Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 452: | Line 452: | ||
It has been requested at [[WP:Close requests]] for [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022]] to be be closed. As I said at ''Close requests'', I think this would be best served by a panel of administrators closing the discussion rather than one poor schmuck. Thanks, [[User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|<b style="color: #ED2939;"> ''Iamreallygoodatcheckers''</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|<b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b>]]</sup> 02:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC) |
It has been requested at [[WP:Close requests]] for [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022]] to be be closed. As I said at ''Close requests'', I think this would be best served by a panel of administrators closing the discussion rather than one poor schmuck. Thanks, [[User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|<b style="color: #ED2939;"> ''Iamreallygoodatcheckers''</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|<b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b>]]</sup> 02:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
:I agree; it should be a panel of schmucks.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 02:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:49, 21 February 2023
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Open tasks
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 9 | 36 | 0 | 45 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
RfD | 0 | 2 | 23 | 0 | 25 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 8 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 124 sockpuppet investigations
- 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 1 Fully protected edit requests
- 1 Candidates for history merging
- 1 requests for RD1 redaction
- 6 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 46 requested closures
- 151 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 24 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reiner Gavriel destroys 3 authorative sources here and replaces them with 1 non-authorative source: [1][2]. If something doesn't fit his narrative, he calls it biased and not neutral: [3]. If you check Durdzuks, Ingush people, Vyappiy, you will see that he has a pattern. It's good to mention that the person seems to not like people of Ingush origin as to why would he want to add Phallic statue image to Ingush people article, his 2 colleges even said that it's unnecessary. Insulted me here by saying that I have "shown over and over again that my sources are either simply bad or straight up non-existing": [4]. Hopefully the adminstrators will resolve this issue and bring back the authorative sources and stop Reiner from vandalising them. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- You provoke him, write against the Chechens. Add sources with completely different information. Товболатов (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- None of those "3 authorative sources" were "destroyed". In fact you are the only one who had removed one source, which I simply readded to the article. It's outrageous of you to accuse me of "not like people of Ingush origin" and then claim I have insulted you for pointing out that several articles of yours were deleted for shockingly bad sources and that you have lied about sources before, as you can see here. Regarding the Phallic statue, it is part of the Ingush history and played a big part of local pagan cults. I have tried finding a middleground with you but you were not willing to work on it, preferring removing it because "writing this in this article is an insult not only for me, but for many Muslims!". Anything you don't like should be removed, anything you like, even if the source is exceptionally bad, should be added. That is simply not how Wikipedia works. As I can see you have been blocked from the Russian Wikipedia for doing this. I sincerely recommend staying neutral and realistic. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- You removed the 3 authorative sources and replaced them with 1 non-authorative source here:[5][6]. Denying the reality isn't helping you at all, you removed following text: sfn|Крупнов|1971|p=37sfn|Волкова|1973|p=153sfn|Жданов|2005|p=71. I was banned in Russian Wikipedia 2 months ago because I was unexperienced user and did some mistakes, but this shouldn't matter as I have changed and now only edit everything neutrally and with using authorative sources which you usually like to destroy. I always edit the page neutrally, however you vandalise the articles associated with Ingush and revert my edits calling it biased, despise me sciting authorative sources or you just call it "vandalism" when it's not. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Again, none of those "3 authorative sources" were removed, they were moved because I replaced "Ingush society" with "Chechen and Ingush society", which it is, no matter what your personal opinion is. There are Vyappiy Chechens. You can't deny that, it's a fact. You are nowhere close to being "neutral", it was pointed out several times in articles you have created and were rightfully deleted. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Reiner Gavriel first of all as you know Ingush and Chechen sources on the matter of ethnicity aren't authorative and aren't neutral, they are interested parties. Not only your single source wasn't reliable, but it didn't even back up your claims — Nataev simply claimed the society as whole Chechen and he also claimed Kostoevs (which is ridiculous). I have told you so many times but it seems that you're not understanding: Chechen Fyappins are offspring of Ingush Fyappin taip Torshkhoy that migrated to Aukh and the Chechen Fyappins are very small minority compared to the Fyappin society in Ingushetia that is Ingush. There's nothing hard to comprehend. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Товболатов I didn't provoke anyone. Reiner removes 3 authorative sources and adds 1 not authorative source as a replacement, reverts edits and calls everything "vandalism" and "biased narration". He puts images of Phallic statues in Ingush people, is this normal to you? It's clear that his intentions are bad and he wants to make fun of the Ingush. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is a related dispute to the one opened at the section on Таллархо above. There have been extensive attempts to resolve through discussion on relevant article talk pages, but the involved editors are at an impasse as far as the use and admissibility of sources related to the crux of the content dispute, and rather than escalating to an appropriate dispute resolution process the conflict has devolved into edit warring across multiple articles to a degree of intensity that makes it difficult to tell if anyone is in the right at a glance. Таллархо crossed the line by making ethnonationalist personal attacks so that was a good block, but I'm concerned that WikiEditor is now trying to win the dispute as a whole through ANI. I'm going to try to dig around more and possibly impose page protection on some of the affected pages, but would appreciate more independent eyes on this. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, I unfortunately need to step away from this for some time due to other appointments I have today. I will note that I came within a hair of blocking WikiEditor for personal attacks against Reiner Gavriel and the general pattern of disruptive editing across multiple articles (which appears to be continued from ru.wiki, where they were blocked for falsifying information), but was not able to research the dispute to a degree where I would feel comfortable following through. Elements giving me pause are that while I do speak Russian, I'm not familiar enough with the relevant scholarship to be able to identify at a glance who is correct about claims of removing "authoritative" sources, and that there may be some validity to the accusation that Reiner Gavriel is placing undue weight on the prominence of the phallic cult among Ingush peoples, as I can find relatively few results concerning that topic when I search for it in English on Google Scholar. signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- May I please know where did I try to "personally attack Reiner"? I didn't personally attack him, and I always try to be as professional as possible without any insults. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Rhetoric like
destroys 3 authorative sources
, accusing them of vandalism, and accusing them of harboring anti-Ingush sentiments without providing clear supporting evidence are all forms of personal attacks. Accusing Reiner of filing frivolous sockpuppet reports and calling itIt's one of his favorite things to do when opponent is winning in the argument
is further a personal attack in the absence of evidence to back that assertion up. And this is just a list of examples taken from this specific discussion section at ANI. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Rhetoric like
- Rosguill, I never accuse anyone without showing proof — Reiner really did remove 3 authorative sources and I backed it up twice with these 2 links: [7][8]. Reiner reverts my edits in Bats people and destroys Volkova's sources which are authorative too and adds in between the referenced text his own opinion which wasn't mentioned in the sources: [9][10]. I don't know how me saying that Reiner removed 3 authorative sources was considered personal attack but Товболатов clearly implying that I wasn't properly raised and bringing up my parents wasn't even looked at: [11]... Товболатов also insulted Ingush people in Russian Wikipedia and it amasses me that no admins warned him for such words:
“ | Well, yes, and you fought against us in the Caucasian war, seizing our lands after part of our people moved to Turkey. | ” |
— Товболатов[12] |
“ | You whine and cry for the whole world after a 4-day war with Ossetia, 30 years howl for the whole world. Everyone around is to blame except you. | ” |
— Товболатов[13] |
“ | If Moscow decided so together with the Ossetians, then you will have to endure, you swore an oath that you will endure forever since 1770. The Constitutional Court ruled, so there is nothing to covet foreign lands. | ” |
— Товболатов[14] |
, note that the text was in Russian but I translated it to make it easier for people who don't speak Russian. Because of the request ([15]) of admin Rosguill, I won't enter a discussion for a while until the admins assess the situation. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Rosguill, you should see that while we were discussing with Reiner in Vyappiy, he tried to immediately get me and another user Muqale blocked with false accusations: [16], but this case was quickly closed and his attempt to get me blocked for false reasons failed. It's one of his favorite things to do when opponent is winning in the argument. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Rosguill Hello, WikiEditor1234567123 tries to send all participants to the block with such requests. This is not the first time he changes accounts often. There is an experienced participant here who is well acquainted with this situation for more than a year. He is a Russian-speaking administrator Ymblanter, he can give you advice in this situation. There are a lot of articles on Ingush topics hoax WikiEditor1234567123 knowing that the sources here are not particularly checked, it expands these articles and creates legends. People who understand this begin to roll him back, he accordingly starts a war. Several times I found one information in the sources, and WikiEditor1234567123 writes something completely different. There were two of his articles, they were deleted; in general, it was written that the Ingush defeated three empires. From his first edits, he made a war here with other participants.--Товболатов (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Look at these articles there at the very beginning that he created. Even the administrator was surprised by Ymblanter.
