.

The user is not listening nor engaged with the discussion. They didnt provided a justification of the NPOV flag, even after being questioned by another user, and has removed this content without justifying or having any base in the discussion. As I said, they have selectively and dismissively engaged with the discussion, only extending without listening or arguing with sources. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Which of the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution have been tried, out of curiosity? Daniel (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

1) First of all, I invited to user to review this article because I have been justifying its need before even making it, in the global catastrophic risk talk page. After the article passed the new article review process I started to receive these dismissive comments by another user, which was soon joined by this one. The first user has mostly retracted from their initial position. But I have extensively argued every single point of WeyerStudentOfAgrippa questioning, showing mentioning and quoting reliable academic sources on the subject (should I say, again, that they havent mentioned a single one? I am starting to doubt that it matters). The user has disrespectfully characterized my attempt of discussion as "unfocused walls of text".

2) I tried to open a request in the dispute resolution noticeboard, which were cancelled on formal grounds, and the editor didnt tried to help me much. Then i decided to use the request for comments as well as asking for reviews in the philosophy wikiproject talk page. The users that engaged with this process reaffirmed that the article has no major fault which justify the flag or the deletion of the article. One user questioned WeyerStudentOfAgrippa justification for the NPOV flag, which is totally unrelated to NPOV issues, and not true by the way. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, it appears that the NPOV concerns revolve around the focus on Nick Bostrom in the article (verging on UNDUE). But in this edit, you say the subject is forcing their POV? MiasmaEternal☎ 22:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

They are, they are systematically forcing a conception of the field that goes against the reliable academic sources, they have not offered a single source that contradicts the previous (now destroyed) version of the article, even after I requested it multiple times. The introduction sources do not say what they attempted to say. Shouldnt this be the most important thing about Wikipedia? The whole strategy is to downplay the relation between the field of studies and the concept of existential risks, which is unequivocally established by reliable academic literature. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The question about Bostrom has two sides. My understanding is that, as the sources affirm, Nick Bostrom has provided a foundational definition of the concept of existential risk and has laid the first 'paradigm' for the field, nonetheless the field has spurred the creation of multiple centers and foundations, as well as other stream of thought with dedicated schoalrs. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa questioning of the article depends on a confusing and contradictory point - both affirming that the field isnt a field at all, just a derivation from Nick Bostrom, as well as going against the sources to force a even more straight subordination of the field to this author. The idea is most unreasonable in the moment it affirms that existential risk, as presented in global catastrophic risk, cannot be reduced to the field of existential risk studies (because it is too dependent on Nick Bostrom work), even when the article on global catastrophic risk is totally based on nick bostrom and associated when it mentions existential risks... JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@WeyerStudentOfAgrippa: You removed a section of the article with the edit summary: removing section for now -- see talk on 19 August 2024, but didn't add anything to talk and I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find on talk that justifies removing that section several days later.

@JoaquimCebuano: I think Weyer is correct that there were some NPOV issues:

1. Referring to Bostrom's essay as "foundational".
2. "Perhaps mostly significantly, the EA community has contributed a momentous amount of financial resources to ERS, fueling the expansion of its academic and popular reputation."
3. You characterize Schuster & Woods's quite scathing critique:

   There is a stunning lack of attention in existential risk studies to the huge amount of research, activism, and human rights work on the history and prevention of genocides. The technocratic outlook and terminological narowness of Bostrom's assessments are partly at fault, but more disconcerting is the way his work ends up disclosing a colonialist attitude that downplays the history of genocides and Indigenous suffering.

   as follows: Some scholars consider the concept of existential risk established within ERS to be excessively restrictive and narrow, which discloses an attitude of neglect to the history of genocides, especially the one related with the colonial genocide of indigenous peoples.

I also think that you have been engaging in some presistent ... dismissive behavior:

1. Your response (emphasis added) to a reasonable, constructive critique, is to suggest that that critique is so, so below the purpose of this encyclopedia that I dont think its worthy to answer in detail.
2. The user is not listening nor engaged with the discussion. When Weyer has responded, they've engaged with your points constructively. This is a volunteer encyclopedia. Nobody is obligated to respond to your approximately 0.35 tomats of text.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

1) It is foundational, all the sources affirmed the same thing, thats not my fault at all. If there is another word, then i am open to change, no one tried to change this specific phrase.

2) Its true, but i am open to rephrasing, that hasnt not been a subject of debate until now.

3) Cant see the problem...

4) How it is 'reasonable' to dictate what the readers need or should read with justifications unrelated to the sources?

5) They have not, and have not presented a single source to contradict the presentation. The whole policy of verifiability has been utterly ignored. If this is constructive, then I dont know what is the purpose of Wikipedia after all. If my fault is to explain the subject for someone that refuses to engage with the academic literature and just makes unsourced claims based on assumed truths, then I might be guilty indeed. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It is reasonable to point out that it might be better to present information in a different manner, such as by merging articles. That is not "dictating" to readers. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think that "a long section about the "Background" and the "History" is not as essential as explanations of the concepts." is about how to better present the information, its about negating information. But you are correct, I was excessively harsh, mostly because no one expects that the first section of an article that took a lot of work is going to be a 'What?'. But you should note, as I already said, that I invited Weyer in the discussion and took their question with patience, I sought instances of mediation and I only opened this notice after this surprising and unjustified removal of sourced information. I can no longer assume good faith and my interest is simply the development of the encyclopedia. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

How can you attempt to justify Weyer with problems they didnt even pointed nor change? The Schuster & Woods's criticism you quoted still there. Have you read the Concept section they removed? What is the problem there? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I am a volunteer. I am the one who took time to build the article. I a obligated to deal with criticism without base, criticism that doesnt take the effort of using sources, with suspicion from very beginning? It seems like I have been the main suspect of this notice also. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I am a volunteer. I am the one who took time to build the article.

You don't own the article. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

But someone owns the subject, it seems. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they saw the ANI notification as it was just posted as a comment in a previous discussion without a separate header. I have now invited them to participate here. It would be helpful to hear their point-of-view on this editing dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to share my perspective: The draft had multiple strong sources and passed AFC, but it was essentially still a draft and needed higher-level editing. I find the draft author's committed defense of the original content and their related attacks on me utterly bizarre. Frankly, their behavior seems consistent with testing what spam, DARVO, or other tactics they (or someone else) could get away with here. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You both are in a mere internet content dispute that became personalized. "DARVO" is a term used to refer to behavior of perpetrators of violence, typically sexual violence. Using this term on your adversary here is a highly uncivil personal attack. NicolausPrime (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with such a narrow interpretation, and my experience matters too. I think it's possible to talk about harmful dynamics without implying personal use. The linked article suggests that understanding of the tactics can reduce their effectiveness.

More generally, I'm not sure potential spam tactics are being taken as seriously as they should be, but I don't know where that discussion belongs. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

A Third-Party Summary

The Original Poster says that they tried to open a request in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which was cancelled on formal grounds. They filed two requests at DRN. The first one I closed because they had not listed or notified the other parties to the dispute, and said that they could file a new request after 24 more hours of discussion on the article talk page, in which they would list and notify the other editors. Maybe that is a formal ground. At about this point the other author put a {{NPOV}} tag on the article. Then the OP listed the other editors in a new request. They didn't notify the other editors, which is a required formality, and I would normally have told them to notify the other editors, and waited. However, when I read the discussion on the article talk page, I did not see any issues about what to change or leave the same in the article. I didn't see a content dispute of the type that is handled at DRN. I saw discussion of whether the article should be draftified, or whether the article should be cut down and redirected. DRN is not the forum for such discussions. Those are alternatives to deletion that are best decided by AFD. Deletion and alternatives to deletion are content disputes, but not content disputes for which DRN is the proper forum. So then the OP filed a request at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, which I think was a better forum.

About 36 hours ago, the other editor deleted two sections of the article. At this point there is an article content dispute of the type that can be discussed at DRN, or resolved by RFC. There is also a tagging dispute, but it is my opinion that tagging disputes are a distraction, and should be resolved by addressing the content dispute. I am willing to try to conduct moderated discussion at DRN if that is agreeable to the two editors. Otherwise some other method of content dispute resolution is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont think I chose the best words when I said you didnt help me much, given that i did failed with the formulation of the notification, but it can be quite frustrating to deal with this kind of dispute where someone is allowed to ignore basic policy. Given that, I cant be certain that it can be solved as a content resolution without the recognition that this conduct has indeed verged on WP:DISRUPTIVE:

Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research.

Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified citation needed or more citations needed tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is problematic.

Fails to engage in consensus building

Campaign to drive away productive contributors JoaquimCebuano (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

User:JoaquimCebuano - What do you want? What do you want the Wikipedia community to do, if anything? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on my experience in lusophone wikipedia, a disputed unjustified removal of sourced content would immediately trigger the restoration of WP:STATUSQUO. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Weyer said in their edit summary: removing section for now -- see talk. Given that there was nothing on talk to justify the removal, you could have just reverted it and started a talk discussion. You still can revert it per STATUSQUO—just don't edit war if you get reverted.

AN/I is for chronic and intractable behavior. This is a slow boiling content dispute, not a pattern of disruptive editing. Let the RfC play out (you can also neutrally advertise it at relevant WikIProjects (see WP:APPNOTE) and consider what other editors have to say. I've already pointed to some NPOV problems for you to work on. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

So you, User:JoaquimCebuano, came to WP:ANI to resolve a content dispute. Should this thread be closed as a content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I came here to notify about a user that has been systematically forcing their POV in disregard to the verifiability policy. This is one of the definitions of disruptive behavior. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Having participated in the WP:NPOV discussion after coming there from WP:NPOVN, I agree that this matter is a content dispute. Although I have some disagreements with WeyerStudentOfAgrippa's reading of the NPOV policy, I don't think anything said raises anywhere near the level of WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior. It is way too premature to handle this at WP:ANI. I will copy the new concent concerns that have been raised here back to Talk:Existential risk studies. To depersonalize and deescalate, I recommend closing this ANI thread. NicolausPrime (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@JoaquimCebuano You are unlikely to achieve a positive result for your cause by continuing to pursue this here on ANI. You can see that other editors haven't been convinced by your evidence, and you won't change that by just restating your view. On the contrary, this may skew people against you. Please keep a WP:CALM appearance (sorry for saying this), don't personalize the discussion, and continue to follow the normal dispute resolution procedures. It may be slow and frustrating, but in the end you will most likely reach a state that has consensus and grounding in content policies, which so far seem to have been unveiling in your favor.

(for some reason the Reply button didn't work for me on your nearest above comment, so I'm replying here)

NicolausPrime (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Sort-of legal threat by IP user

49.36.176.122 (talk · contribs) posted something which kind of is a legal threat but kind of isn't on Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident; they're demanding a given change be made to the article and saying that if it is not then Indian employees of the Wikimedia foundation will be in legal jeopardy (something I'm fairly certain is untrue, but I digress) - but not directly threatening to report it themselves. One could construe it as a misguided if good-faith attempt to be helpful, I suppose. Anyway, it probably warrants a look. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this one, they are talking about Indian law without threatening to take action but they are making demands for an editorial change. It's complicated because they are an IP address. If they were a registered account and they made a clear legal threat, we would indefinitely blocked them until they retracted their threat. But we don't indefinitely block IP addresses and this account was issuing a warning about potential future actions rather than making a specific threat. I'd like to hear what other admins and editors think. I'm also doubtful of the accuracy of what action they say could happen. But their remarks could serve to intimidate editors working on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The message looks to me like the ip may be concerned about WP editors rather than a legal threat to take action? Knitsey (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

There's been ongoing requests at that page to remove the victim's name under Indian law, and repeated replies re WP:NOTCENSORED. In this particular case, I read this as an IP trying to scare editors to make the requested change out of the supposed liability under Indian law, and the supposed stance that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't properly protecting users. I don't think any of this is true, but I don't think it is a specfici threat from this user themself. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It is an attempt to chill discussion and weaponize the law in a content dispute. It is definitely against the spirit of the rule if not the letter, and ought not to be tolerated. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it covered by the 'Perceived legal threats' section, "Your edits could be illegal..." wink wink nudge nudge. Reading their further replies that certainly seems to be what they are suggesting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They're saying that it is an "ORDER to WMF by India's 2nd most powerful court" and that "WMF counsel has agreed to comply and turn the user details over for service of court summons/notice." // "WMF is certain to throw its editors (admins) under the bus". Seems like very obvious legal threats to me. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll consider this edit Special:Diff/1241706132 to be a legal threat in the context. I see the IP user to be physically involved with legal bodies Special:Diff/1241714216 to be of much concern as to whether they might, if not already, initiate such legal processes themselves or thru their proxies. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 17:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading their responses since I posted my opinion, I think both you and MrOllie may be correct. Knitsey (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

For fairness' sake I should note that the user posted on their talk page in response to the ANI notice. Being an IP user, they can't respond here directly. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They have also posted about this on the non autoconfirmed subpage. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 02:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The somewhat personal attacks should not be accepted (as seen here). Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Whereas I read those "personal attacks" as a good faith attempt to sensitize an editor from India about the potential liablities of editors under their own (often draconian) local laws, as also set down in our Terms of Use. FWIW I view Special:Diff/1241719272 as a genuine advice to that editor by the IP. Sectioneer (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

User:AndriesVN

For the past 2 years or so this user has inserted fringe views into various articles about the early Christian church, essentially arguing for a form of "Great Apostasy" theory. When he is not pushing original research generated on his own blog he is quote-mining actual scholars such as Richard Hanson and Lewis Ayres to support his POV. He has persisted in his edits despite multiple warnings; several articles (Prosopon, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Homoousion, to name a few) are affected by his "contributions" and will have to be reviewed. I think it's clear that nothing less than a topic ban would suffice. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Nautical Mongoose. There is no user account, User:AndriesVN, it's User:AndriesvN. But thank you for posting them a notification of this discussion. I don't see that you gave them a warning, where have you discussed your issues with him? On any article talk pages? Please post diffs of edits you find improper. You should provide these so editors can see what you are talking about. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They also haven't edited in two months so this doesn't seem like an urgent problem and it's also unlikely that they would be participating in this discussion which is really part of the process of addressing an editor's behavior. What made you post this complaint today? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

They also haven't edited in two months – They've made up for that below by compressing two months' editing into one day. EEng 17:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to explain my edits.