- .List of wars involving Ingushetia # Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving Ingushetia
- .Nazran conflict. # Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazran conflict (2nd nomination)
When he realized that the article would be deleted, he began to quickly correct the information there. But still, the article looked very fantastic.--Товболатов (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Товболатов The admins found nothing on me in your investigation, I didn't abuse multiple accounts, so what's the point in still spreading this false accusation? In Nazran raid I was warned and since then stopped editing that page, accepting the "result". About the two articles, I made mistake making them and I greatly apologize for that however they were deleted and it's been month, no need to bring up the past. If you check my recent created articles (16 articles), they are all well made with authorative sources and neutral point. Why not talk about the fact that you tried to make Ингуши в Турции deleted but this was denied, here: [17]? Why not talk about the fact that in Russian Wikipedia, you insulted Ingush, here:[18][19][20]. You try to send all your opponents into block by accusing them of sockpuppetry which can be seen here: [21][22]. Most of the stuff that you accuse me of are false and I would appreciate if you wouldn't make such big accusations, thanks. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Tell us how many of your articles were sent to drafts after suspicions about the administrators' fake.--Товболатов (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Only two of your articles have passed the test, the rest weigh at the Unknown. No need to brag.--Товболатов (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, you yourself confessed two months have passed and you continue the war. I can't believe you.--Товболатов (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Товболатов EXCUSE ME, where did I insult your parents and why mention my parents!!? Where did I insult you? I wasn't raised either to make false accusations of people and attribute such things to them, this is unacceptable! I never insult someone's parents as this goes against any kind of norms. As I have mentioned many many times the admins found NO CONNECTIONS with other accounts that you said I have connections. I was proven innocent and this should be the end of that. Why are you deliberately trying to attribute such things to me? Rosguill is this normal? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Rosguill this isn't the first time that Товболатов has made false accusations about me, he tries to take me down by making such accusations, however that one is just unacceptable! Not only he attributed such thing to me but also brought my parents into this matter and implied that I was raised wrongly! This is clear as day personal insult! WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I’ll take a picture about my parents, but explain where and when I insulted you? this is another participant in the Russian Wikipedia, we will take off a simple dispute over the article. you don't participate at all. He wrote to me and I wrote to him. This is all without proof that I insulted you. WikiEditor1234567123 . Rosguill is this normal?? without proof. If I insulted someone, the Russian administrators blocked me long ago like you WikiEditor1234567123.--Товболатов (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty clear that WikiEditor is interpreting the statement you made, and then removed in this edit, as an insult directed at their parents. You have removed the statement (striking would have been preferable), so that is now largely moot. signed, Rosguill talk 22:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Rosguill, first he made that wild accusation and brought my parents and insulted me and my parents by implying that I was raised wrong. Then he removed his statement as you too saw here: [23] and then tried to make a fool out of me. It should be clear that he's just making as much accusations as possible about me to take me down, he and his colleague were trying to do that by saying that I do Sockpuppetry however the admins found nothing on me and proved that I'm innocent. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I’ll take a picture about my parents, but explain where and when I insulted you? this is another participant in the Russian Wikipedia, we will take off a simple dispute over the article. you don't participate at all. He wrote to me and I wrote to him. This is all without proof that I insulted you. WikiEditor1234567123 . Rosguill is this normal?? without proof. If I insulted someone, the Russian administrators blocked me long ago like you WikiEditor1234567123.--Товболатов (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Rosguill this is not the first time he is trying to distract everyone here from the topic, to mislead other participants. How he misleads readers WikiEditor1234567123 he again tries to avoid responsibility as he did last time. You can fall under his influence, be careful. I already see that you wanted to block him now you have changed your mind. I would not believe him yes he writes well here. But as soon as he returns to satatya, he will immediately start a war.--Товболатов (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
WikiEditor1234567123 Why do you say that I offended you this account Anceran in Russian Wikipedia is yours??--Товболатов (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Rosguill There is a link where an Ingush participant insults my parents. I can provide.--Товболатов (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- How is that "Ingush participant" connected with me in any way? The admins have proven that I have no connections so please refrain from those accusations. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Товболатов, if that insult is unrelated to WikiEditor then there's no need to bring it up here. My sense is that both of you are trigger happy to find offense at each other right now, and that everyone would benefit from taking a step back and seeking uninvolved input on the content disputes, without continuing to edit war. signed, Rosguill talk 22:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't know, the previous administrator told me if this member continues to break the rules or make wars, then I can apply here.Товболатов (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I meant my comment more in the sense that all parties to this dispute have clearly already provided the relevant evidence for others to look through, and that further back-and-forth between you at this noticeboard two is unlikely to help your case here. Evaluating the evidence will take time because of how long this conflict has been going on for, the less-than-stellar behavior on display from both sides, and the relative obscurity of the subject matter. signed, Rosguill talk 22:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps it was him before that a member with this similar name Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor wrote to me and insulted me from this account Roberson4096. Here is insult can you check if he is or not.--Товболатов (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor that's him for sure @Bbb23: Hello! The accounts Ghalghai'Wiki'Editor and Niyskho belong to Kist-Dzurdzuk, who is blocked on ruwiki. I understand --Товболатов (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- My assessment at this time is that we're only going to be able to get to the bottom of this once we have a community assessment of the sources that Reiner Gavriel and WikiEditor have been fighting over, and I think the best method to do that is to have a moderated discussion related to the spelling of Fyappiy vs. Vyappiy (or other spellings) at WP:DRN, to pick one dispute that cuts to the core of the issues between this group of editors and which seems like it should be relatively easy to identify a correct solution for. There's been back and forth personal attacks, but a lot of the diffs raised in this discussion are from ru.wiki, relatively old, and in the context of heated disputes with other editors uninvolved here, so I'm disinclined to sanction on the basis of them. I note as well that the SPI request linking WikiEditor to an LTA was closed with the conclusion that they are not the same person. If Reiner Gavriel, WikiEditor1234567123, Товболатов, and any other editors party to this dispute (Muqale?) agree, I'm willing to moderate the proposed discussion at DRN. signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Rosguill Sure, I will agree to discuss about Fyappiy, however it's not just about the correct spelling, it's also about the ethnic belonging of Fyappiy. It's good to mention that in this dispute Товболатов wasn't involved with the page Fyappiy and didn't have disputes with us in that article so I think he's not needed in the discussion. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Rosguill thank you for your attention to this topic. Recently, when making requests, members who write on Chechen topics are blocked, and WikiEditor1234567123 is left to be edited. I hope after your intervention this issue will be considered neutral and not one-sided.--Товболатов (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Rosguill, I've noticed that I was tagged by you in this discussion. I myself am an ethnic Ingush, and just recently started creating articles and ofcourse have a separate interest in articles regarding my nation, and was suprised to see that there even was an edit war going on regarding the Fyappiy considering their obvious ethnic belonging to the Ingush. I've entered the discussion in the Fyappiy talkpage and was immediately falsely accused of being a sockpuppet by Reiner Gavriel. I prefer not to engage in edit wars when the other side does not seek consensus or decide their version is the only correct one, so I left the discussion. When I recently noticed another strange statement in the Durdzuks article, I removed a falsified statement. See here. And Reiner Gavriel, seemingly monitoring my edits I suppose, immediately reverted it, in bully-like manor, so I invited him to seek consensus and asked him to provide evidence for his edit here. After failing to back up his statement with evidence (source material). He altered the statement, again with his own version of the truth, just like his previous statement, which he defended for a long time. I've personally not come across Товболатов, and am unaware of his connection to some of these nationalist edits. The reason why I assume this is nationalist editing is because both Reiner Gavriel and Товболатов seem to be mostly creating and editing Chechen-related articles, which means they have a bias in this matter. I would advice to keep in mind that Ingush-Chechen relations are not the smoothest. See here and here. Renaming and turning Ingush clans and families into Chechen (like the Fyappiy article) is a way of eventually claiming the territory of the lands these families live on. A form of propaganda. This is why this situation needs special attention. I am willing to discuss this matter further if it requires further attention by Wikipedia administrators. Thank you for your attention to this matter.