A main barrier to understanding the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy is the fragmentary nature of the ancient sources. However, a store of ancient documents has become available over the last 100 years. For example, "in the first few decades of the present (20th) century … seminally important work was … done in the sorting-out of the chronology of the controversy, and in the isolation of a hard core of reliable primary documents." (Williams, p. 11-12)

Due to this new information and research, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Arian Controversy is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. For example, Lewis Ayres wrote in 2004: “A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2). R.P.C. Hanson, perhaps the foremost English scholar on the fourth-century Arian Controversy, described the traditional account as a complete travesty. He says, "The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored." (Hanson, p. 95).

Unfortunately, older books and authors who do not specialize in the Arian Controversy often still offer the 19th-century flawed version which says, for example, that the Trinity doctrine was established orthodoxy but Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy, winning many supporters. While despotic emperors supported the Arians, Athanasius bravely defended orthodoxy, which ultimately triumphed at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

In contrast, Archbishop Rowan Williams wrote a recent book on Arius in which he describes Arius as a conservative. Arius did not cause the Controversy. He did not teach a new heresy. He did not leave behind a school of disciples. He had very few real followers. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea. The term 'Arian', therefore, is a serious misnomer. The Controversy was the continuation of the controversy during the third century. For example, “We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background.” (Ayres, p. 20)

If anybody was to be blamed for causing the Controversy, it was Alexander because, as Williams shows, he maintained a 'one hypostasis' theology, similar to the Sabellianism that was already rejected in the third century.

With respect to the 'orthodoxy' when the Controversy began, it was not today's Trinity doctrine. It was subordination. For example, “until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” [RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.]

What is today regarded as orthodox evolved during the fourth and later centuries. The century must be understood as “one of evolution in doctrine.”  (Ayres, p. 13) “This is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. xix-xx)

I can list many other examples of errors in the 19th-century version of the Arian Controversy that is still prevalent on Wikipedia. Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy were published. Of those, R.P.C. Hanson's book in 1988 is perhaps the most influential. This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson's book, and Khaled Anatolios's book in 2011. Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) is also an essential point of reference but is only available in Italian. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of the revised account of the Controversy.

This has been my chosen field of study for several years now and, if I am allowed, I will continue to edit Wikipedia articles when time allows. Previously, Wikipedia opposed my efforts to defend the authenticity of the Book of Daniel, but, with respect to the Arian Controversy, science is on my side.

I do appreciate the sensitive nature of this topic. It deals with the most fundamental doctrine of the Christian church – one which many regard as the mark of true Christianity. However, the authors I am quoting are all highly respected Catholic scholars. AndriesvN (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, AndriesvN, this is all very interesting but is quite a tangent from the post that opened this discussion. Can you address the concerns brought up in the post at the top of this complaint about your editing? Please be more concise and stay on topic. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The bold sections are quotes from Nautical Mongoose, to which I added my responses:

For the past 2 years or so this user has inserted fringe views

The view I defend is not 'fringe'. It is the view of the scholarship of the last 50 years which, based on research and documents discovered, is very different from how the Arian Controversy was explained in the 19^th century.

into various articles about the early Christian church,

I focus on the fourth-century Arian Controversy.

essentially arguing for a form of "Great Apostasy" theory.

No, I do not describe it as a ‘Great Apostasy’, as if there was a clear break from the past. From the second century, it was a war between two views. But the side that eventually won, formulated a polemical strategy with a very biased view of history, for example, claiming that its theology always was orthodox and that all opponents of Nicaea are followers of Arius. I argue that the history of the Arian Controversy, as recorded in the older textbooks also often in Wikipedia, is distorted.

When he is not pushing original research generated on his own blog

No, I do not do my own original research. I do not read the primary sources. I read and summarize the views of the authors of the last 50 years.

he is quote-mining actual scholars such as Richard Hanson and Lewis Ayres to support his POV.

Hanson and Ayres are the two leading scholars on the Arian Controversy of the last 50 years. Since I do not do original research, I justify my conclusions by quoting them and other scholars. "Quote-mining" implies that my conclusions differ from theirs. That I deny.

He has persisted in his edits despite multiple warnings;

I am not remember ‘warnings’. Some editors have bluntly deleted my carefully compiled explanations. I think that is most unfair and even destructive.

several articles (Prosopon, Athanasius of Alexandria, and Homoousion, to name a few) are affected by his "contributions"

That is true. I am trying to work on all pages dealing with the Arian Controversy.

and will have to be reviewed.

I hope the reviewers will consider the quotes I provide as proof of my contributions and read the modern books on the subject.

I think it's clear that nothing less than a topic ban would suffice.

This revised view of the Arian Controversy has been in the public domain for the last 50 years. It must eventually filter through to Wikipedia. I am convinced that I am opposed because this revisionary scholarship threatens Christianity's primary doctrine; not because my contributions are erroneous. AndriesvN (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Meta Voyager's tendentious editing

Meta Voyager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is largely a single-purpose editor in relation to International Churches of Christ, has in my view crossed a line into tendentious editing at Talk:International Churches of Christ. Their editing appears to be motivated by a desire to remove mentions of sexual abuse lawsuits against the church (which have been covered in the Guardian and LA Times amongst others) from the article, rather than by improving the encyclopedia. Their latest argument is that the coverage is no longer significant or reliable (despite the continued existence of the Guardian and LA Times sources). When challenged on this, Meta Voyager's response has been to suggest that me and another editor, TarnishedPath, have COIs due to the amount we've contributed to the article, offering as evidence: @Cordless Larry, an administrator, ... has authored 13.4% of the ICOC article within the last 11 months and @Tarnished Path, a veteran editor, ... has authored 9.3% within the last 4 months according to today's Wiki page statistics. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess it was inevitable that we would end up here and I welcome a closer scrutiny of your behavior and mine on the ICOC Talk Page by experienced administrators. As a new editor, I questioned several months ago on your Talk Page your decision to post me on the Conflict of Interest noticeboard because I self-disclosed that I am a member of a church with connections to the International Churches of Christ (ICOC). Since then, other editors have questioned this conclusion by asking, for example, whether Wikipedia limits the editorial rights of Boy Scouts because they might edit the Boy Scouts' article. I cited other of your postings that evidenced your belief that the ICOC is a cult, a controversial topic within the ICOC article. Your reply suggested that I could bring your conduct to the administrators' noticeboard. I declined in hopes of an opportunity to find common ground on future editing opportunities. The record will show that I have voluntarily confined my comments about the ICOC to the Talk Page even though I still disagree with your declaration of my COI status. One irony of your reasoning for saying that I crossed a line is that it is the same basis that you have used to attempt to limit my voice and others as fellow editors. The opening caption to the ICOC article states that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." and on the Talk Page you have highlighted personally the issue of my COI status. Are you above questioning on this topic? Another irony is that you have strongly supported the principle of reliable sourcing in challenging whether other sections of the ICOC article should remain. Now that I am making a reliable sourcing argument, you choose to escalate the matter to this noticeboard. I look forward to further review by others in determining whether I am engaged in "tendentious editing" or whether you have gotten too close to an article that now deserves the attention of an unbiased administrator. Meta Voyager (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the tendentious editing, but it seems to me your argument on the talk page in that section is fundamentally flawed. You claim on the talk page that the lawsuits are "dismissed", but the RfC you reference talks about ongoing lawsuits, not dismissed lawsuits, so if they are dismissed, why shouldn't they be included? It also seems to me you are missing the historical aspect of these allegations that span 25 years; one of those being accused is now a convicted pedophile. My suggestion is you WP:DROPTHESTICK, because I don't think you are going to find any support for your position. And here are the total stats for the article and talk page: Isaidnoway (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not an irony. I support reporting what reliable sources tell us about all aspects of the organisation. It's you who's arguing that we should disregard what reliable sources say about the lawsuits, because that reporting doesn't suit your agenda. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I found the accusation at Special:Diff/1241726178 that I have a conflict of interest, because I have apparently been responsible for 9.3% of edits to the article in the last three months, to be a bizzare WP:ABF. Did they not bother to look at my contribution history or my statistics? Their bizzare misintripriations of the RFC found at Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ/Archive_11#RfC:_Ongoing_court_cases_involving_low_profile_individuals in their comments in the Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ#Recent_RFC_raises_reliable_sourcing_question_in_the_lead_and_court_cases_section discussion speaks for itself. TarnishedPath^talk 01:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

For the benefit of those reviewing this posting on the Administrators’ Noticeboard, please be aware that I have made no substantive edits, tendentious or otherwise, to the ICOC article due to being assigned by Cordless Larry the status of having a conflict of interest – a status that I disputed but have chosen to respect by limiting my comments to the ICOC article’s Talk Page. Meta Voyager (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevant statistics for evaluating my comments about the magnitude of recent edits by Cordless Larry and Tarnished Path are found on the Page Statistics of the ICOC article under the heading: AUTHORSHIP - Authorship attribution, measured by character count, excluding spaces. These statistics identify the editors who are responsible for the authorship of the current version of the article. The Total stats chart provided by others below washes out the number of edits by Cordless Larry over an 11 month period, Tarnished Path over a 4 month period and Meta Voyager over an 8 month period by comparing their edits to the edits made by all editors during the nearly 20 year history of the ICOC article. The Authorship chart presented below accurately portrays the current impact of all editors on the ICOC article. To compare the Authorship statistics to the presentation in the Total stats chart: Cordless Larry-13.5%, Tarnished Path-9.3% and Meta Voyager-too small a percentage to report (below 0.1%). Meta Voyager (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Total stats

Article Found 1 edits by Meta Voyager on International Churches of Christ (0.02% of the total edits made to the page) Found 76 edits by Cordless Larry on International Churches of Christ (1.18% of the total edits made to the page) Found 9 edits by TarnishedPath on International Churches of Christ (0.14% of the total edits made to the page) Talk page Found 50 edits by Meta Voyager on Talk:International Churches of Christ (1.65% of the total edits made to the page) Found 125 edits by Cordless Larry on Talk:International Churches of Christ (4.12% of the total edits made to the page) Found 79 edits by TarnishedPath on Talk:International Churches of Christ (2.6% of the total edits made to the page)

Proposal: Topic ban

Revisiting the history of this, I was reminded of Meta Voyager's actions at Talk:International Churches of Christ/Archive 11#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals, where they also tried to call into question the reliability of these sources, arguing that "The authors referenced in the LA Times and Guardian articles do not have special expertise on legal matters" and trying to use the essay WP:LAWRS to justify exclusion of coverage of the lawsuits (being called out for Wikilawyering by TarnishedPath as a result). Since this behaviour of seeking out spurious reasons to exclude coverage critical of the subject seems persistent, I propose that Meta Voyager be topic banned from articles related to Christianity. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• OPPOSE : All the parties involved in this content dispute seem to be highly conflicted. Actually Meta Voyager has shown considerable restraint in apparently not editing the article directly. Sectioneer (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  In what sense are Cordless Larry and TarnishedPath conflicted here? It looks to me as though they are just trying to prevent conflicted users from editing the article (either directly, or by creating a precedent for other conflicted users to do so via talkpage discussions). Axad12 (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, in what sense do TarnishedPath or I have a COI, Sectioneer? I hadn't even heard of the ICOC until I was alerted to the article by a question at the Teahouse. I'm pretty sure TarnishedPath doesn't have a COI either. Meta Voyager, by contrast, either "currently attend[s] a congregation that operates independently, but has a relationship with the International Churches of Christ" (per this) or is "a lay member of the church" (per this).

  Tendentious editing can take place on talk pages as well as directly to articles, and specifically includes repeated disputing of the reliability of reliable sources (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I’m not sure that an editor with less than 90 edits has the experience to comment here. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  It speaks for itself that most of @Meta Voyager's 77 edits are at the International Churches of Christ (ICOC) article or its talk and most of the of the remainder that aren't there are about the ICOC article. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Monbot

User has been adding unsourced information to the articles and has been warned multiple times on his talkpage. -- I.Mahesh (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@I.Mahesh: when you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Hi, I have encountered a bug similar to this, that temporarily prevents me from adding or removing data on specific Wikipedia pages for a time being. I have a screen recording of the issue, which can be presented to the technical team during this year's technical conference. I've added a notice as soon as I was able. Thanks for the reminder. --I.Mahesh (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Just an aside but they are a mobile editor who has made 16 edits. They are likely not to have even seen the talk page messages left for them and may not know they even have a talk page. This doesn't resolve the problem their edits are causing but just adding some context. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@I.Mahesh: Can confirm that they "provided latest and accurate information" over at 2023–2024 mpox epidemic while actually providing wildly inaccurate nonsense. I checked every edit they've made, and it's been that same complete nonsense: just pulling numbers out of a hat, often directly contradicting the ironclad source (e.g. there was weather data for 1971–1986 per the source it was obtained from, and they changed it to '1971–2024' with the summary 'Fixed typo'). I'm confused if this is a malicious pattern of injecting false information into articles hoping no one will notice (although if that's the case, why go to a heavily edited article like the mpox one and more than double the death count?) or if this is somebody who's genuinely just extraordinarly misguided and doesn't realize or doesn't care that there's a talk page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

And their user name violates the Wikipedia:Username policy. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by 2601:8C0:37F:63ED:0:0:0:0/64, again

2601:8C0:37F:63ED:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keeps removing romanized Japanese titles from articles with no explanation (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), hasn't responded to warnings and behaviour continued after a 2 week block on August 2nd as a result of this previous ANI report. Waxworker (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked again EvergreenFir (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Suga

Reporting legal threat made by 2603:8001:2EF0:A0D0:35C8:D8EE:CFEA:E8BA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Talk:Suga (diff). JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

That editor isn't threatening to take legal action, but rather making the misguided assertion that the photo used in the infobox might lead to legal action by a third party against Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It's obviously intended to have a chilling effect so it's indeed a legal threat. EEng 04:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats. Such assertions, whether deliberately or unintentionally, obviously behave a chilling effect on discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked, they are using the possibility of legal action as a cudgel to obtain a desired result in a discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits in politics-related articles

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

This editor's repeatedly added the word "communist" to Joseph Stalin's first sentence without consensus or valid explanation (see this, this and this). I warned them not to edit war again, but they've obviously ignored it. Also, this isn't the only disruptive edit they've made in politics-related articles (see this, this, this, this and this). Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @REDACTED403, @Grandpallama, @Chewings72, @Marcus Markup and @Torimem, could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This editor makes repetitive changes to dates and titles without providing any explanation for the validity of the changes or providing any reliable sources to support the changes. Chewings72 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Harimia's slow and fast edit warrings

Harimia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has perennially returned to certain articles over the past months to silently or abruptly readd large and small chunks of contested material; they seemingly have no interest in talk page discussion or consensus. (Or verifiability for what it's worth, given their recent streak at List of modern great powers.) Remsense ‥ 论 05:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I just put UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, India and Brazil as Modern Great Power. I don't have any intention to disrupting that you imagine. Due to technical errors, I could make my mistakes. Some one who delete these articles have faults. Not me. Harimia (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Your changes were contested with firm arguments rooted in site policy, and you refused to discuss them with other editors like you have been repeatedly asked in multiple situations up until this point; instead, you just put your changes back. In addition to edit warring, the onus is on the person who wanted to add the disputed material to establish consensus for it. Remsense ‥ 论 06:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

User in question’s also repeatedly duplicated the article within itself, seemingly not realizing they’ve done so - I’ve got some WP:CIR concerns. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I always follow the law of Wikipedia although I have mistake. I am sorry so please do not report it and remove your reports. Harimia (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the venue to discuss the myriad problems with the contributions themselves that resulted in their being contested. I mean, I certainly hope this stage helps and you know to start discussion on the talk page first, but others will likely be better judges of that. Remsense ‥ 论 06:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Remsense. Harimia has displayed a pattern of disruptive behaviour, lack of understanding of basic wiki policy, and a total lack of willingness to cooperate with other editors. Admins, please see the case of Special relationship (international relations). The article was outrageously cluttered and an editor had placed an "Excessive tag" for it to be cleaned up/trimmed. I completed the task on 14 May 2024. Harimia has, since that date, persistently attempted to restore their preferred version of the article, often without providing any WP:ES, ignoring the "Excessive tag", and not cooperating with others. Based on this pattern, I believe sanctions are in order. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Not with the edit summaries in this and this you didn’t.

You know, there’s a Chinese speaking Wikipedia, if that’s more your language. Your edit history suggests it. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:03, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, List of modern great powers has been protected, so that takes care of any immediate problems and sends a message to the editor (along with the warnings on their User talk page). What sanctions are you proposing? If their previous edits are fine and the problem just involves one or two articles, they can be issued a partial block. I just wonder whether or not this is a recent problem or more extensive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

A partial block seems fair to me. I would also recommend protecting Special relationship (international relations) as it seems that article has been a target of Harimia's for many months. And Harimia's edit summaries like "Do not erase", are quite indictive that they only wish to see their version of article upheld and not seek collaboration with others. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I could not understand why you erase the references that are officially recognised. Your behaviours are also not fully persuable. Harimia (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Just because the references exist doesn’t mean they back your claim of these special relationships - most of the sources you’ve used seem to be on normal relations. Very few, if any, meet the bar of inclusion for a “special relationship,” and you’ve seemingly refused to understand this. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

ToadetteEdit's non-admin closures

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

---

Yesterday, I gave a warning to ToadetteEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that they need to answer the four(!) outstanding questions on their talk page regarding WP:NACs they made:

1. § Requesting review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Clinton MFD from last week
2. § The presidential navbox RM (note that this appears to be referring to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 22#Template:Presidency of Richard Nixon) from two days ago
3. and 4. are both at § Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seneb-Neb-Af from yesterday

As I explained to TE, WP:NACD says Non-admin closers are accountable to the policies at WP:ADMINACCT, so TE's failure to communicate while they are actively editing is an ADMINACCT problem. Instead of responding to those ADMINACCT questions, they have been improving their user page: Special:Diff/1240750958/1241973317.

This is far from the first time TE has been a problematic closer:

• User talk:ToadetteEdit#Closing wikiproject-related MfDs where TE said I wasn't aware of the consequences that result from closing mfds... after they closed mfds.
• User talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive 6#Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 July 23#Template:Cantic small table – they originally closed the TFD as keep even though it was actually userfy'd.
• User talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive 6#Trump raised-fist photographs – I will let this thread speak for itself, other than noting a newer non-admin should have known to avoid such a hot-button issue
• User talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive 6#NACs at CfD – knowing how to properly work the tools you use is the bare minimum
• At their unsuccessful RfA, unnecessary relists of discussions was brought up as an issue: 1, 2

With all that said, I am proposing an indef topic ban from closing discussions, appealable in six months (for the avoidance of doubt, this would include a prohibition on relisting discussions). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 08:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, their refusal to adequately communicate, with those who have left messages on their user talk, in regards to their closes is inexcusable. TarnishedPath^talk 08:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Toadette has said at their talk page that they're quitting RM and AfD. My impression is that they're editing in good faith, but perhaps a bit too enthusiastic for their current experience level (and aren't doing fantastic with handling criticism). I'm not sure I see a need to impose involuntary sanctions on top of that right now, although it'd be worth revisiting if the same problems come back. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  I did a bit of digging. It appears that they made a similar pledge a few months ago (full text: I am indefinitely banned from closing XfDs, broadly constructed. I should also consider to halt participation as it is constantly making me a lot of problems) after yet more problematic closes (which I somehow missed in my original report), and yet here we are now. I think we need to make this official. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 08:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ah. Well then, I support with a heavy heart. I sincerely hope Toadette doesn't quit altogether, although I have a sneaking suspicion that's probably what'll happen. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support for this topic ban per my comments here back in May. Daniel (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral. @Ajraddatz: has given a similar warning (or advice, however you want to construe this one) at their Meta page. There are two ways to look at it. One is that a ban isn't imposed, and this editor finally understands what's going on, and goes to hibernate for a while. Evidently that "hibernate" hasn't happened from what I see in the comments, otherwise I would have nominally opposed this. The other is that the ban is imposed, and they rage-quit and start hibernating again (this word is used because the hope is that they wake up and start being a productive and contributive editor). The reason this is not a support is that a ban stings and I do get the feeling that this editor is good-faith and essentially ... petrified. Leaderboard (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• This reminds me a bit of User:Celestina007 who was a great, productive editor but who got ahead of themselves and took on (or assumed) too much responsibility than they should have tried to handle and got into trouble. I'm someone who has posted notices on TE's User talk page, especially when they were a new editor, and have had mixed success with it making an impact. They do good work, by and large, but are just moving too quickly with trying to take on advanced responsibilities. We need editors willing to do that but at a pace that reflects their level of experience. Having a thread about oneself on ANI can often be enough of a reality check that further sanctions aren't required. I just think this editor needs to slow down. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - The user displays a very limited range of reactions to feedback and/or not getting what they want (I am sorry, I will quit, I will cry, etc), which strikes me as a fundamental maturity issue. Obviously they want to be seen as a positive contributor, obviously some of their contributions are positive, and obviously their positive contributions are always welcome. That said, it would be nice to believe what they promise about their future behavior and move on, but unfortunately, as others note (and link) above, the user has already shown that their level of self-control does not match their ability to make promises. If they can demonstrate a greater level of self-control and maturity while editing and responding to feedback in other areas, then they'll have no problem appealing this topic ban down the line. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support This is not a user who should be closing any discussions. I'd like to say I could support some sort of "unless consensus is obvious", but I no longer have any belief they can judge when a consensus is obvious. -- ferret (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - it pains me, because they mean well. But issues like this keep arising. I don't think they're ready to be closing discussions. I feel they should stick to basic editing for now. Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support – While ToadetteEdit has made valuable contributions in anti-vandalism and other areas, they frequently misinterpret consensus, which is essential for closing discussions. I'm concerned that allowing an appeal in six months won't provide enough time for learning and breaking out of this pattern, though. A one-year period before allowing an appeal might be better. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree User:ToadetteEdit has jumped ahead of themself. I encourage the user to edit boldly and feel free to make a few mistakes along the way. Seeing the user has agreed not to close or relist, I won't endorse any block or ban; neither will I oppose community consensus. BusterD (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Ugh. Non-admins should never be closing highly controversial discussions, or ruling against strong consensuses, period. Ever. That this editor just keeps on doing both, is poor at judging consensus, and doesn't lack the judgement to figure out that if they're bad at closing XfD, they're likely bad at closing other types of discussion as well, these are bad indicators. Ravenswing 00:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ugh, indeed. Non-admins close highly controversial discussions all the time, for decades now. Non-admins close more highly controversial discussions than admins. And nobody should be "ruling against strong consensus," we call that a "supervote" and it's not allowed for admins or non-admins. Judge Toadette based on Toadette's conduct, not based on which permissions they hold. Whether a close is good or bad has nothing to do with whether the closer is an admin. Levivich (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support, this cycle of criticism & quitting isn't productive for the community, nor for the editor. Definitely involved as I weighed in on one of the discussions and that we're here again is inevitable. It's clear that Toadette isn't familiar enough with the nuance of consensus to close discussions. This time will allow them to learn more from watching other editors close discussions. @Levivich it's not just that they're NAC, it's part of the broader hat collecting with this editor. If anything they're seeing it as the super user status, not @Ravenswing, me or anyone else.Star Mississippi 02:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Controversial discussion closures should have been reserved to uninvolved admins. I encourage everyone to read WP:BOLD and WP:NAC before closing a non-controversial discussion. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Well meaning but not yet mature enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC).
• Support per above. They are really talented and I can see the brimming enthusiasm in them for editing and housekeeping/clerical works, but the slight immaturity and rushing into things needs a breather. 6 month period is adequate to lay low and take a break from the closures and then they can resume it again. Their latest reponse on the talk page about quitting Wikipedia is kinda similar to the rant on their RfA a couple of months ago, which all points to a little immaturity. ToadetteEdit is one of the most enthusiastic editor I have came across in a while but they definitely need a breather this time. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support – not much else needs to be said but I'm not convinced much has changed, especially since their failed GR request. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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

IP 2a00:23c4:b3ad:8e01:0:0:0:0/64

Persistent talk page disruption for the past two days at Talk:Gender-critical feminism from the IP block 2a00:23c4:b3ad:8e01:0:0:0:0/64. I've requested RPP, but there's a big backlog there currently, can someone please help intervene? Raladic (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Isabelle Belato blocked them. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct - Personal attacks

I am reporting inappropriate conduct made by User:Starigniter. In a recent discussion [23], they called me a "pathetic liar" and a "hypocrite" and snark remarks like I have never open a "dictionary in my entire lifetime". They also afterwards, claim I am using a "bad dictionary" despite I used Oxford. So not only do I have to put up reading their long line of derogatory remarks [24], but they are unable to accept being wrong without a large amount of verbal defensiveness. Example is when they argue that tiebreakers must always involve additional gameplay, and that dictionary supports them. I explained the dictionaries are a limited reference source that merely gave examples of common tiebreakers but doesn't actually specify anywhere they must absolutely require extra gametime to settle a tie, and gave them Oxford dictionary definition [25] that defines it more comprehensively, as well as real world examples of tiebreakers, such as FIFA football and USAGA golf, that don't involve additional gameplay in their tiebreakers, but they will dismiss FIFA football as being a silly game, and accuse Oxford dictionary as a bad dictionary while simultaneously calling me a liar and a hypocrite. Why must I argue against that reasoning/personal attacks? I already gave them a warning, yet they repeated it again[26] and I see no chance of them changing on their own in the future. Evibeforpoli (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours to prevent further personal attacks. No views on the underlying content dispute but there's no need for this level of rudeness over the definition of the word "tiebreaker." -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like they doubled down. Insanityclown1 (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'm now involved, since I've provided a 3O for this dispute, but I'd encourage passing admins to take a look at OP's behaviour here as well. -- asilvering (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Block extended to indefinite given they're just using the block period to make more attacks. Re OP, @Asilvering: happy to have a look, which specific diffs are a concern? -- Euryalus (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I share asilvering's concerns about the OP's approach, notably with these comments [27] [28] [29] that it seems like they're more interested in winning disputes or being proven right rather than in working out what's best for our articles. However I don't think it's at a level that requires administrative attention especially considering the OP is likely a little heated given the personal attacks. I've personally spoken to the OP about my concerns, and asilvering has as well. Any other editor, or an admin is welcome to speak to them if they will it useful, but hopefully the message will get through to that they need to change the way the approach disputes here and focus on what's best for our articles and not on "winning". I would add that frankly, I don't feel the OP's responses to Starigniter were that bad. Maybe they could have been more civil at times, but especially considering the personal attacks if it has stopped there frankly I would have no concerns. For me it's only the way they responded to the 3O that really causes concern. So AFAIS Starigniter really has no cause for blaming the OP in any way, not that there is any justification for the personal attacks. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist, Nil Einne. Since I personally was the one who had failed to give the answer that OP wanted, my worry was that they would be completely unwilling to hear me, and it would take another editor to help them actually step back. I was also concerned that they might be getting into the habit of "winning" disputes by getting the opposing editor blocked for bad behaviour, but I've since had time to look into their contributions and I don't see evidence of that happening. -- asilvering (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

POV-pushing by User:Hystricidae21

Hystricidae21 (talk · contribs) has been adding essay-like content promoting a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist POV to various articles. I have reverted a few of his additions, but he's been at it for a whole year and, while some of it was immediately reverted, much of it went unnoticed. For example, Compulsory cartel contained several paragraphs claiming (in Wikivoice) that public healthcare was "economic totalitarianism" for the better part of a year. I have warned him on his talk page that this is completely unacceptable and asked him to familiarize himself with WP:NPOV.