--Muqale (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- So I'm still waiting for Reiner Gavriel's response here because DRN is an optional, opt-in process, but I wanted to note in response to Muqale and Товболатов's comments that the reason I suggested the Fyappiy/Vyappiy dispute was because it involves the use of sources that seem central to the broader dispute, and because English Wikipedia's article-naming guidelines are relatively straightforward and thus makes good and bad behavior more obvious than for say, a discussion about the relative WP:DUE-ness of a potentially-controversial claim. I also didn't want to exclude anyone who may have been party to the dispute, hence including Muqale and Товболатов--if either of you are not interested in participating that is OK and we can proceed without you (assuming that Reiner and WikiEditor are still on board). signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Rosguill. It's been now more than 3 days and Reiner, instead of replying here about a discussion at DRN, keeps on editing the page Fyappiy, here he removed according to him unrelated information to the article (the information was about the history and anthropology of Fyappiy which are very important) and added once again non-authorative source alongside the 3 authorative sources which claim Fyappiy being only Ingush. Here in Bats people, he once again removed authorative source from Volkova, famous Soviet-Russian caucasologist and historian and added his own text which isn't even supported by the authorative sources I put in the first place. I don't know how to deal with this, if a person doesn't wanna engage in discussion at DRN and keeps on removing referenced text and authorative sources. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- DRN is optional, generally participating in discussions and consensus building is not optional. It looks like "Vyappiy" is the original spelling on Wikipedia, so from a procedural standpoint it should remain at that title until a consensus to change it is reached. You should start a discussion on the talk page to propose a change if you disagree with the current title. If the discussion stalls, you can seek uninvolved input at WP:ORN or WP:NPOVN. If editors continue to edit war after discussion on the talk page has begun, that would be a clear violation of editing policy and can be reported to WP:AN3. signed, Rosguill talk 15:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Rosguill. WikiEditor1234567123 removes confirmed information from authoritative sources from the encyclopedia in several articles. see his contribution --Товболатов (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Товболатов You add unrelated information to articles Khamkhins, Arshtin and many many others. I deleted the information only because it didn't have any connection to the article, you know this yourself. You purposely added the unrelated text to the articles so that later you could write it here to Rosguill and make lie that I remove referenced text. Let's take for example this [24], explain how the text is related with the Arshtin? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Last time another administrator Callanecc warned him not to do more than two cancellations per day. This time he made 27 cancellations. --Товболатов (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Where did Callanecc warn me not to do more than 2 cancelations? As I have mentioned you added purposely unrelated information so of course I had to remove the unrelated information. Care to explain how for example this [25] is related with the Arshtin? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
January 2023 Edit Information icon Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Nazran conflict, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Stop icon Your recent editing history at Nazran conflict shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Товболатов (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is a different situation as there's exemptions to this rule:Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions. You purposely spammed unrelated information like here:[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34], which didn't leave a choice for me other than return to the previous version. I don't understand why you're mentioning Nazran conflict when you were reverting edits there too. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The information directly relates to the articles, it just doesn't suit you, you delete it violating the rules. You have been here for 6 months but have not studied the rules of the project. If there is information confirmed by an authoritative source, I can add it. Why does this hurt you, you yourself said that the Chechens are your brothers. And if we are brothers, we are one people.--Товболатов (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- This text [35] that you purposely spammed on articles about Kalkans, Khamkhins, Fyappiy, Fyappiy Mokhk, Arshtin, Ghalghaï, Galashkians, Nazranians, Ingush societies is not related with the articles, it's simply spam and very disruptive. Surely the Chechens are mine brothers, but with all due respect this doesn't allow you to spam unrelated information and ruin articles about Ingush. You have many times insulted Ingush people ([36][37][38]) so I doubt that you consider Ingush as brothers. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
When I politely asked you, you considered it a weakness and continued to edit. But I'm not like that if you ask politely, I won't do it, my parents didn't raise me like that.--Товболатов (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Товболатов, please provide specific diffs (links are ok too) when making accusations. This is a basic requirement of participation in discussions regarding an editor's conduct. signed, Rosguill talk 17:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t understand why he quotes phrases from Russian Wikipedia. Anceran like he said that it was not him. Anceran this member violated the rollback rules, his administrators deprive the rollback flag. Here he first began to insult 1, 2, 3 For this, his administrator deprived the status of a rollback edit.--Товболатов (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Here, for an example, more than two rollbacks per day in the article Galashkians 1, 2, 3. In another Nazranians 1, 2, 3, 4. In another Vyappiy 1, 2, 3, 4. After the warning 1.--Товболатов (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- At Galashkians, you appear to be the editor instigating the edit war. At Nazranians and Vyappiy, it looks like normal WP:BRD between the two of you. The specific diffs you provide here just look like normal editing. Further, your edits at Fyappiy and Nazranians, where you add unnecessary bold text (Special:Diff/1139723084, Special:Diff/1139723019) are violations of WP:POINT. Further tendentious editing in this vein will result in a block for you. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Here, for an example, more than two rollbacks per day in the article Galashkians 1, 2, 3. In another Nazranians 1, 2, 3, 4. In another Vyappiy 1, 2, 3, 4. After the warning 1.--Товболатов (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Rosguill clearly I didn't know that highlighting was a violation. I'll remove it, but tell me why you only revealed my violation. And it's like you didn't notice it. Didn't he break the rollback rules --Товболатов (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Editors are allowed to revert changes--the issue is when edits are repeatedly reinstated without discussion. In all three of the articles you provide links to above, you are the editor that is introducing new changes that are then objected to: the burden is on you to start a discussion related to why your changes are appropriate. Administrator intervention is only appropriate if your attempts to discuss (which should begin on the talk pages of those pages affected, not spread out across AN reports) are ignored and disruptive editing continues. The ball is in your court to win a consensus for the changes you suggest. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- @RosguillWe need to see who started to conduct provocative texts that have no sources. Here you need to find out who provokes conflicts, why this happens so often. The Ingush are known in the Caucasus for their fakes. Why is only the Chechen side being blocked, which essentially removes the falsified text. Merjuev Salovdi (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Here he accused me yesterday that I insulted him. But check where I insulted him. 1 Constantly some false accusations.--Товболатов (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- This has already been addressed above
I think it's pretty clear that WikiEditor is interpreting the statement you made, and then removed in this edit, as an insult directed at their parents.
It's unnecessary and inappropriate for them to bring it up in an edit summary, but neither is it accurate to call it a false accusation. signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- In this article, look, I did not delete anything and did not return the title of the article. Everything he did there is the same. Although I was against it. The main problem is that he violated the rule of two kickbacks. If now it is so left, he will continue to make kickbacks. You know better, I will not advise you, but this will constantly have consequences not me, so the other will contact you.--Товболатов (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Deleted info here. Muqale 1--Товболатов (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I see under any circumstances I will be to blame. I probably won't edit here again. Do what you want. My violations are detected at once and their violations are bypassed.--Товболатов (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Rosguill. Several Ingush-related articles on my watchlist have been spammed by user Товболатов [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] with the same nationalist edit. After being warned by you to not resort to tendentious editing, Товболатов didnt remove this spam text, see diff. Ingush and Chechens are separate nations who are not mutually intelligible. The Ingush people have their own language, culture, customs, anthem, republic, flag, etc. It seems to be on ongoing issue, as I keep stumbling on these kind of edits by the same users on Ingush-related pages. It appears these users refuse to acknowledge the Ingush' identity as a nation, which false under the category of nationalist editing. --Muqale (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Muqale WikiEditor1234567123 This is not the first time these two participants have accused me of nationalism here. Please pay attention to their obvious aggressive actions towards me. Making unfounded accusations. 1, 2. Today 1 I did not write anything nationalistic, this is a well-known fact Nakh peoples.--Товболатов (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Товболатов explain these massive removal of referenced text and the authorative sources in Galashkin naibdom please:[47][48] [49]. I made the lead section neutral ([50]) where I mentioned both the opinions on the naibdom being Chechen and opinions on it being Ingush, I don't see the reason for it to be deleted. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Let's take it in order 1, why did you delete it? I removed bold text everywhere yesterday after the admin said.