Due to the extent of his activities, I don't know if I am qualified to handle this by myself. Should I just revert everything to the latest version before he made any edits? Some of his changes may be good, but there's so much to go through, and what about later changes by other people?

I originally posted this at WP:NPOVN, but was told to post it here. Un assiolo (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You need to tell him (on his take page) about this ani (see top of this page). Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I did, 8 minutes before you posted. Is the fact that I didn't use the template a problem? It says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ to do so. (emphasis mine). I understood this as meaning that the template is not mandatory. Pinging User:LilianaUwU who subsequently added the template (immediately below my message saying that I have reported his activity at ANI). --Un assiolo (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be a thread about the NPOV thread, not this ani, however, someone has done it for you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

So the problem is that I didn't add a new heading? Neither did User:LilianaUwU. She posted it immediately under my message. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)]

No the problem is you did not link to THIS ani. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven, they did. Are you reading the same user talk page? Celjski Grad (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? I included a link to ANI followed by a link to this section, which I thought would be helpful since the user has never done anything outside mainspace and may not know how to navigate. That's more than the template does. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

yes, it seems they posted theirs at 5:02, then someone else did the same at 5:16, I missed their edit, and just saw the second person. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The standard ANI notice doesn't even link to a particular thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You also need to share diffs here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Here (see lead section), also here, adding political content unrelated to the topic of the article, more of the same. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why someone would have told you to bring this to AN/I; this looks to me like an extremely obvious content dispute over whether an article should have cited language to some economist or some other economist. Why is this a conduct dispute? Because you think that they are an anarchist? jp×g🗯️ 23:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Really? Because this edit on the "Health care rationing" page looks absolutely looney-tunes to me. It includes this as a reference:

<ref>Verify yourself why www.bergmanclinics.nl the largest private supplier of medical services in NL offers it's services only and normally with a prescription from a gatekeeper.(+31 88 9000 500)</ref>

as well as a photo of "Armed Hamas gunmen hijacking patient in hospital" which is quite bizarre for the article topic. Toughpigs (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

At best this should warrant a warning for them to correctly cite. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

83.87.67.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) must be the same person. They added similar content, sometimes to the same article as Hystricidae21. The IP's edits go back to 2021. Diffs: [30] [31] [32] --Un assiolo (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

And another one: 84.107.129.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is absolutely a conduct dispute. They were involved in multiple edit wars and never posted anything on a talk page as they were told to do in other users' edit summaries. User talk:83.87.67.120 has a bunch of warnings. The fact that nearly all of their edits are POV essays indicates they are WP:NOTHERE. On one occasion, they removed "useless references to bad works" (academic works on the subject) and replaced them with a reference to Atlas Shrugged.

I have to ask: how did this go undetected for nearly three years? Many people reverted his additions but no one bothered to investigate the person behind them? For around a year, anyone looking up self-ownership on Wikipedia got a 20 kB essay instead of a lead section (half of it an anti-abortion WP:COATRACK). This is not an obscure article; looking at the pageviews, this was seen by tens of thousands of people during that period. A major lapse on the part of the Wikipedia community. I've spent several hours cleaning up the mess and will most likely spend several more. Much of this could have been prevented had it been detected earlier. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

• Bump. I agree with Un assiolo, the edits of Hystricidae21 should be examined. (Although the IP edits may be precursors, not WP:LOUTSOCKing.) Examples of Hystricidae21's edits already given above include violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and not merely a misunderstanding of WP:RS but replacement of adequate sourcing with poor sources:
  • [33], [34], Un assiolo example, degradation of sourcing
  • [35], Toughpigs example, insertion of POV essay content in mainspace, instructing reader to "Verify for yourself" as a reference
  • [36] (by one of the IPs) and subsequent edits by Hystricidae21, converting the introduction of Self-ownership to a POV essay, Un assiolo example, see their revert on 17 August
  • [37], article referred to by Un assiolo, POV rewrite of intro of Compulsory cartel and insertion of essayistic sections on "Compulsory medical cartel" and "Compulsory banking cartel" and a paragraph presenting the "Dutch medical welfare state cartel" as an example of Economic totalitarianism.

This is surely enough to establish that there is a serious behavioral/judgement issue with their editing. (Yes, un assiolo promply notified the editor, and someone else then notified them again; Hystricidae21, can you please respond here?) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I assume the logged out editing was in good faith and was not meant to conceal anything. I have cleaned up all of their edits, both from the account and from the IPs, so that's been dealt with. They are active intermittently so I'm not expecting a response, but I will keep an eye on them in case they come back. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

This needs an indef or site ban, TBAN at the least. If you look at the "Toughpigs example," not only does it literally cite to OR ("verify for yourself"), but there are large swaths that are entirely uncited (all the "Marxist" stuff), and the stuff that is cited fails verification (check the first cite in that diff, for example). "Absolutely looney-tunes" is an apt description. I don't think this person should be touching mainspace. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to not block them, so that we can track their activity if they come back. If they are blocked, they might just come back with a different account or IP and thereby remain undetected for a while. A topic ban sounds like a better idea. --Un assiolo (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Topic bans require the editor themself to stay away from the topic, and can't be automatically enforced. So the community would still have to watch out for POV editing of articles in the topic area either way. The fact their edits have been 100% in mainspace—no talk space participation whatsoever—also doesn't inspire confidence that they will respect a community decision. Which is why I pinged them to participate here. Since as you say they edit intermittently, I suggest an indefinite partial block from mainspace to get them to engage when they return (an AGF step below Levivich's suggestion of a simple indef). Yngvadottir (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Un Assiolo already made the rip containing the diffs: Non-aggression_principle, Market_economy], Self-ownership, Health_care_rationing, Compulsory_cartel, Economic_totalitarianism, Totalitarianism, Anti-competitive_practices, Johannes_Voet, Free_market_democracy, supposedly to restore a Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Since these contributions were clearly added to create more NPOV, he is actually creating bias by reverting. Take for example the article on Free_market_democracy, which provides a different (non-fringe) view on the concept of democracy.

Most of these contributions ripped contain references to reliable sources, giving evidence of facts that were added. There might exist other references to contrary facts, if so Un Assiolo should resolve the conflict by adding nuance to the facts/matters (by for example adding context) and provide the references Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems, Wikipedia:ASSERT. Some matters (for example inferences) may look like original research, but may have reliable sources that support a POV Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation, possibly by adding some more context. Un Assiolo could have only reverted those parts and point out sources for the contrary of the matter. Sources are still lacking on pages like Market_economy, Self-ownership,

Un Assiolo should actually come up with the precise reason why he could not resolve the problem and preserve. NPOV is a very broad topic. A simple example would be the article of Johannes_Voet, where the voetstoots norm including references was removed. How was that a NPOV problem? Another example is the removal of the definition of economic totalitarianism from the compulsory cartel page, leaving us with no definition at all.

On the Health care rationing page Un Assiolo claims political screed and that NPOV needs to be restored. I suppose that he means that the page contained subjective political opinions instead of facts, but this is not the case. It is a commonly known fact in the netherlands that all medical care, with only a few exceptions require a referral of a GP. I have several references for this: "In the Netherlands, as in many European countries, the health care system has been organized in such a way that people cannot enter higher levels of medical care directly." and "Primary Healthcare In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) function as gatekeepers for patient referral to specialists." and "Private Spending Out-of-pocket payments have been declining steadily in the Netherlands – from a share of 9 percent of total healthcare spending to 7.1 percent in 2005 and then sharply to 5.5 percent in 2007.". I was about to add these references in support of this fact. So clearly this is a compulsory monopsony eliminating the market economy for patients as buyers of a basic necessity good and service (medical care).

The page Non-aggression_principle (NAP) a reversion was made of material already reviewed by many and extensively supported by references. But there is always the issue of interpretation of academic documents. Reference Roderick Long "ANARCHISM/MINARCHISM" (2008) does not give a definition of the non-aggression principle or formulate the principle currently stated on the NAP page: "initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property, or agreements (contracts)". No citations from Long (2008) are given. Long does talk about initating an action including a possible threat in: "initiating the use or threat of physical force against one who has not himself initiated force." (p157), but does not come to a principle there. But anyone who disagrees can contest this by providing citations. So the reversal actually introduced less support for any formulation of the NAP inso creating more bias. Zwolinsky (2015) also does not define the NAP. He does cite Rothbard "For a New Liberty: Libertarian Manifesto" (1973) on page 516, a document that was referred to for the NAP in the version of the article directly before the reversion: 'Murray Rothbard (1973). For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.Citation (p. 27) "... that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else."'

Un Assiolo claims that Self-ownership before his reversion was an anti-abortion essay and that is was WP:COATRACK. I will try to understand him and provide some citations for how he may have come to this conclusion: (a) "Since the legal norm of property title claim incapacitates (or bans) other people (except the zygote) from claiming property title over the same resource at the same time, the right to control or interfere with one's own body in any arbitrary way is secured." and (b) "The conception action is legally a power norm that imposes the (positive) parental duty on the parents which is understood not to violate the individual's sovereignty or impose involuntary servitude because it was imposed on themselves by their own behavioral physical interference action with a zygote as a negative claim right of the zygote to the parental duty which is an implicit obligation similar to a sanction norm in corrective justice. One is obligated not to create a zygote by an pure (physical) interference action or perform the parental duty which is an obligation resulting from negative sovereignty by assuming an implicit law on the zygote." Part (a) is based on Murray Rothbard's "Ethics of liberty" and a reference and citation is provided. It is not an anti-abortion essay, but an explanation for how self-ownership of the conceived baby comes to be. By the way Rothbard actually thinks that you can abort a baby but after birth, as he talks about in the same book. Libertarianism contains abortionists and anti-abortionists, but self-ownership is less contested and is partially supported by Rothbards principle. In extend to the anti-abortionist position, there are also many people around the world who think that there is a parental duty. In this article I draw the logical conclusion (inference) that the Voetstoots norm can be used to come to such a conclusion. I thought that would not be contested :D The parental duty is relevant to the concept of de-facto self-ownership, because without the parental duty many newborns may die or never achieve de-facto self-autonomy. I provided two references that support the parental duty position.

I mostly respond to comments made after reversions, at least the first time one occurs on a particular contribution, but I respond by resolving the NPOV issue by adding context and references. I don't see how intermediate edit results half a year ago are of any interest. I might have made an error which I corrected. It takes too long for now to go into a defense of all articles reverted. Hystricidae21 (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References

@Hystricidae21: I left a note regarding Johannes Voet on your talk page to avoid cluttering things up here. If you believe the sourcing at the NAP article is inadequate, you can add sources and possibly discuss it on the talk page, but a novel is not an acceptable source. Most of the sources you added were WP:PRIMARY sources, which are not the preferred kind of source. The problem with the text you added was that it was presenting one point of view as objective fact and not just a subjective point of view.

The topic of your article on Free market democracy is not how the term is usually used, and I don't think Mises's usage is notable enough for a standalone article. Also, most of the article was original research, which is not accepted on Wikipedia.