- 2 Further on the article Galashkinskoe naibstvo. Here, another participant explained everything to you (an administrator in another project), but you also accused him of nationalist edits — Talk:Galashkin naibdom.--Товболатов (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
«Overview of the political state of the Caucasus in 1840»[10] and «Military Statistical Review of the Russian Empire // Caucasian Territory, 1851»[11] mention Galashkians as Ingush among other Ingush societies like Nazranians or Nearby Kists. Historian Volkonsky wrote in 1886 in his book «War in Eastern Caucasus from 1824 to 1834 due to Muridism» that Galashkians are an Ingush society,[12]
I returned the article to a neutral version. I left your edits, but I removed further unclear text.--Товболатов (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
1. The text was removed due to it being completely unrelated with the article. Refrain from spamming that text, it's very disruptive.
2. "Another participant" (Takhirgeran Umar), didn't explain anything, he didn't even make sense and it's clear nationalistic editing: [51][52]. Him being adminstrator in another project (Chechen Wikipedia) doesn't mean anything as we are in English Wikipedia.
3. You removed the text about map of Imamate combiled by Chechen naib Yusuf Safarov, it wasn't unclear at all. You also removed the sources in lead section and removed neutral version. Regarding the title of the article, two times I wanted to have discussion beforehand with you but you ignored me: [53][54], so I renamed the article to accurate English translation which you somehow had issue with. Wikipedia should be neutral and because of this, the lead section should contain both the opinions of the Naibdom being Chechen and opinions on it being Ingush, I propose this neutral version:[55]. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- N.b. Товболатов has been topic banned from this topic due to tendentious editing related to the above dispute and cannot respond further here. signed, Rosguill talk 16:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I can then transfer the entire text from Arshta to this article; everywhere in the sources, the Galash people are mentioned as Chechens. Get a mess.--Товболатов (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I see here I am secretly discussed and accused of nationalism. Takhirgeran Umar (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Long-term pattern of hounding and disruptive editing by User:The Banner
This December 2022 issue, relating to a long-term pattern of disruptive editing, came to my attention while following up on my 2023-01-28 notice of a FAR needed for Minneapolis, an FA I have followed intermittently since 2007.
History
The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has two topic bans in place: a 2020-11-12 two-way interaction ban and a ban from nominating articles at AFD (more on that below).
Previous ANIs (there are more—I stopped looking after these):
- Hounding raised in 2017 and closed with no consensus by Kudpung
- July 2016 AFD related, closed by Fences and windows with another topic ban
- October 2015, AFD related
- January 2015, civility
Relevance to AFD and notability: 2022-10-31 banned from nominating articles at AFD by Vanamonde93 per this ANI discussion of hounding and improper use of AFD. The comments from other editors about competence merit a thorough read and reveal issues directly relevant to The Banner's December 2022 activity:
- Fram raises hounding,
- GiantSnowman raises the “clearly notable” aspect of The Banner’s AFDs
- Several editors in that discussion point out the articles AFD’d are highly notable.
- Star Mississippi mentions that
The Banner has learnt nothing from this discussion or is being deliberately obstructive
- Drmies says
this is a good time to take those concerns seriously
- Levivich says
indef would be better
- A unanimous topic ban from nominating articles AFD is enacted
- which brings up to The Banner's related activity at Minneapolis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
December 2022
See these sources for the Owamni restaurant and their dates:
- The New Yorker, feature, 2022-09-19
- BBC, feature, 2022-09-28
- PBS, feature 2022-05-05
- NPR, feature, 2022-10-24
- The New York Times 2021 restaurant list “50 places we’re most excited about right now”
- NBC News 2022-11-24
In this 2022-12-16 discussion, SusanLesch proposed an image of the Owamni for the Minneapolis article which was created by Another Believer and which SusanLesch had previously edited on December 15, 2022.
- 17:59, December 17, 2022 SusanLesch points out the Owamni’s notability to The Banner
- 19:20, December 17, 2022 The Banner acknowledges having read that post
- 19:38, December 17, 2022 The Banner follows SusanLesch to the Owamni article and tags it as not meeting notability, non-neutral, and containing weasel words (I’m at a loss on all three of those tags)
- And in the ensuing talk discussion The Banner does not back down
Considering everything pointed to The Banner over years of discussions about AFD, notability and hounding (including a topic ban for same), following SusanLesch to this article to place not just the notability, but three gratuitous tags, suggests that stronger action is needed. The appearance is that, since The Banner can no longer AFD, they hoped that the notability tags would achieve the same end. This seems to be a continuation of hounding problems, and skirting of the AFD topic ban, while ignoring how clearly notable the article subject is, along with gratuitous tagging just to round out the civility, hounding and competence issues.
This editing is disruptive, has been going on for years, and comes in particular at a time when SusanLesch has been diligently laboring away at the lengthy lists I park on talk of things that need to be corrected to maintain FA status. It appears to me that Levivich had it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Notification: [56] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Discussion of Long-term pattern of ... User:The Banner
- Thanks @SandyGeorgia. While I haven't interacted with The Banner since the fall AfD referenced above, I recall thinking and possibly commenting in the thread that the ban was going to be a bandaid, and the problematic conduct would just move elsewhere since, as quoted above, he hadn't learned or enjoyed obstruction. Star Mississippi 14:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- There are other pieces I have to add, but I ran out of time and have to get out the door for an app't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- User:The Banner--why did you make this edit? An experienced editor knows that this is exactly the kind of thing that should be able to stand with primary sourcing; it's a relevant comment in the context of the origin of the things they serve, and it's properly ascribed and gives motive for the restaurant's choices. I'm not putting this here to convince you, because I think you know this, and I know this isn't a revert of SusanLesch; I'm commenting on it because it is not a good edit and it seems to indicate a refusal to drop a stick that you picked up with this edit, an edit that I don't really understand: there were no weasel words ("decolonized menu" is NOT weasel words), there was no dispute (you posted on the talk page much later), and there was reliable sourcing for a nationally recognized award. While I believe that Another Believer's write-up of restaurants is sometimes problematic, and that I had a minor disagreement (if that) with SusanLesch (see Talk:Minneapolis/Archive_9), what I see in the history of Owamni--how is that not you following them, and then continuing on the talk page in that fashion? I have been your friend, colleague, and sometime defender for a decade or more and what I see on that talk page saddens me. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- iPad editing from car hotspot, Drmies, there is more ... keep looking, The Banner just keeps gutting reliably sourced and relevant info (as if a restaurant's architecture is irrelevant ?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I had to ask The Banner to please leave me alone recently. The hounding, the retaliatory tagging, the repeated removal of sourced content, the combative talk pages discussions, actively interfering with my Good article nominations, etc, got to be too much. I do not want to interact with this editor and I do not want them interacting with me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Talk:Bailey's Taproom/GA1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, see the bottom of the review. Talk:Bluehour#Notability_/_Advertising is another example of interference, yet I was still able to get the article promoted to Good status. I could share more examples. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Just as a note about GA: the process does not assess notability. I've pointed this out multiple times in similar discussions. The fact an article has a GA does not confer notability. FWIW, I understand and share the frustration of folks who repeatedly ask which sources support a claim to notability and instead in response get drowned by the addition of dozens and dozens of sources that don't. Valereee (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- No one has said GA status = notability, so there's no need to keep making this point. Has nothing to do with The Banner's inappropriate behavior. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Just as a note about GA: the process does not assess notability. I've pointed this out multiple times in similar discussions. The fact an article has a GA does not confer notability. FWIW, I understand and share the frustration of folks who repeatedly ask which sources support a claim to notability and instead in response get drowned by the addition of dozens and dozens of sources that don't. Valereee (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, see the bottom of the review. Talk:Bluehour#Notability_/_Advertising is another example of interference, yet I was still able to get the article promoted to Good status. I could share more examples. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Talk:Bailey's Taproom/GA1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have never (to my memory) had any significant interaction with The Banner, but my assessment of these diffs provided by several different users above is not a good look on them. The repeated refusal to elaborate on things when asked is to me very unacceptable. If you tag an article, you'd better be darned sure to identify examples of problematic text. If they believed it was "the whole article", then it would be trivial to find a representative passage. Their refusal to do so means either a WP:CIR problem, or they are just being obstinate and disruptive. Either way, this is a symptom of a problem that has spread much farther than AFD. At minimum, I would expect to extend the topic ban to cover all discussions of notability, tone, npov, etc. But really, a full cban may be in order. Not going the be the first to propose something, but yeah, something needs to be done. This kind of behavior is an issue. --Jayron32 19:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I like The Banner. I think he often makes sense. But "refusal to get the point" when consensus goes against him is a long-running theme. It's basically what I indef'd him for way back in 2014 after a one-week block didn't get the point across. Following "enemies" around is clearly not appropriate or acceptable; nor is peppering people trying to improve the encyclopaedia with problems then refusing to engage in discussion to resolve them. Noting, though, that he hasn't edited for week so there's no need to rush this discussion to a conclusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have belatedly realized that The Banner is also over at the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Minneapolis, where (if I had read thoroughly yesterday, I could have avoided doing all the homework of digging up the background in this dispute) they have been ascribing motives to SusanLesch's appropriate use of DR. I have also just launched an RFC to hopefully get the trainwreck that has been occurring at Minneapolis for over two years under control, so a Featured article review can focus on content. As I have taken a position in that RFC, I am no longer neutral in the image matter. But with a past topic ban, two current topic bans, problems in interaction with now three editors (past two-way ban, AnotherBeliever and SusanLesch), and with CIR issues apparent in both restaurants and Minnesota, potential t-bans, Levivich again seems right and there's nowhere else to go with this extensive conduct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- What action are you proposing that the community takes? Shouldn't this be at ANI? GiantSnowman 21:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- It was my impression that something that happened in December, and does not require an immediate decision, does not belong at the Incident noticeboard. I don't know whether this should be a site ban, indef, or topic ban, but if a topic ban, it's got to cover two editors, and several broad topics, so that doesn't appear to be the way to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- What action are you proposing that the community takes? Shouldn't this be at ANI? GiantSnowman 21:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Tangential discussion collapsed.
|
---|
|
- Jayron32 above suggested a cban might be in order, but did not want to launch the proposal. GiantSnowman asked for my suggestion, which I hesitate to add, as I'm not an admin and don't feel qualified to say what precisely the proposal should be for this case (indeff, cban, or some very lengthy list of tbans and ibans for The Banner) and having never heard of this editor before, I don't know what other factors might be considered. Without a proposal, I don't think it helpful to allow Magnolia677 to derail the real discussion here; they're already edit warring over at the NPOV RFC,[57][58] which is a separate matter; also derailing the discussion here should not be rewarded. It's making it easy to see why Minneapolis had become the most fraught FAR pre-FAR I've ever encountered, and it's clearly not because of SusanLesch. As a non-admin, if I must put up a proposal for The Banner, it would probably be a tban along the lines mentioned by Jayron32, as well as all-things Minnesota, as they have followed Minnesota editors to pages and targeted them, as well as a iban from anything Another Believer or SusanLesch work on ... well, the tban and iban possibilities go on, so maybe indeff instead. I don't see the reasoning for a cban (which I believe is better for situations where there is socking etc), but not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- There's still the issue that The Banner hasn't edited since the 4th so very likely doesn't even know this discussion is happening. Personally, I feel he should have a right of reply before we start seriously considering sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, and thought that your original suggestion ("there's no need to rush this discussion to a conclusion") was reasonable and the way to go. Meanwhile, we had an entire tangent here muddying the water, and shouldn't let that be cause for closing this thread. So I again suggest hatting the tangent, and waiting for The Banner to show up. I don't know that editor, but an examination of their contribs seems to suggest that an absence this long is unusual. We shouldn't reward the issue often seen in arb cases, where editors stop editing to escape sanctions, so if The Banner doesn't show up in a reasonable amount of time, we might proceed to whatever sanctions are supported by consensus anyway. That is, however the arbs usually handle those situations where the subject stops editing mid-case ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- +1 ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, and thought that your original suggestion ("there's no need to rush this discussion to a conclusion") was reasonable and the way to go. Meanwhile, we had an entire tangent here muddying the water, and shouldn't let that be cause for closing this thread. So I again suggest hatting the tangent, and waiting for The Banner to show up. I don't know that editor, but an examination of their contribs seems to suggest that an absence this long is unusual. We shouldn't reward the issue often seen in arb cases, where editors stop editing to escape sanctions, so if The Banner doesn't show up in a reasonable amount of time, we might proceed to whatever sanctions are supported by consensus anyway. That is, however the arbs usually handle those situations where the subject stops editing mid-case ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- There's still the issue that The Banner hasn't edited since the 4th so very likely doesn't even know this discussion is happening. Personally, I feel he should have a right of reply before we start seriously considering sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Jayron32 above suggested a cban might be in order, but did not want to launch the proposal. GiantSnowman asked for my suggestion, which I hesitate to add, as I'm not an admin and don't feel qualified to say what precisely the proposal should be for this case (indeff, cban, or some very lengthy list of tbans and ibans for The Banner) and having never heard of this editor before, I don't know what other factors might be considered. Without a proposal, I don't think it helpful to allow Magnolia677 to derail the real discussion here; they're already edit warring over at the NPOV RFC,[57][58] which is a separate matter; also derailing the discussion here should not be rewarded. It's making it easy to see why Minneapolis had become the most fraught FAR pre-FAR I've ever encountered, and it's clearly not because of SusanLesch. As a non-admin, if I must put up a proposal for The Banner, it would probably be a tban along the lines mentioned by Jayron32, as well as all-things Minnesota, as they have followed Minnesota editors to pages and targeted them, as well as a iban from anything Another Believer or SusanLesch work on ... well, the tban and iban possibilities go on, so maybe indeff instead. I don't see the reasoning for a cban (which I believe is better for situations where there is socking etc), but not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please do not close the thread altogether because of a tangent. Issues with The Banner still need to be discussed, IMO. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Adding a timestamp (bot archived this open discussion only four days after last entry so I unarchived); if there is no further input on which way to go from admins, I will lodge a proposal in a few days if I must. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's not really "open" if there have been no comments in four days on one of the most-watched, most-edited pages on the wiki. The Banner hasn't edited since the 4th, six days before this thread started so there's no ongoing disruption and no reason to think he knows about this thread. I suggest it be re-archived and the matter can be resurrected if necessary when The Banner returns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- My preference then would be to go ahead and take some action, lest they come back and continue this long-term pattern of disruptive editing. Since it doesn't strike me that a community ban is warranted (as my impression is that cban is usually reserved for instances involving socking and other more overt disruption), and the list of topic and interaction bans that would be needed/warranted is quite lengthy, then that leaves an indeff, which would be appealable via the usual means when/if The Banner returns. If it's an issue of seeing this thread archived when The Banner actively stalked and disrupted articles by at least two other editors, after a lengthy history of same, then I will launch an indef proposal. No action does not seem the best option here; what The Banner did at Owamni is quite shocking, considering the history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- HJ? Should we proceed with a proposal, or put a no-archive on this thread to give more time for The Banner to re-appear? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- My preference then would be to go ahead and take some action, lest they come back and continue this long-term pattern of disruptive editing. Since it doesn't strike me that a community ban is warranted (as my impression is that cban is usually reserved for instances involving socking and other more overt disruption), and the list of topic and interaction bans that would be needed/warranted is quite lengthy, then that leaves an indeff, which would be appealable via the usual means when/if The Banner returns. If it's an issue of seeing this thread archived when The Banner actively stalked and disrupted articles by at least two other editors, after a lengthy history of same, then I will launch an indef proposal. No action does not seem the best option here; what The Banner did at Owamni is quite shocking, considering the history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's not really "open" if there have been no comments in four days on one of the most-watched, most-edited pages on the wiki. The Banner hasn't edited since the 4th, six days before this thread started so there's no ongoing disruption and no reason to think he knows about this thread. I suggest it be re-archived and the matter can be resurrected if necessary when The Banner returns. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Adding a timestamp (bot archived this open discussion only four days after last entry so I unarchived); if there is no further input on which way to go from admins, I will lodge a proposal in a few days if I must. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Procedural quirk in WP:GS/CASTE
I just semi'd Bharatsinh Madhavsinh Solanki under WP:GS/CASTE, and, in going to log it, noticed an unusual quirk to that GS regime. Unlike most CT or GS regimes, which apply to "all pages related to X, broadly construed", the CASTE GS apply only to "pages about social groups ... related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal". So, "about" rather than "related to", and no "broadly construed" (despite the claim on the GS/CASTE page itself of "pages with content related to South Asian social groups") In light of this, I'm happy to reverse my protection (or convert it to a regular admin action), but this would also mean a number of other logged protections exceed the scope of the GS, such as Rao Tula Ram and Bijli Pasi. Should such protections be reversed? Do we need a formal consensus to change to "pages related to South Asian social groups, broadly construed"? Or is it enough to say that years of enforcement as if that were the scope makes it the scope? Personally the third seems most sensible to me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think expanding the scope to involve historical caste figures (such as Bijili Pasi) would be reasonable; the pages (including that one) I have protected are because of caste warriors trying to either history-wash or otherwise overrule the existing historical literature; in other words it was still caste-based disruption in my mind, but an expansion of the scope might make it less nit-picky. Primefac (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think the most sensible thing to do would be to formally notify the relevant places of this discussion (I haven't looked to see if you've already done this) and see if there are any objections to changing the scope as you describe. If there are none after about 7-10 days then make the necessary changes. If there are objections then someone uninvolved can determine the appropriate course of action at that point. Personally I'm in favour of adjusting the scope to match what it's been treated as. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: Which venues did you have in mind to notify about this? WT:GS doesn't seem to be used much. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Tamzin everywhere that you would have to notify if we did decide we needed a formal consensus discussion to amend the scope, e.g. wherever the GS were agreed in the first place, relevant WikiProjects, maybe relevant article talk pages. This is the first involvement I've had with this GS and probably about the first with the topic area so you will know far better than me where these places are. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Notified WT:GS, WT:IN, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Asia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nepal, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka. The original authorization was at AN/I, so I think this thread at its parent noticeboard suffices as notification. But anyone is welcome to drop {{please see}}s anywhere else they see fit.
:)
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Notified WT:GS, WT:IN, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Asia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nepal, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka. The original authorization was at AN/I, so I think this thread at its parent noticeboard suffices as notification. But anyone is welcome to drop {{please see}}s anywhere else they see fit.
- @Tamzin everywhere that you would have to notify if we did decide we needed a formal consensus discussion to amend the scope, e.g. wherever the GS were agreed in the first place, relevant WikiProjects, maybe relevant article talk pages. This is the first involvement I've had with this GS and probably about the first with the topic area so you will know far better than me where these places are. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: Which venues did you have in mind to notify about this? WT:GS doesn't seem to be used much. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I also think adjusting the scope to match practice is the way to go; I suspect the odd wording was unintentional. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly it. I was the original proponent of these sanctions and, if memory serves, it was one of the first times that the community decided to impose community-authorised general sanctions that were basically a copy of arbcom-authorised discretionary sanctions. As such, the various kinks hadn't been ironed out yet... Salvio giuliano 09:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I also agree with modifying the scope to match practice (and where it's needed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I concur. I often leave the warning notice on user talk pages but had not noticed the quirk. @Tamzin that talk page may not be used much, but it is still a decent place to post a message and start of a GS based discussion, linking that section back to here. One might publicise the discussion on relevant Wikiprojects? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with others above, this seems to just be an error in wording (though I'm surprised it lasted this long without the issue being rasied). Unless there is some evidence that it was intentionally phrased like that and has been enforced abusively, the simplest thing to do seems to be correcting the error by updating the scope to match what it has meant in practice. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
WikiEditor1234567123 Muqale
Muqale WikiEditor1234567123 This is not the first time these two participants have accused me of nationalism here. Please pay attention to their obvious aggressive actions towards me. Making unfounded accusations. 1, 2. Today 1, 2. I did not write anything nationalistic, this is a well-known fact Nakh peoples. Товболатов (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Per the notification at the top of the page, when you open a discussion about particular editors you are meant to notify them. I have gone ahead and done this for you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- For reference this appears to be about a series of edits, here are some examples of those [59] [60] [61]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've imposed a topic ban against OP as an arbitration enforcement measure following a string of edits that cannot be interpreted as anything other than tendentious. I would appreciate additional eyes on the topic area, as other editors have also displayed less-than-stellar behavior. However, I have investigated the specific accusations made by Товболатов in this thread and do not believe they require sanctions in relation to these accusations at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 16:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm unsure of the copyright status of the source they are using, but their addition is a one to one copy of the Google translations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- @RosguillDue to the lack of knowledge of this topic in the English Wikipedia, false data are added. This is especially noticeable in the participant's @WikiEditor1234567123l Unfortunately, the Ingush side often resorts to fake edits is easy to check by the composition of the sources). Therefore, we ask you to consider this problem again. Merjuev Salovdi (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Unban request for Sbb1413/Soumya-8974
The following was posted as an unban request for Sbb1413 (talk · contribs) (Formerly Soumya-8974):
- I have already understood why I was banned by the English Wikipedia community. I was banned from the entire site for my disruptive edits, lack of competence and racism. Since then, I have attempted to reform myself in several other Wikimedia sites, including Bengali Wikipedia, Commons and Wikivoyage. After some time, some editors have commented that I have become a valuable contributor. So I think I should be unbanned in English Wikipedia and if I were unbanned, I will focus to the articles on West Bengal and possibly the whole India and avoid the areas that led me to my current situation. I may also use WP:AFC/R sparingly to create useful redirects in accordance to the relevant policies.
NOTE: Ban was last requested to be lifted in the discussion here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure they're really addressing the cause of the ban tbh; it doesn't bode well that, in this request they promise to
focus to the articles on West Bengal and possibly the whole India
. While in the discussion linked to above, this very area was deemed problematic. Sdrqaz noted thatRegarding competence on Kashmir pages, I have had limited interaction with this editor but I have nonetheless been left frustrated
while Thryduulf considered a topic ban from Kashmir a bare minimum. Having said that... SN54129 18:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC) - Comment Looking at their user talk pages for activity since the en.wp block in October 2021, shows almost no evidence of collaborative editing and some evidence of problems being ignored. I'm not going to outright oppose at the moment, but this combined with the request does not fill me with confidence. I would definitely oppose a return without topic bans from redirects, Kashmir and possibly also India. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's a bit silly to be making this request with a banner at the top of their talk page stating
I have formally declared me as a former English Wikipedian (2017–2021) and will never return.