Regarding the health care article, those sources are better than the "verify yourself" citations you originally added, which are completely unacceptable. But your interpretation that this constitutes a "cartel" or "economic totalitarianism" is original research. You need a source saying Dutch health care is a cartel if you want to add it to the article on cartels. Regarding Self-ownership, you say I draw the logical conclusion (inference) that the Voetstoots norm can be used to come to such a conclusion. Again, this is original research and is not acceptable. See also: WP:NOTESSAY. Some of the content you added may be appropriate if you add it to a separate section, not to the lead, and if you present is as just one point of view. --Un assiolo (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Un assiolo's summary appears accurate. Hystricidae21, thanks for responding, but you're both drawing conclusions and selecting examples to support your analysis. That's not so much encyclopaedic writing as argument; note in particular the policy against original research and the policy that the reader must be able to verify everything from citations. Since you say you were intending to add better citations, consider proposing a refined form of some of your changes on the article talk pages, with better referencing (avoiding primary sources, the novel Atlas Shrugged, and instructions to the reader to make phone calls, now that you've been made aware of what we consider reliable sources). That's recommended practice when edits are contested. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Un Assiolo is misrepresenting things by saying that replacement of Long (2008) and Zwolinsky (2016) with 'Atlas Shrugged'-Rand (1957) (and Kinsella) is a problem, because many references were added later, including 'Virtue of Selfishness'-(1964), a reference work on objectivist thought. The most import sources of the NAP are objectivism, libertarianism, and international law, in particularly just war theory. The following references were present on NAP right before the reversal. Reference Rand (1957) the novel is mainly important because it is the first known written work in which the 'non-initiation of force' principle is formulated, especially the usage of the term 'initiation', in the meaning of 'relative initiation', is a first, even though many writers in history have written on the NAP in this meaning, they never-expressed themselves clearly 'Non-aggression principle a short history' Fuller (2018). User:Yngvadottir was also participating in this misrepresentation. Hystricidae21 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

These are considered primary sources for our purposes. We can't use such sources to make claims about their own legacy. Directly citing John Locke, for whom neither "libertarian" nor "non-aggression principle" existed as terms (I just checked) to support claims about the non-aggression principle is not acceptable for a tertiary source like Wikipedia. Remsense ‥ 论 00:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, @Hystricidae21, are you calling The Virtue of Selfishness a reference work? Valereee (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: mainspace pblock

• Support partial block from mainspace per Yngvadottir's suggestion above and WP:CIR. <ref>Verify yourself ... is the kind of reference that no editor should ever be adding to mainspace. Same with replacing academic works with references to works of fiction (Atlas Shrugged). Same with adding, e.g. a picture of a three-toed sloth to an article about health care rationing, which is just bizarre (as is the Hamas photo). In addition I see other examples above of failed verification, and in the article histories, edit warring to reinstate those edits. Their responses above show that they do not understand WP:OR, so they don't have the competence necessary to edit mainspace. The damage they did is significant; this is almost hoaxing, it's certainly POV-pushing, but I assume it's more a lack of competence than malice. Levivich (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would tend to agree with this. It is fine for a new editor to use some questionable sourcing every now and then, so long as they are willing to learn and improve, but it is not fine for them to just insist on continuing to do so after everybody tells them this is awful and obviously violates policy. jp×g🗯️ 22:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  @User:Valereee. Rands' VOS is a reference work or rather an informative non-fiction work on the topic of Objectivism as indicated on that page. There are more references there. Should those be copied to the NAP page too, to sustain the VOS reference?

  @User:Levivich: On the NAP page the previous and current references to (A) Zwolinsky and Long were not replaced only by Rand's novel. As indicated above a whole list of reference works was added: Hamowy,Rand,Hoppe,Molinari,Friedman,Rothbard,Locke,Kinsella, including citations. It remains to be investigated whether these are 1st,2nd or 3rd type references. To all these references, citations were attached, in contrast to the existing references (A). Hamowy's encyclopedia (probably a type 3 reference) was put together with Long in a single reference, does that indicate a relation. You mention that that these are academic works, but I requested citations above to supply support for the current definition of the NAP: "initiating or threatening any forceful interference with either an individual or their property, or agreements (contracts)". Many different formulations have been given to the NAP. One way of checking the quality of such a formulation is running it through some basic logical and semantics evaluations. For example: (1) Does interference mean physical interference or the beaching of some other constraint, e.g. a right (liberty-from whatever). (2) The principle seems to indicate that initiation of force forceful interference is illegitimate, but also that all threats of forceful interference are illegitimate. But such a threat cannot be retaliated with forceful interference and the initiation of forceful interference cannot be retaliated with any threats. Since the NAP is usually understood as a fundamental principle of morality or law this would leave severe enforcement problems. So most probably this principle is wrong and not identified as the NAP in either Long or Hamowy. But please give me a citation to prove me wrong.

  @User:Levivich: You stated "I see other examples above of failed verification, and in the article histories, edit warring to reinstate those edits.". Please can you give links?

  The damage that was done by the rip of User:Un_assiolo is significant, because not all of his deletion and reversions violated the NPOV. In one case he does not give any reason in the comments: Natural rigths. The deleted piece on Lysander Spooner contains text from his page in 2020 including references and citations from his book The Law of Intellectual Property page 63. So a summary of the book was made from the context of natural rights, using a citation. Is this an acceptable level of interpretation? I don't think you can expect a secondary source to exist for a summary (incl. citations) for every book in the context of every subject for which such context reasonably does exist.

  @User:JPxG Please give links were someone does "just insist on continuing to do so after everybody tells them this is awful and obviously violates policy"? Hystricidae21 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  reference work or rather an informative non-fiction work

  Our point is that if we're writing about the prominent concepts within a particular intellectual movement, we usually do not cite what we deem to be the "original source" of those ideas—for our purposes, those are primary sources. Instead, we almost always cite secondary sources that have analyzed and contextualized the historical impact of said primary sources on establishing those ideas, since we are a tertiary source. We cannot use a text to verify claims rooted in the conceptual impact said text had after it was published, which are implicitly the types of claims you're trying to verify.

  Hamowy,Rand,Hoppe,Molinari,Friedman,Rothbard,Locke,Kinsella, including citations.

  Let's hone in on one example here to best illustrate what we're trying to tell you: is it not a major problem to you that Locke at no point used the term "non-aggression principle" throughout his entire œuvre, and was writing in a totally different context where most of the intellectual and social concepts we use in 2024 were either situated entirely differently or did not exist at all? We cannot directly cite what he says because he was writing in a different world and to successfully do so requires an interpretive layer in between by someone who is qualified to navigate the historical differences that always result in interpretive errors among laypeople.

  I don't think you can expect a secondary source to exist for a summary (incl. citations) for every book in the context of every subject for which such context reasonably does exist.

  If such a summary doesn't exist, then it reflects too niche a point to be made on Wikipedia. We only present claims sources plainly say; we don't provide novel interpretative claims of said sources. Remsense ‥ 论 01:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  As one example, same link Toughpigs posted above and below: Special:Diff/1214758081/1215141021. Levivich (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Hystricidae21: I'll start simple. Do you understand why you adding stuff like "Verify for yourself that you cannot order an MRI scan at private hospital eng.medassist.co.il, Tel Aviv, without a gatekeeper's prescription. (+972 37724228)" is deeply concerning and not something you should have ever done? Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Other examples of "verify yourself" references: 1, 2. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @User:Levivich:

  Link to Natural rights diff.

  Link to Lysander Spooner 2020. Hystricidae21 (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry everyone, I'm slow on the uptake here. When I first saw it, I thought this diff adding a picture of a sloth to the health care rationing article was some kind of copy/paste error or CIR thing. It just dawned on me: it's a statement that government-run health care is slow. Duh, I should have known from the heading of the added section, Economic totalitarian market-driven medical welfare state in the Netherlands, described in the edit summary as Added a reference. Improved wording. No political opinion present, only political analysis.. I no longer think this is a CIR issue, I think it's anti-government-health-care POV-pushing. Levivich (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support block of any kind. These edits to Health care rationing are completely inappropriate for mainspace: arguments and opinions, including bizarre non sequiturs. Hystricidae21's wall of text responses in this discussion have not included a single instance of self-reflection, only excuses and defensiveness. Toughpigs (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support some block unless Hystricidae21 can demonstrate some emergent understanding why all of 1) the exceedingly silly sloth edit, 2) a reliance on citing Locke and Rand directly in the NAP article, and 3) "verify for yourself" are not acceptable to do. Remsense ‥ 论 05:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block from article space. This editor's axe grinding and POV pushing of fringe theories at Health care rationing has been way out of line, and any editor who thinks that a fictional novel is a reliable source for anything but the plot of that novel must be prevented from editing encyclopedia articles until the editor repudiates that bizarre notion and fully commits to the neutral point of view and our other core content policies. Proper use of neutrally written, well-referenced edit requests might help teach this editor how proper encyclopedia articles are written, but if tendentious editing resumes elsewhere, a sitewide block may be necessary. Cullen328 (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Hystricidae21, I know you are getting a lot of feedback right now but I just want to say one thing. Your writing looks like a college paper where you are using primary sources to put forward an argument that you put together. That's great writing for other venues but it's not encyclopedic writing. We don't share our own ideas and conclusions but those of reliable, independent, secondary sources. If you can't see the difference after all of these words, then I don't think your time here will last very long. If you can adjust to Wikipedia's styles and standards, well, maybe there is a way forward here but it does rest on you understanding while your contributions are not in line with Wikipedia's approach to encyclopedic writing. It's all resting on you and how you can adjust. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Aye. When I participate in deliberations like these, I only do so when I think there's some point to it: my comments above weren't rhetorical or meant to pile on someone who's already beleaguered—I would very much like that cases like these that are brought here to result in something other than one fewer motivated editor. Remsense ‥ 论 08:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support TBAN+pblock: This user seems to have serious WP:CIR issues, as evidenced by the fact they seem to confuse primary and secondary sources and their questionable use of images. A broad Economics and Politics TBAN and pblock on the respective pages would probably be good. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Iwaqarhashmi

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts § Iwaqarhashmi

User:Iwaqarhashmi is repeatedly nominating good-faith user pages for speedy deletion. They are leaving messages on the user's talk page according to the following template:

--

Hello, $username, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:$username, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development

Standard layout

Lead section

The perfect article

Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

---

This is followed by the nomination itself, again, a templated one:

---

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Neodiprion demoides requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals.

Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.

---

This behavior has a number of issues.

• Alluding to notability in the context of user pages is nonsense.

• Calling WP:U5 / WP:NOTWEBHOST is usually inappropriate. In reality, the applicable rule is often WP:UPGOOD, for example, as "A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material".

• Ignoring WP:DELETEOTHER: "Except for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion".

• Misleading about the appeals procedure: linking to WP:RFUD, while the appropriate venue, per RFUD comments, is deletion review.

---

Having seen a relevant warning to this user from their fellow editors (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iwaqarhashmi&oldid=1132532942 - "Please take care", Jan 03, 2023), I see no point in talking to them directly, as the behavior seems to be systematic.

See, e.g., User talk:Neodiprion demoides for an example. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Judging by their CSD Log, the deleting admin agreed in almost every case. I have not counted, but approximately 6 user pages are still present out of almost 300 nominated in August so far. Since the deleting admins have a duty to check prior to deleting it seems to me that there is no case to answer here. Or are you going to bring every admin who acted upon every nomination here to answer charges? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem very well versed in some of the ways of Wikipedia. Have you edited previously under another user name? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent

• Since the deleting admins have a duty to check prior to deleting it seems to me that there is no case to answer here.

That's the strongest point which I'll answer. The check might be cursory because the deleting admin recognizes the nominator (who does their things every time) and assumes their good faith.

• but approximately 6 user pages are still present out of almost 300 nominated in August so far.

That is absolutely expected, because a typical user won't bother contesting the deletion. I also checked the existing pages. User:Shubol3D was a blatant misnomination, and, IMHO, even that lonely misnomination warrants an action given a previous warning. The others were just recreated and not touched anymore by the same nominator.

• Have you edited previously under another user name?

Almost nope: two anonymous edits in my lifetime, beside those under my account. I am a longtime reader, that's it. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Neodiprion demoides Then bring every single admin whose actions you disagree with here to answer your accusation. Each of us, editor and admin alike, may be called upon to justify our actions to the community. I cannot see any of them objecting.

For clarity, I am not an admin here. Never have been, never will be. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Alluding to notability in the context of user pages is nonsense. The first template notice is a standard welcome template that is left by Twinkle when you notify a user talk page of a CSD nomination and their talk page hasn't yet been created.
• Regarding your second and third points, see Iwaqarhashmi's CSD log. it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion. The template is that notification.
• Regarding your fourth bullet point, Iwaqarhashmi didn't create the template.

An independent administrator agreed with Iwaqarhashmi that your user page should be deleted. The way to handle this would have been to wait for @Fastily to respond to your request for undeletion rather than try to get someone punished. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts See this edit by UtherSRG. It seems to me that this is an example of asking the other parent. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think asking Fastily to undelete was an issue. That's what Uther told them to do. The issue was coming here with a frivolous complaint and not waiting for Fastily to respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts I may have mistaken the timings. My apologies if so. If you will forgive me, this is so frivolous a complaint I choose not to re-check. It is this complaint which I see as asking the other parent.

One of the reasons I have made a conscious choice not to request admin status on nay WLF project is because I believe firmly in a dual key approach to deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts

• The first template notice is a standard welcome template

I do not think anyone is forced to use an erroneous template, which it is in this particular case.

• The template is that notification.

I'm calling nonsense on this. It carries no additional information beyond the nomination itself. Also, "notification" != "contacting the user". In my world, "contacting the user" is posting a meaningful message on their talk page and waiting a reasonable time for response.

• Iwaqarhashmi didn't create the template

Again, they neither were forced to use it. Correct me if I am wrong.

• coming here with a frivolous complaint

I don't think this complaint counts as frivolous, given the previous warning to that user, acknowledged by them, but subsequently ignored. This is what I cited in my opening message to justify my approach. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: I have moved this discussion from an inappropriate venue to here. I have notified Iwaqarhashmi and am about to notify Neodiprion_demoides of the new venue. I do not, however, see a case to answer and would like to propose this be closed with no action. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Neodiprion demoides, you've just experienced a sequence of actions that happen thousands of times a day on this project. Articles and pages are tagged for deletion consideration, notifications are posted, this happens all day long, your situation is far from unique. If you take issue with the deletion, you contact the deleting administrator but the editor you are complaining about did nothing wrong, patrollers tag many, many pages every day and attacking them for doing their "job" will get you nowhere on this noticeboard. You are a very new editor and you are raising questions about an experienced editor who was just going about their patrolling tasks. I think you are completely overreacting here and I hope this discussion will be closed before you dig yourself even deeper into the hole you are digging. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Liz

"a sequence of actions that happen thousands of times a day on this project."

Please back this with data or retract. We are speaking about speedy deletion of user pages, in which, I am afraid, you are off by a factor of 100 or so. I would not be surprised if a user under discussion is single-handedly responsible for most such nominations.

Per the above:

• this editor had a warning for exactly this behavior;
• already this month, their nomination of User:Shubol3D was manifestly blatant;

At this rate, I would be much happier if the task of patrolling new user pages went to a more skilled editor. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have data, just 11 years of experience reviewing CSD-tagged pages. Where are you getting your data of "off by a factor of 100" when you've only been editing for a few days? All User pages tagged CSD U5 can be found at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as blatant NOTWEBHOST violations where a patrolling admin will review them and this category is almost never empty. Your page is just one of many User pages that get deleted every day. I'm sorry you are taking this so hard but you are ignoring the advice I was trying to offer you in as kind a way as I could.

Now you could keep on this fruitless campaign, which might result in a block or you could wait for the deleting administrator to respond (which should have been your first and only action) or you could move on and go on to edit other articles. But I'm not going to get into a no-win debate with you over a speedy deletion you disagree with. I have many other tasks I do on this project, including reviewing CSD-tagged pages, and will not engage with you any more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

On 26 Aug 2024, between 00:32 and 09:33 UTC, there were 35 non-sandbox U5 nominations. This is much less than "thousands" daily, not even a hundred daily at this rate. Regardless of the rest of the discussion, which I find quite frustrating, I just don't think that factually incorrect statements have any place on Wikipedia. Please retract. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I just can't understand why this conservation is going on for this long. The user is clearly trying to do personal attacks on me, and I'm not even convinced they are here to contribute positively. They didn't wait for the deleting admin to reply to their message, and they didn't even bother to contest the deletion or contact me; instead of that, they just requested the user page to be undeleted, which was declined by the uninvolved admin, but they didn't listen to them either and filed a complaint against me on the noticeboard. Even the deleting admin agrees the user page was a gibberish page and unrelated to encyclopedia, and despite lots of admins trying to do the same, the user is not listening to anyone at all and profusely arguing with everyone. I would suggest if that behavior and personal attacks continue, an indefinite block is warranted to save other editors and admins valuable time. Waqar💬 08:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your main user page, the policy (Wikipedia:User pages) states Its normal use is to give basic information, if you wish, about yourself or your Wikimedia-related activities. Other uses likely are inappropriate and should be deleted or moved to a more appropriate location. It’s really that simple. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 09:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you alluding that the background of one's username counts no more as "basic information [...] about [...] your Wikimedia-related activities"?

Also, "Other uses likely are inappropriate and should be deleted or moved to a more appropriate location. It’s really that simple" is as much simple as it is made up. WP:UPGOOD reads differently. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Question: @Neodiprion demoides With respect, this discussion has now deviated substantially from what I think your original purpose in dragging an editor here to answer your accusations. Consensus on that appears to be solidly against you, so I ask you, what is now your purpose in continuing this discussion? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, this is getting really annoying now. They're wasting everyone's time, and I strongly believe WP:NOTHERE applies here. Waqar💬 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Iwaqarhashmi I think they should be given the chance to explain what they wish to happen. After all, they brought this discussion here. Let us see what they have in mind.

Others may share your opinion, but I have not yet abandoned my good faith. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Okay, fair enough. I agree. Let's hear what they have to say. Waqar💬 16:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello again and thanks for keeping WP:AGF, much appreciated.

I do not want to drag in the specific editor, these are the rules of this space to notify them. I prefer to minimize my direct interaction with persons of whom my opinion is strongly negative.

It is rather my purpose to have an independent editor to assess my arguments.

Importantly, I would like to hear a point-by-point assessment, and certainly something beyond editor-splaining (I have such and such extensive editor experience, so I cannot be wrong) and made-up facts ("thousands" of daily cases similar to mine).

To recap:

• The editor in question has already been warned about frivolous nominations for speedy deletion.
• The editor in question has posted at least one blatantly unjustified nomination for speedy deletion no later than this month (and that was not my user page).

Additionally,

• IMHO, the approach by the editor in question is running afoul of the above-cited WP:AGF. Quoting them, "I've been patrolling user pages for 2 years and tagged thousands for speedy deletion. I just know for a fact they weren't here to contribute positively".

Finally,

• Let's wait for the outcome of the discussion about my user page. So far, the argument against its restoration was literally, "spidey-sense" (whatever that means). I simply do not see how it is a good closing argument. This also weakens the "but the editors approved the deletions" argument: in how many other cases was "spidey-sense" also involved?

Overall, unless I am convinced to the contrary, my belief is that the task of purging new user pages is better performed without any further involvement of the editor in question. Other editors can do it better (hopefully).

Otherwise, WP:NOTHERE is a fair outcome for me if editor-splaining and "spidey-sense" are a standard approach here. Neodiprion demoides (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Neodiprion demoides Thank you. I find your explanation interesting, though I am not persuaded by it. I think your need for chapter and verse to be excessive. It may be that consensus disagrees with me and you are furnished with what you request. If so, that is good. If not, that is good.

One thing that perturbs me is that this is centred around the behaviour on one editor. You have restated that above, yet you say "I do not want to drag in the specific editor..." which seems to run counter to that.

I would counsel you against using the noticeboard for what I think many perceive (I most assuredly do) as Wikilawyering, since I feel that detracts from what you are seeking to establish.

Are you here to create an encyclopaedia?

I ask in all seriousness. Some of the evidence in your contributions is that you are, but this has become a timesink for you and others here, which, in and of itself, detracts from the building of content, the creation of an encyclopaedia.

You obviously have not chosen to head to advice I gave you on your user talk page. That's fine, I have no issue with that. Even so, is the strong discussion here the path you really wish to tread?

Shortly, perhaps very soon, a consensus will be formed to close this discussion. An experienced and independent administrator will close it with due regard to the merits of arguments on all sides. They may choose to sanction any party to this discussion. See WP:BOOMERANG and WP:MUTUALBOOMERANG.

I think there is a strong probability that you are, will be, have been, an excellent editor. You have an eye for detail. I'd rather see you as an editor than as a combatant. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

In a random order and briefly, because it is a deviation:

• Are you here to create an encyclopaedia?

Yes.

• this is centred around the behaviour on one editor

My fault in previously misunderstanding your question. So you are asking why I raised the behavior of this editor and not of any other one. Simply because I had reasons to check their record and was convinced with what I saw. If other editors are equally bad or worse, not my problem ATM. However, I might look into any of them in the future.

• I would counsel you against using the noticeboard for what I think many perceive (I most assuredly do) as Wikilawyering, since I feel that detracts from what you are seeking to establish.

Well, I believe that WP:DELETEOTHER exists for civil handling of non-straightforward cases, rather than for being a weapon in WP:WL. Treating borderline (or benign) cases as blatant WP:U5, the editor in question discourages many good-faith new Wikipedians. For the remaining cases (the clear-cut ones), this editor's expertise is not quite valuable, as almost anyone can do the same.

I'd stop here (again, because deviation). Neodiprion demoides (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You're relying on over-one-year-old feedback (not a warning, as you've framed it) that doesn't reflect the current state of Waqar's CSD log. Waqar clearly changed his practices in response to that feedback, given that almost all of the U5 CSDs are redlinks in his CSD log. You seem to understand how CSD works, but you're consistently omitting that a neutral admin has agreed with Waqar in almost all cases where he's tagged U5.

I'll note also that Fastily has now responded and declined to undelete your user page:

I saw it as a gibberish page created by a new account with few contributions. Happy to re-evaluate if someone knowledgeable on the topic can explain to me how this text is useful in an encyclopedic capacity, but not going to lie, my spidey-sense is tingling; I strongly suspect OP is a troll/NOTHERE.

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

This is going in circles. As I pointed out above, "neutral admins" relying on "spidey-sense" in their actions are not the best quality metric for the nominator. Nor is "spidey-sense" the best criterion for approving deletions.

I see the CSD log of the editor in question starting March 2023, past the warning / feedback. How can you measure the difference in behavior when the data "before" is missing?

I also see a significant upwards of monthly nominations by them. Why not speculate that they are pushing the limits? Neodiprion demoides (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Why not speculate that they are pushing the limits? Because ANI is not for speculating; it's for dealing with chronic and intractable behavioral problems, such as, for example, casting aspersions. I think others are correct that you are NOTHERE. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Support blocking Neodiprion demoides per ASPERSIONS and NOTHERE. Several editors have now tried explaining to them why they were wrong to bring this complaint, but they've now doubled and tripled down. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment I feel that motions and voting are not wholly useful even though the discussion is circular. If there is to be a formal vote I will recuse myself from it. I believe that any consensus can be judged by any independent, uninvolved administrators without formal expressions of supporting or opposing. I understand why voorts feels it may be useful, but I suspect it will create an unpleasant taste in the mouth. May I suggest that voting be abandoned in favour of simple consensus, please?

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

WP:Articles for deletion/Leverett Ball is getting out of hand

• ConstructionNGardening (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GAL666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NoobSaibot69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Laurencemball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can we get some sort of community/administrative action on this? SPA article creator was blocked for sockpuppetry after using two accounts to try removing the AfD notice on the article, and now two more brand-new accounts showed up !voting to keep the article. Got a total of four SPAs by now. Left guide (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the two more recent accounts as likely meat puppets. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi'ed the AfD as I'm sure we'll have new friends. Star Mississippi 01:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Wahreit

The user Wahreit has been continuously adding historically inaccurate claims to the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article. Wahreit has been asserting their claims primarily with various low-quality English sources. Most of their historically inaccurate claims can be traced back to a web article they and their sources are citing, which itself has no citations, and is highly likely to have copied un-cited and erroneous claims from a much earlier version of the Wikipedia article in question (passages in the article as very clearly reworded from the mid 2000's version of the Wikipedia article). I open multiple RfCs regarding the sources and content of the article but ultimately due to other users not being able to read Japanese sources which are the leading scholarship on the subject, there was no resolution met. I have already compiled the major Japanese sources for the subject and translated them on the article's talk page. The persistent changes made by Wahreit has resulted in the article presenting a baseless ahistorical depiction of the Japanese forces, which quite literally conflicts with all major Japanese sources (as well as many modern Chinese) on the subject. None of the sources presented by this user actually lead back to primary or scholarly Japanese sources, in fact most of them do not cite anything at all for the erroneous claims. I have attempted to explain this to the user on both the article's talk page and their user talk page but to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adachi1939 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Adachi1939, can you a) sign your comments and b) present diffs/edits that are evidence of the problem you see? You are supposed to present an well-developed argument so we can see what conduct you are objecting to, and that is supplied with diffs, not just a narrative. Without evidence, you are unlikely to get much of a response here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

If they state that many claims from the article lack WP:V, that should not be so hard to establish. Of course, providing some examples would be appreciated. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for the lack of clarity.

The most questionable of the sources were brought up on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The most egregious of these sources is Eric Niderost's "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse" which was published in December 2007. There are no citations in the article despite it being used to support claims on the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article. There are passages which seem to very likely be directly lifted from Wikipedia, for example:

"The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes."

And for comparison, this uncited passage from the 07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article.

"The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time) had suffered heavy losses at the hands of the Chinese 88th Division, whom they called the "Hated Enemy of Zhabei". However, their organization, officer corps and command structure were mostly intact, and Japanese forces enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars. Japanese infantry used the Arisaka Type 38 Rifle."

Another so-called historian's source brought into question—Stephen Robinson's "800 Heroes"—has almost no citations that verify the IJA 3rd Division's involvement, with most passages lacking citations altogether. The one citation that does back up his claim is the aforementioned Niderost's Chinese Alamo, which evidently has issues. This has been discussed on the talk page over a year ago.

Paulose's "Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai" is also cited. Page 18 (frame 10) states the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division and cites "O’Connor, Critical Readings on Japan, 273-75." I have not been able to read O’Connor's work and verify if this work actually mentions the IJA 3rd Division. The book is rather expensive and no libraries near me posses it.

Another web article with no citations by Peter Chen is used as well.

Lastly, Wahreit has cited page 166 (Frame 93) Marta Kubacki's Thesis "On The Precipice Of Change" which has a chart noting the IJA 3rd Division's involvement at Shanghai, however the author notes the data was "compiled from Wikipedia and Simon Goodenough’s War Maps."

It seems ridiculous to give these types of sources equal weight to Japanese sources that include official war histories and reports from the Japanese military themselves. Not only did the Japanese military staff present at the actual battle report the IJA 3rd Division was not present and it was only the IJN's SNLF, but also military historians at Japan's National Institute for Defense Studies have concluded the same in their postwar studies.

Rather than acknowledge this fact, Wahreit has rewritten the article to make it seem like the Japanese sources on the subject are unclear on this matter.

Compare the article on 2024/08/24 before his edits:

"...the IJA 3rd Division's unit history published in 1967 makes no mention of their involvement at Sihang Warehouse, instead noting the Division was in engaged in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation at the time. Period Japanese military reports similarly record the IJA 3rd DIvision as outside of Shanghai at the time (although not far away), with only SNLF listed in the attack. Senshi Sosho—the official war monographs of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy authored by the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies—have no mention of IJA forces attacking Sihang Warehouse in their volumes covering the Second Sino-Japanese War, crediting naval landing forces as the sole participating force in the attack on the warehouse."

To what he has rewritten as 2024/08/26:

"There is some contention with Japanese sources, as the IJA 3rd Division's unit history published in 1967 notes the Division was in engaged in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation as it's primary focus at the time. Period Japanese military reports record the IJA 3rd Division was positioned just west of the Warehouse (although not far away), with the SNLF (Japanese marine force) instead listed as the primary attackers on Sihang Warehouse. Senshi Sosho—the official war monographs of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy authored by the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies— credit the Special Naval Landing Forces as the main participating force in the attack on the warehouse."

The fact the IJA 3rd Division's unit history makes no mention of their involvement at Sihang Warehouse has been completely erased by Wahreit. They have also changed the information about SNLF being listed as the sole attackers to primary or main attackers. The original sources do not leave room to interpret the IJA 3rd Division being involved, but Wahreit has rephrased the content of the article in a way it may seem so.