-- Tavix (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)- I have no opinion at the moment about this particular request, but must observe that if we banned people for silliness then we would have very few editors left. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Soumya was banned for a lot more than just silliness. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have no opinion at the moment about this particular request, but must observe that if we banned people for silliness then we would have very few editors left. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:UAA Backlog
Hey folks, looks like quite the backlog over at Usernames for Admin Attention. 2600:6C40:7E7F:6445:FDE0:95C0:C500:51C (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Mostly gone-- for now. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Requesting edit summary removal
Apologies if this is the wrong place to request this, but can an administrator quickly remove the racist edit summary of this edit by an IP editor on a vandalism spree? Thank you in advance. Yue🌙 22:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Non-admin, but it's now resolved. In the future please use the advice at WP:REVDELREQUEST :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Improperly blocked?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per WP:PB drove me here. I was just wondering if I was improperly partially blocked? Because I kinda do. I just need some views from other admins if this action was justifiable. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 09:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Rejoy2003 What do you feel was improper about it? 331dot (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hasty judgement? lmao ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact)
- If there's something funny here, I'm not seeing what it is. You came here. It's up to you to tell us what was improper about your block. In reviewing what I have so far, it seems to me that the block is valid. You will need to show that you understand the reasons for the block and will not repeat them; in this case, copyright violations. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's understandable if you don't find it funny. Although I loved the question you asked and your reply actually does makes sense. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 10:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Had it been me blocking, the block would not have been partial. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- A hand does have different sizes of fingers, you know. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 13:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- What Deepfriedokra said. Salvio giuliano 12:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Deepfriedokra too. If you want to be unblocked you need to take the time to understand why you have been blocked, and why your article was delated, why that deletion was snow-endorsed at DRV, and why we aren't finding your situation in the least bit funny. Then you need to demonstrate that understanding The more comments you make in more places before you do that the greater the likelihood that your partial block will become a full block. You are on thin ice, tread wisely. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: 👍 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Deepfriedokra too. If you want to be unblocked you need to take the time to understand why you have been blocked, and why your article was delated, why that deletion was snow-endorsed at DRV, and why we aren't finding your situation in the least bit funny. Then you need to demonstrate that understanding The more comments you make in more places before you do that the greater the likelihood that your partial block will become a full block. You are on thin ice, tread wisely. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Had it been me blocking, the block would not have been partial. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's understandable if you don't find it funny. Although I loved the question you asked and your reply actually does makes sense. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 10:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- If there's something funny here, I'm not seeing what it is. You came here. It's up to you to tell us what was improper about your block. In reviewing what I have so far, it seems to me that the block is valid. You will need to show that you understand the reasons for the block and will not repeat them; in this case, copyright violations. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hasty judgement? lmao ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact)
- Is this an appeal of the block to WP:AN? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, of course it is. What else could it be? The advice at WP:PB is pretty useless, because it says to follow the instructions on this page but there are no instructions to follow. The appeal is pretty obviously going to fail, because the appellant hasn't demonstrated that they understand that you don't violate copyright, but I don't think we can fault the venue when we give such poor advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Considering the response Rejoy2003 has got from five admins already, I'd kind of hope not. Might as well close this. SN54129 17:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is a strange complaint. The blocking admin, User:Moneytrees, explained the block, if anything, more precisely and fully than most admins do. I'm baffled that Rejoy2003 should want even more explanation. If this is indeed an "appeal to AN" (a rather indirect one), I'll say Decline quite forcefully. Bishonen | tålk 19:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC).
I'm not sure I have anything to add here that I haven't already said on Rejoy2003's talk page. Actually, User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks has some good advice on appealing copyright blocks. I try to make most of blocks for copyright violations partial blocks since it can make rewrites easier-- if an editor I've partially blocked is causing issues at other venues, then I have no issue with another admin making it a full block. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- You’ve been more than reasonable, going above and beyond in trying to explain something very simple to someone who does not want to listen to you. From this non-admin’s point of view, I’m impressed with your patience and communication skills. For the OP… less so. If they carry on demanding ever greater detail on something that should be fucking obvious, well, we’d be better off without them, alas. — Trey Maturin™ 20:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Proper block by Monkeytrees, proper denial of unblock by Yamla. The OP seems to have an informal view of copyright policy. I do appreciate the OP has been helpful in talkspace during their block. Understanding copyright is fundamental to proper attribution. Non-compliance with copyright policy is a deal breaker. BusterD (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- If User:Rejoy2003 wants to be unblocked, he should read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, Wikipedia:Copyrights, and the user essay User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks; formulate an unblock request either off-wiki or at User:Rejoy2003/sandbox, then come back to this page with his new request once it's ready. Animal lover |666| 13:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Removal of retired editor from Mentorship
Hi, I recently noticed that User:Kaleeb18 has retired (mentioned on their userpage) and hasn't edited for 4 months now. Yesterday, a new editor asked a question on his talkpage, but like several other questions before it, it went unanswered. So, kindly remove him from Special:ManageMentors. To notify him about this development, I've left a talk message at User talk:Kaleeb18#Your tenure as Growth Mentor. Thank you! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- As a side request, there should be a database report that lists mentors if they haven't edited for a week, or have put retired, or away templates on their userpage. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Done @CX Zoom: I removed Kaleeb18 as a mentor, I think their mentees will be reassigned in a batch process. There are several phab tasks open to try to address this issue, see phab:T321509 and linked tasks. — xaosflux Talk 16:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Confirmed, this batch process, example user changed. — xaosflux Talk 16:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Xaosflux: Can this task be automated by an adminbot? Because it would be quite tedious to remove mentors following every inactivity period or retired/away templates, until phab tasks are resolved. It should auto-add them back as mentors when they are active, otherwise the mentor will lose interest in mentorship if they have to re-add themself all the time. This may warrant a VPPR thread before proceeding, just floating some ideas here. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom maybe parts of it. There are 2 different conditions that could happen, one is an 'away' mentor, that is a per-mentor status flag, when you are away mentee questions should go to another mentor. The other is what to do with a completely retired/forcibly removed mentor; when you completely remove a mentor all of their mentees are reassigned permanently. I suggest going through the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features first, many of these have tech solutions being looked in to already. — xaosflux Talk 16:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Side note, I don't think a bot that forcibly reenrolls someone as a mentor is a good idea, re-enrolling is just a couple of clicks. If we did use a bot to remove someone, it could leave them a talk message with the reenrollment link. — xaosflux Talk 16:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hmm, it makes sense, thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Side note, I don't think a bot that forcibly reenrolls someone as a mentor is a good idea, re-enrolling is just a couple of clicks. If we did use a bot to remove someone, it could leave them a talk message with the reenrollment link. — xaosflux Talk 16:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom maybe parts of it. There are 2 different conditions that could happen, one is an 'away' mentor, that is a per-mentor status flag, when you are away mentee questions should go to another mentor. The other is what to do with a completely retired/forcibly removed mentor; when you completely remove a mentor all of their mentees are reassigned permanently. I suggest going through the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features first, many of these have tech solutions being looked in to already. — xaosflux Talk 16:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Xaosflux: Can this task be automated by an adminbot? Because it would be quite tedious to remove mentors following every inactivity period or retired/away templates, until phab tasks are resolved. It should auto-add them back as mentors when they are active, otherwise the mentor will lose interest in mentorship if they have to re-add themself all the time. This may warrant a VPPR thread before proceeding, just floating some ideas here. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Confirmed, this batch process, example user changed. — xaosflux Talk 16:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
watchlisting topics rather than pages
is there a way to watchlist a specific topic on a notification board rather than every topic on the page? TIA soibangla (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- For topic as in thread, there is WP:SUBSCRIBE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Help needed today at CopyPatrol