Overall it seems they are of the belief that there is some sort of western narrative or western academic consensus with the Japanese participating forces when in reality there is basically no detailed high quality English material on the matter. Wahreit has stated:

"the consensus: the established consensus is that the primary attackers on sihang warehouse were the 3rd division from the Imperial Japanese Army. this was established on the defense of sihang warehouse page since its origin in 2006, and was only removed by adachi in early 2022 in the spirit of "removing chinese propaganda.""

None of the sources presented by Wahreit so far have been able to disprove Japanese-language war monographs and military records. If the IJA 3rd Division was in fact involved there should simply be some Japanese literature either about the division or at least one of the four subordinate infantry regiment's fighting at the warehouse. But there is not, because it did not happen. Someone wrote it on Wikipedia nearly two decades ago without a source, Eric Niderost copied it into an article, and that misinformation has been repeated up to present day. Wahreit also is unware or perhaps ignoring non-English scholarship on the subject. Taiwanese Historian Jack Hwang for example, had already written in 2018 that the attackers were SNLF in a Chinese-language article and provided a number of citations with his writeup.

Sorry for the exceptionally long response, but hopefully it is of use to others checking in on this discussion. Adachi1939 (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Adachi1939 It seems to me that this is not the correct venue. This looks very much like a content dispute, better resolved with mediation at WP:DRN. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have requested others to look over the sources on numerous occasions but it never went anywhere.

IMO this user's issue is not just their poor choice of sources and constant manipulation of the article to present misinformation which suits their opinion, but also their inability to engage with me in a respectable manner.

Rather than acknowledge the sources I have presented which contradict their information, they have framed me as a historical revisionist pushing a narrative by stating things such as: "user @Adachi1939 has been suppressing the involvement of the 3rd ija division in the battle of sihang warehouse". With this sort of statement there is little doubt their mind is already made up about the participating Japanese forces. It doesn't matter what reliable sources on the matter say, they would rather see me as wrong.

In addition, they have left a number of immature comments across the website which provide nothing of value to the discussion:

Example 1: "if youre still stalking me adachi do smth less weird with your time, would ya"

Example 2: "hey partner, checking in to see if you're okay. while i don't know you, it seems from your activity and interactions with others on the battle of shanghai and sihang warehouse pages that you're very stressed out and upset. for two years actually, that can't be good for your health. from one guy to another, i want you to know you shouldn't take this personally, and that at the end of the day this is volunteer work, not an actual job with real consequences. in the chance that you don't respond to this with an angry tirade, you should check this page out. if there are trees where you are, i'd also recommend you go on a long hike in the outdoors or maybe try taking a break from here once in a while. remember, it's wikipedia. it's not that deep. have a great day :)."

Example 3: "it seems that this adachi guy has been implementing his own narrative of sihang warehouse by framing the battle as a skirmish and chinese propaganda."

I don't see these types of comments as seriously egregious, but their overall behavior of negatively altering articles to suit their opinions coupled with poorly punctuated unprofessional writing style in discussions across the site makes me question if this user even possesses the maturity to engage with Wikipedia as an editor. Adachi1939 (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

figured since ive been mentioned here, i'd say my piece.

the reason why adachi's RFC's didn't go anywhere was because it wasn't an rfc in the first place: there was no easy to follow question or guidance for external users to comment, rather it was an accusation of me promoting misinformation and requesting someone support his side (he did the same with user @KresyRise some while back. editor @Awshort (the only response) agrees with me here:

"No comment on the content itself, but this RfC seems improperly done. There is no neutral easy to follow question for participants to answer. I have to agree with the statement by Wahreit above regarding the RfC itself." (Battle of Shanghai talk page).

the content dispute in question was one i stumbled upon a while back when making some edits based off a book i own (stephen robinson). upon editing some information in the sihang warehouse page, i found out that user @Adachi1939 has been controlling the narrative on the sihang warehouse page, where edits made by prospective editors (e.g. @Kapitan318, @KresyRise, @SPQRROME) are constantly reverted to fit his own interpretation of the battle (check the sihang warehouse page history) under the guise of "fighting chinese propaganda" or "historical revisionism." it's behavior that's resulted in adachi getting sanctioned twice (check adachi1939's talk page).

it's also strange that adachi's accusing me of being immature, when his behavior has consisted of:

accusing editors of malicious lying:

"I think you should add reading to your hobby as well. Your last edit on the Sihang Warehouse Article is yet more proof that you do not actually read sources. I'm still waiting to hear back from you on why you decided to fill the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article with a bunch of claims that your citations didn't even support." (September 2, 2023)

accusing editors of being illiterate:

Kapitan318 appears to be unable to read Japanese sources or is involved in vandalism to this article. (April 8, 2023)

accusing editors of spreading chinese propaganda:

"This has moved far beyond making reasonable corrections to the article and into edit warring to try and force your viewpoints across. There is no doubt you are trying to frame the Chinese account of events and figures presented as some sort of western consensus." (July 15, 2024)

accusing editors of being victims of brainwashing:

"While I get a strange sense of satisfaction in receiving negative responses from victims of historical propaganda to my corrections to the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article, your hostile remarks and unjustified revisions have the potential to cause serious damage to historiography on the Second Sino-Japanese War if continued elsewhere, so please reconsider your actions." (May 12, 2023).'

accusing editors of distorting history:

I am not a big fan of people that taint history. (May 16, 2023)

trying to gatekeep and control other editors:

If you are able to do this your research has no basis and your changes are not welcomed on the article (May 16, 2023)

accusing editors of spreading misinformation:

How difficult is it to just say "I was wrong about the IJA 3rd Division being at Sihang Warehouse" and move on? You are wasting precious time in your life asserting something that is simply false. Your behavior is part of the issue which is why I am calling you out on it. You've been shown why you are wrong time and time again for months now and just ignore it and try to push your fictionalized view of history. I'm sure you are an otherwise fine person but that doesn't give you a free pass to spread misinformation on one of the most viewed platforms for knowledge (July 15, 2024)

ill provide more on request.

for my part, ill concede those comments could have been more polite, but adachi has been constantly watching and following my profile for the past two months, which is evidenced by the fact he interjects into convos i have with other editors uninvited to accuse me of spreading propaganda and lies:

"Have you ever stopped to consider this sounds a lot like projection and you are in fact the one promoting your own version of the battle and attempting to suppress changes?" (on user @Alexysun's talk page, one of the first times he reached out to me despite me not involving him)

i have tried being cordial because i was genuinely concerned for adachi's wellbeing (some of the language he uses seems quite concerning), but my patience has a limit. id wish that this issue could've been resolved this without escalating to this, but i really don't like seeing the wikipedia community and its editors being treated like this. Wahreit (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN and Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:22A0:38F0::/64

Hi, this is a duplicate of another section I opened here several days ago that made it through this board without any response. The behaviour has continued since the section was automatically archived. Please see the old section. Tollens (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Tiresome ENGVAR warrior with few positive contributions, none major. A block seems reasonable. Folly Mox (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

User:SLIMHANNYA

User SLIMHANNYA seems to be using WP:BADFAITH for poltical gain and run over wiki neutrality, in the page about Kyoto International Junior and Senior High School user uses unecessary and weirdly redundant info to try demage the reputation of the school intentionally (eg. the school article text already cites that the school has 30/70 korean/japanese split, but he stil wants to double down saying that the number of korean studants in some clubs is smalller than that, even if sources from MULTIPLE countries say that the split overall of the school is 70/30), user also seems trying to use a ideologically Uyoku dantai source (Bungei Shunjū) non stop and deletes any type of sources that comes from other websites, even if other third party sources posted by me and other third party users tends to point, the same info posted as the source he deleted, even if i try to put 10 different sources telling the same thing as the original source he tries to delate it and change it back, when warned about the vandalism, instead of stop, he doubled down and tried throw the blame to me in a long post in the the talk page.
since he seems that dont want to reach consensus, i decided that is worthless engage with conversation and instead i am asking anti-vandalism action to be done for him and to original page so writing quality and neutrality be followed, i am open to futher questionaments from the moderation . Meganinja202 (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

For extra context, Kyoto International Junior and Senior High School has just won the Summer Koshien probaly the biggest japanese sports tournament in Japan, the school is a japanese-korean school and atracts the ire of jaapnese ultranationalists for various reasons it was cited in various sources in japan and outside japan as you can see here here and here Meganinja202 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment You should respond to Talk:Kyoto International Junior and Senior High School#August 2024 first before reporting to this WP:ANI.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• SLIMHANNYA has opened a talkpage discussion, which you have completely ignored. My past experience with them is that they reliably oppose nationalist editing, so my initial response to your claims here is skepticism. Suggest you participate there and drop this ANI report. Grandpallama (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by one user across multiple IPs/accounts on Kerem Bürsin

A user has been repeatedly removing a chunk of content from the article Kerem Bürsin without explanation, despite its restoration by other users numerous times and warnings on their various talk pages. They have been editing as the account Grace Wilkins (talk · contribs) and the IPs 185.160.225.33 (talk · contribs) and 185.160.224.59 (talk · contribs).

It's obviously the same person from the behaviour, but the moving between accounts and IPs also seems like a very deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny. Yesterday, when I gave them an edit warring warning on their IP talk page and an editing while logged out warning on their account user talk page, they immediately switched back to logged-in editing. Then, when they reached their final warning on that account this morning, they suddenly went back to logged-out editing (on a fresh IP, though they may not have had control over that). AntiDionysius (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Grace Wilkins (talk · contribs)' methods may leave a lot to be desired, but on the content I see no evidense that Bürsin or his grandfather had any connection to a Jewish sect. And the relevance of his grandfather's burial is unexplained. Not everything that can be sourced belongs on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with leaving the content out of the article, personally - it is the behaviour I am concerned with. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

ජපස's intractable incivility

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

At the end of March this year, the behavior of ජපස, signed JPS, was raised at this noticeboard. During the course of that thread, The Wordsmith issued a 1 week block as an AE action. A hope was expressed that the latest talk page response and jps's experience will lead cause this to be one-time event, and no further community or administration action was taken.

For the past month, JPS has resumed an aggressive pattern of behavior:

• Zanahary expressed concern that JPS was needlessly temperature-raising; JPS replied by accusing Zanahary of tone policing.

• Epachamo left a comment pleading with JPS to presume good faith and give another user the benefit of the doubt and work with them rather than against them; JPS noted this but otherwise expressed a rejection of the advice.

• Yesterday, while talking over our different interpretations of some secondary sources, JPS called my participation bloviation, i. e. being empty and pompous, and when I asked if JPS would retract the insult, JPS did not, replying that he considered it of an equivalent register to saying someone was wrong about what secondary sources said, which he said he did not consider a personal attack. I recognize that JPS says he meant no insult, though I'm not sure how calling me 'empty and pompous' isn't insulting, and I don't see how it's equivalent to disagreeing about what sources say (we seem to mutually think each other are misunderstanding the secondary sources).

Related to this behavior is a continued tendency to raise the temperature by speaking caustically about source authors. In the last ANI thread, it was pointed out that JPS objected to sources he disagreed with by making sweeping assertions and accusing scholars of being "fringe". In a similar vein, in the present, JPS is objecting to citations of the academic work by characterizing professional scholarship as flights of fancy. Seemingly according to JPS, when historians like Dan Vogel, Sonia Hazard, and Ann Taves argue that Joseph Smith manufactured a fake set of 'metal plates' (not that he possessed a supposedly magic ancient set like his followers believed; just that he fabricated a prop to use with those followers), they are engaged in psuedoscientific apologetics.

Sometimes Wikipedians disagree about how to interpret secondary literature on a topic. It happens in complicated subjects and fields, including and certainly not limited to religious studies. But whether or not one is right about the issue doesn't justify incivility. Others in the thread disagreed with me without incivility. The current behavior, even if not yet at the same sharp peak as was reported in the last ANI thread, is still part of the same pattern of temperature raising, incivility, and rejecting requests to turn the temperature down and contravenes our fundamental expectation of respect and civility. With multiple requests by different users to tone things down going disregarded, the behavior seems intractable, and I'd hope users aren't required to simply take such chronic incivility until it gets the worst it can possibly be. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

{Uninvolved comment) I have read the back-and-forth here, and this seems to me a content dispute. I do not consider anything written by jps in that thread to be a personal attack, whereas the OP is listing heavily into tendentious WP:IDHT territory. I suggest that the OP withdraw this complaint, step away from that discussion/topic for a while, recognize the possibility that they are not on the "winning" side of that particular content dispute, and consider that attempting to silence a content dispute "opponent" at ANI does not always work out well. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way I can reassure you that my concern is about the incivility and not about the content? While JPS and I did disagree about how to interpret the state of secondary literature, other users in the thread, like Feoffer and Fiveby, also disagreed with me, and I didn't bring up their behavior in the OP because they weren't uncivil. In the course of the discussion I haven't attempted to add content to mentioned articles—golden plates and early life of Joseph Smith—and as the thread stands, I don't expect my sense of the secondary sources to be added to them. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this reading. JPS really does insult and disrespect those with whom he disagrees—that’s why I, as an uninvolved observer, raised the concerns that Hydrangeans has linked to here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary: This comment reads to me like you believe there is an objective standard by which "insult" and "disrespect" can be identified. In my brief reply to you, I was expressing my honest worry that it is easy to fall into tone policing in these contexts. For example, I have said things like, "your holy book contains demonstrably false claims" and people have told me that this is insulting and disrespectful. However, I think this kind of straightforward analysis serves a clear purpose in improving the encyclopedia. jps (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone is free to click on the diff and see that you did not say "your holy book contains demonstrably false claims", you said a bunch of hostile, unnecessarily rude stuff that did not need to be said in order to make your point. And your raised example of "your holy book contains demonstrably false claims" being so far from the real material of (I paraphrase) "Worst sentence ever? Is this a joke or something? I know you Book of Mormon-obsessed folk are all drooling over this, but…" shows that you know what incivility is, and you know that you’ve been enacting it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. It strikes me as you are strongly in favor of tone policing. YMMV. jps (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

LOL ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

To be fair your tone could do with some self policing. Abrasion only polishes so far. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I really like the section at WP:ESDOS, and might be what User:Zanahary is getting at. Specifically:

"

• Use neutral language.
• Don't make snide comments.
• Don't be aggressive.