Hi everybody. There's quite a few cases listed right now at CopyPatrol, and we could use some help today. You don't have to be an admin to do this task; any experienced editor should be able to quickly figure it out. If you are just starting out, you might like to try assessing reports about biographies or schools – they are pretty easy as the issues are usually quite obvious. Any help you can give today (or any day for that matter) is greatly appreciated. Thank you! — Diannaa (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Help needed with deleted history of B'Day
I'm cleaning up old GA subpages, and Talk:B'Day's article history shows an April 2008 promotion to GA. The talk page's history only goes back to 2011, because the page was moved to archive instead of cut-and-pasted. But the archive page's history only goes back to 2022. I think something must have been deleted but I'm not sure how or why. Can someone undelete the talk page history, if that's what's needed, or explain if something else happened? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's a mess, and I'm not exactly sure where any pre-2008 history is, but in 2008 it got moved to Talk:B'Day (Beyoncé album)/Archive 1. It looks like whoever moved the page back to its current location missed that archive and left it there. Katietalk 15:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks; I missed that. I moved the current archive 1 to archive 2, and moved the page you found in as archive 1; I think that covers it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Seeking feedback on my own behavior to correct a string of edits that I made in contravention of an editing restriction
I apologize for this notice, but I'm soliciting admin feedback about how to proceed after I have broken my own editing restrictions per Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community. There are two restrictions there and one of them is related to an a 2019 WP:ANI thread. Since that 2019 thread, I had been blocked from editing Wikipedia and since that block, I have been given my editing abilities back. In the interim, I had simply forgotten that this restriction was placed upon my editing and I want to submit this in good faith to 1.) delete the relevant content, 2.) act in good faith to provide visibility over my actions and show that I made a mistake and did not deliberately contradict this restriction, and 3.) provide a perspective on how I could get this editing restriction lifted in the future. A list of the pages needing to be deleted can be found here: User:Koavf/delete. Note that this thread was not prompted by anyone else's solicitation, just me reviewing my own edits. Additionally, I have also added {{use mdy dates}} to pages that I have created. I don't have a list of all of those edits, but I can find them if the community requires me to find them to be removed from pages. I apologize and I want to act in good faith and edit properly from here on, reminded that I am not to add these kind of optional style format templates. Thanks and sorry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Without comment on the other aspects (yet) the restriction regarding dates prohibits
placing, removing, or modifying any template on any article recommending the use of [...] any date format [...] without seeking prior consensus for the change on a case-by-case basis;
[my emphasis]. It does not address the placing of such templates on articles where you are the only editor, likely because it does not appear that was an issue brought up in the 2019 thread. I would say that adding such a template as part of the initial page-creation process is not a violation of the restriction, however adding it once it has become an established article (in mainspace for several days or has contributions from other editors, whichever happens first) would be. I have not looked to see which it is that you have been doing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)- Thanks. I have removed several, but per the comment below, I'll leave the entire thing at rest until this thread is closed. I look forward to any other admins' perspectives and I hope to rectify these mistakes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- As an addendum: I started removing instances of {{use mdy dates}}, but I don't want that to be construed as breaking the restriction on mass edits. I want to be as conservative as possible and provide transparency, so I'll stop removing those instances I've added until an admin gives me the approval to do so here. I've also notified the admin who unblocked me for his personal visibility. Finally, I want to be clear that I'm not defending my actions, simply elaborating on why they happened and I am committing that they will not happen again, now that I have reminded myself of these editing restrictions (tho I am hopeful they would be lifted, thereby making the issue irrelevant, but until or unless that happens, I won't add English-language varities or date style varities to pages or amend editnotices without consensus prior to the fact). For those who are wondering why my word would be different now, it is simply easy to forget things in two years of not editing, whereas now that I am editing daily, I can easily remember this, particularly after making this thread. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Can I ask what made you aware that you had been violating your own editing restriction? As far as what should be done now, I don't think I've ever seen a more sincere apology for violating a ban. Not just an apology, but self-reverting the changes too and posting here for review (apparently) unprompted. Unless someone comes forward with some more serious evidence that this wasn't in good faith, my gut says that we should issue a WP:TROUT, caution Koavf that if it happens again there might be harsher penalties, and move on. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Bickering with a non-Wikimedian on Reddit. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Is... there still a need for the editing restriction to be that broad? Not for nothing, but I feel like a restriction like "Editor X may not place a {{mdy}} or {{Use American English}} tag on an article that they created" seems a bit... much. The topic ban is more for mass-placing these tags on articles, but editors are generally allowed to choose their own ENGVAR so long as the article doesn't have strong national ties to an English-speaking country.
- I'd be more than open to a request to modify the TBAN to not apply to the first addition of an EngVar template or a date format template articles created by User:Koavf. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- After this thread is closed and I do whatever someone may ask of me to rectify the situation, I will ask for the ban to be lifted or amended. The problem at the time was not adding {{use mdy dates}} or creating editnotices as such, but doing so en masse to existing articles. (My perspective.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Just notating here that if you want the restriction to be lifted or amended, its generally a good idea to show that you understand why it was enacted in the first place (I see some issues with this during the original 2019 discussion, but may not still be relevant) and that you can point to a record of being able to edit productively while complying with the restriction as written. After this thread is closed, it may increase your chances if you wait a month or two to be able to demonstrate the latter. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, 'smith. I appreciate that the indiscriminate mass addition was a problem and that editing shouldn't have happened, but I'll separate out that issue from the immediate issue that I messed up and I want to make it correct in the immediate term. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- After this thread is closed and I do whatever someone may ask of me to rectify the situation, I will ask for the ban to be lifted or amended. The problem at the time was not adding {{use mdy dates}} or creating editnotices as such, but doing so en masse to existing articles. (My perspective.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Problematic Hungarian agenda (Hungarianization)
Hello! User Zsovar3 continues the work of previous users, associated with Hungary (some even with irredentism).
Type of work: István Kovács. But there are dozens like his page.
This top football referee is ROMANIAN of Hungarian descent (at least 1 parent has Hungarian blood). Although Hungarian is not an international language and Kovacs does not represent Hungary either, he pollutes by adding articles in Hungarian even though we have so many articles in international languages. In addition to this, the name of the author is written on each article, like this: last=Pesek first=Attila, last=Albert first=Dénes, ETC.
To be clear he is "Hungarian". If I come to replace Hungarian sources with Romanian ones, he is not satisfied. For almost 20 years, Hungarian extremists have been polluting Wikipedia with such articles. They really have no shame! This is a complete mockery and call it what you want further on extremism.
A Romanian even tells him. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zsovar3&diff=prev&oldid=1138915058
In addition, he adds a Hungarian name order, although in Romania the FIRST NAME comes first like in the West (not the SURNAME as in Hungary).
There is a gross Hungarianization propaganda. He was mean to tell this user `Readded ref (just because a source is not in English does not mean it should be removed` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istv%C3%A1n_Kov%C3%A1cs_(referee)&diff=prev&oldid=1137689314 Basically, he only pollutes with Hungarian sources, although the personality figure is Romanian. And we have sources in English or sources in international languages. Also, if we bring a Romanian source instead of a Hungarian, he is not satisfied.
It's as if I were to go to Donald Trump and out of 220 sources, 180 would be Romanian. It's just that Trump doesn't even have Romanian origins. So it makes sense to say that Istvan Kovacs, just because of his descent, is not Romanian. Very harmful for Romanian readers and support of very nationalist extremism for Hungarian users. 86.125.92.169 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
User:SoHoBro
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- SoHoBro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user has engaged in disruptive editing and perpetuates racist stereotypes on Wikipedia. They have also flamed other users. This can be seen in the following contributions at the Rosa Luxemburg talk page: [62] and [63]. They later followed it up with similarly offensive edits at the Poland talk page: [64].
It's one thing to discuss a historical figure's nationality or instances of collaborationist activity in wartime, it's another thing entirely to accuse an entire nation of being responsible for the genocide they were also victims of. --Pitsarotta (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I must be reading that first diff incorrectly, as it appears to say that it was the Polish who perpetrated the holocaust. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Poles and Ukrainians happen to be the only nations outside of Germany that manage to kill hundreds of thousands of Jewish people during (and often after) WW2. I don't see how is that not perpetrating the Holocaust, but would love to have that explained to me. SoHoBro (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that SoHoBro has continued in showing an interest in pushing a very biased and inflammatory narrative, also WP:NPOV . [65] [66]. Rhayailaina (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Will anything be done about this user's racist comments, personal attacks, and disruptive editing? --Pitsarotta (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Content dispute. Interesting, but belongs elsewhere. Let's keep to discussing conduct here
|
---|
|
It has been requested at WP:Close requests for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 to be be closed. As I said at Close requests, I think this would be best served by a panel of administrators closing the discussion rather than one poor schmuck. Thanks, Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 02:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)