"

Epachamo (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

[off-topic?] I do see this commentary as tone policing, whether y'all intend it that way or not. Compared to the inordinate amounts of discussion on this website as to what is civil or not civil, there are very few discussions of what tone policing looks like within our online community and whether it is unduly encouraged by a robust WP:CIV policy. jps (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not it's tone policing, the question is whether you are going to police your own tone or whether others are going to police your tone for you. Self-regulate or be regulated. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia loves to regulate those they believe are insufficiently self-regulating. That's for true! jps (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Er weren't you (Levivich) involved in an extensive thread a few days ago about the evils of the pearl-clutching civility police cabal or something? Seems inconsistent. Elinruby (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Legitimate question, is there a tone policing policy, or something like unto it on Wikipedia? Epachamo (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope. Only really been discussed a few times: six months ago, in 2016, in 2020. Wikipedia culture has just always really kinda been okay with it. jps (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

[38] I thank Hydrangeans for clarifying that she was hurt by my use of the term "bloviation". I am happy to taboo use of that word with respect to her in the future. jps (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

While I'm grateful you have, albeit after multiple several requests, retracted the personal attack, I'm not sure why this commitment to changed behavior is limited not only to just one word but apparently only to me. The pattern of temperature raising and aggression also concerned other users and involved behavior toward other users. While on some level it can be nice to get special treatment, a sense that other users won't be victims of incivility would be more reassuring. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is the incivility? Nothing here from JPS looks like it belongs at ANI Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no incivility. But in looking at the links provided, I'm struck by the post two comments up from the "hope" post Hydrangeans linked to about Hydrangeans' behavior: I am slightly concerned about what might amount to a desire to take an opponent off the board, so to speak. The last time I checked, the primary definition of "bloviate" is to be long-winded or unnecessarily verbose. This filing is borderline vexatious. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I also fail to find a definition of bloviate which is not an accurate description of Hydrangeans' arguments, verbose and windily with an emphasis on the windily. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, while I don't think it's quite at ANI levels in a vacuum, reading the same discussion I did independently notice that jps was being very aggressive. In combination with past warnings, I do think it's probably deserving of a filing here. Loki (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you might be misrepresenting Epachamo's comment and JPS's response, they made an identical one on my talk page [39]... And you seem to be presenting one thing as two, there is no plea seperate from the quote but "and" suggests that there is. JPS also does not reject their advice (he does not go and try to chase anyone off or say that he will... He says he will continue to AGF even though its being stretched to the limit). Epachamo's advice isn't bad though as a universal maxim for effective editing, I find it fitting in this situation as well "I beg you [Hydrangeans] to give him [jps] the benefit of the doubt and work with him rather than chase him off, even if it takes time, patience and effort." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No incivility here, just an editor pushing against some pro-religion POV-pushing and the POV-pusher getting upset that their religious views fall afoul of WP:FRINGE 208.87.236.180 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how saying that Joseph Smith had a fake set of plates is promoting Mormonism. Wouldn't that be the opposite? Epachamo (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Indignant Flamigo's semiotic square with emic, etic, true, and false at each corner kinda explains the problem. Certain religious studies scholars don't like debunkers -- in my estimation because they don't like the quiet part being said out loud. There was even a footnote to that effect in one of the proposed sources! jps (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that jps enjoys arguing, and while that sometimes is helpful in situations where POV-pushers are trying to wear out opponents, it is so fucking tiresome when there's no "off" switch. I have also noticed a tendency to characterize situations as one click more severe than is necessary, e.g. an explanation that might not entirely oppose a religious viewpoint becomes "apologetics", a comment that takes time to parse and consider becomes "bloviation", a human person asking for some human consideration of other humans participating in a collaborative environment becomes "tone policing", etc. I don't think that approach encourages collaborative editing.

At the same time, in this particular area of the encyclopedia, we've got multiple people who actually share an opposition to the purely religious interpretation of events, but are camped out in different corners of the semiotic square. So unfortunately we get situations where (for example) "the whole golden plates thing is bullshit" is set against "the whole golden plates thing may not entirely be bullshit in one or two specific aspects but is obviously not true in the religious sense" (aka "not not bullshit"), rather than both recognizing that they share an opposition to "the golden plates were real and confirmed and holy" (aka "not bullshit"). That entrenchment is not helpful to the encyclopedia, either. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I 100% second this comment. Couldn't have said it anywhere near as well myself. Loki (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, I worry about our encyclopedia being written in a way that confuses physical reality with subjectivity and contextual belief. So while I think it fine to have an article on the golden plates, I don't think it's okay to pretend that there is any meaningful argument over whether there are or were literal physical objects... and unfortunately I saw the conversation veering in that direction in a way I continue to find contrary to WP:ENC... as in not directions a serious reference work should be going. jps (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, but Hydrangeans has provided sources that appear to show at least some secular religious studies scholars think that Joseph Smith did have literal physical plates (likely forged by him). Wikipedia follows the sources no matter what they say, so I found it very odd that you responded to this by yelling at her rather then providing contradictory sources.

Plus I don't see why this feels so odd to you? Like even outside the fact that sources exist, if I happened to be a fraudster whose claims relied on my possession of a physical object that people were going to want to see, I would also go out and make myself a forgery of said physical object. Loki (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

What I have been trying to explain, but have been accused of "misreading" or "misunderstanding" is that these scholars are arguing on the basis of "plausible explanations" for what they think are the contexts of these texts. I have absolutely no objection to Wikipedia mentioning, even in some detail, these scholars "flights of fancy" (yes, I called it that and, no, I don't think it insulting). I don't even object particularly to the story itself. It's a nice one. Clever. I like it. But there is no way to confirm (or disconfirm) that this is what happened! So what I object to is a problematic conclusion, reiterated multiple times by multiple people in that thread, that "Joseph Smith likely had a physical object...." No, there is a plausible explanation (story) for how it could be that he might have had a physical object, but there is also no real evidence that he had anything at all. Everything is based on a web of "testimonies" which were, as far as I can tell, a kind of currency of truth in that time and place but do very little to confirm any facts of the matter from the perspective of a person interested in knowing about, say, physical evidence for a claim.

My main motivation comes from how I see how Wikipedia phrasing gets consumed and interpreted by students in their research. Something as simple as "Joseph Smith had physical objects" in wiki-voice with a buncha citations after it is basically taken at face-value. I wish it weren't the case, but it is. I would like Wikipedia to avoid that very particular wording because it is misleading. jps (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

JPS... I am sorry if I am being thick, or am missing something, but would you mind (since you've raised the argument) explaining what exactly WOULD be satisfactory evidence of an historical fact to you? In this case, the incredibly mundane question of whether or not a man did have plates made of metal in his possession, irrespective of whatever looney claims he made about them? How is anything in history "verified"? Is there some minimum number of people that have to be present to witness a thing? In addition to secular observers, should there have also been a Roman Catholic priest, a Baptist minister, and a Jewish rabbi? Would a physicist with a PhD have to have shown up to verify that metal objects were physically present, then publish it in a journal? Whatever it is you're claiming to be insufficient seems unrealistic, but it might be helpful if you would say what WOULD be sufficiently "verifiable evidence". 73.2.106.248 (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:ASF. As I said over at WP:FTN, we can say in WP voice that the Joseph Smith Papyri exist. jps (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the behaviour of ජපස. Recently, they blanked a section in Worship of heavenly bodies. When I restored it, rather than taking the issue to the article talk page, which would be the correct and respectful path, they went directly to a noticeboard [40]. The way their characterize my edit "Skyerise insists we have a section ..." and "I am worried that this is WP:POVPUSHing" seem to verge on personal attacks, considering we haven't yet even discussed the issue on the article talk page. In my opinion, this editor needs to moderate their pushy methods: premature forum shopping? Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

In response to this, they posted this rudely terse post on the article talk page, not even deigning to engage in any form of actual discussion. Is this the way editors are expected to behave? Perhaps a bit of a wikibreak, voluntary or enforced, is in order when an editor can't even use their words? Skyerise (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Well certainly if we're going to talk about editors who need to have their tone policed, it seems sensible that you should be here. --JBL (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Would someone wanting to support a case against jps please provide three diffs of recent incivility (and nothing more). It's ok to post a dozen links in an opening statement, but please start with the punchline and don't make us wade through fluff. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Alexchuan1998, copyright, and non-communicative

Alexchuan1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been trying to add copyrighted images on this project (and in Commons as well) since the start of their editing career. On here, they had added three copyrighted images (two of which had been deleted, and File:Kara Karasia Aug 2024.jpg), with the latter added here after it was deleted at commons c:File:Kara Karasia Aug 2024.jpg. They are also non-communicative, not responding to the messages on their talk page and even reverted on my earlier reversion of their copyvio edit (Special:Diff/1242327857) without edit summary. I consider myself involved with this editor at this point and would like another admin to step in, but I believe this editor at this point exhibits WP:CIR and WP:COPYVIO issues. Also to note that this editor also has been blocked at Commons. – robertsky (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've deleted the image. I note the user also seems to add gossip/unsourced/badly sourced material to pop culture pages, which isn't good. Together with the image issue and their uncommunicativeness I wonder if a short block may attract their attention? Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Good idea, except not a short block, they may not even notice if they edit sporadically. Just indef with a relatively gentle "please reply to the concerns on your talk page in order to be unblocked" message. I'm not sure if we still need to assume that someone doesn't even know they have a talk page or not; maybe WMF has fixed that, at least for non-IP's? I've lost track. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  If it helps, I mobile edit everything, it’s from my device’s web browser (not through an app), and I get notifications of new Talk Page messages, and reversions. Happy to go into more detail / answer further questions to inboxes of users with WP:NONPUBLIC under their belt. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam, @Matticusmadness: Well, there's WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Unsure how required it is for WMF to keep that page up-to-date, but it did get edits by multiple WMF employees and was most recently edited by @Suffusion of Yellow about the iOS app in June.

  It's likely the best overview short of testing things yourself. – 2804:F14:80E7:9C01:2940:4A05:7800:86B7 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't quite understand why we're talking about this since the editor has only once in their 96 extant edits used mobile apps or sites which were what caused concern. I have no idea if the editor knows they have a talk page, but their ability to know is not that different from any other similar use over the past 10 years or so since the massive notice was replaced with the smaller one assuming they are using the default skin. Nil Einne (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  BTW the editor does or did know they have a user page on commons [41] and was able to find a talk page to sort of ask for help [42] Nil Einne (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Imo, I think indef block would be good until they realised that they are blocked and respond on their talk page. – robertsky (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

What's the normal procedure when someone steals a draft you made and claims they made it?

It's been quite a long time since something like this has happened to me. Been working on this draft for the past week, started it on the 21st. Was just about to move it to mainspace when that was blocked. I found out that Norma Phillips exists, when it didn't previously. And it reads somehow exactly like an earlier version of my draft. A new account, User:Mannawoke, made it two days ago on the 25th, claiming that they wrote it. They also made two further additions that essentially added in any changes I had made to the draft in the meantime. Including just an hour or so ago when I added the infobox to my draft.

Strange timing for someone to try this, making me wonder if this is related to the ANI filing I made earlier this month. Completely unrelated topic to then, but since the harassment was directed at me in particular (and, after that event, also had the person post a really vulgur image to my mostly unused Commons user talk page), it just makes me wonder.

Anyways, what even is the proper procedure for something like this? Silverseren^C 04:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Editor notified. Silverseren^C 04:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The editor's two most recent edits at the current moment make me feel stronger that they are indeed a sock of User:Lemmaille from the prior ANI discussion I linked. Mannawoke as a new account voting in the AfD for Cal Horton falls in the same trans topic area as Lemmaille was focused on. Then this random addition on Fur Affinity seems like exactly the kind of trolling that Lemmaille took to in a flurry right before they were banned. So I suppose I should head WP:SPI-ways? Silverseren^C 04:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, that is an obvious copy/paste of your draft, right down to the red links and disambiguation links in the citations, and the exact same citation style, and exact same refs. I don't know what the proper procedure is, but copying within Wikipedia says duplicating material by other contributors that is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable under US law (as the governing law for Wikipedia) requires attribution. So if the article is to remain, they must fess up and attribute the content to you. This appears to be the version from your draft, they initially created their article with. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Since it's a copyvio of my draft, I honestly would just prefer it be deleted so I can move over my fully completed version. Silverseren^C 04:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, definitely strong sock smell, note that two ([43], [44]) of their edits were related to articles of mine, so it looks like this user is hounding people that recently reported their sock as I filed the SPI following the ANI that @Silver seren referenced and seems to be following Silver and me.

It looks like a lot of these sock accounts were all registered on 27 December 2021, but are lingering with 0 edits until they get activated for sock usage now. Is this something that a check user could use to preemptively see how many more of these accounts with same registration date and 0 edits exist? I filed an SPI investigation for this new account. Raladic (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The article can be Speedy Deleted per G5 (and maybe G7?), then you can keep your draft as you add content to it. Conyo14 (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)