Girth Summit (talk | contribs) →User: Hemiauchenia: reply |
CiphriusKane (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
::I just posted that exact same diff. I did not interpret it how you did. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 09:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC) |
::I just posted that exact same diff. I did not interpret it how you did. <small>[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b>]] <small><sup>Need help? '''[[User talk:HighInBC|Just ask.]]'''</sup></small></small> 09:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::Agreeing with HighInBC here, the China reference is just empty political hyperbole that Supermann likes to engage in. I'm more concerned about the assumption of bad faith, victimhood-assuming, refusal to listen and wikilawyering. Supermann seems quick to assume malice when confronted, aggressively insists they are the victim, and refuses to listen when asked to stop (which can be seen in their messages [[Talk:Nikita_(TV_series)#Letting_readers_know_where_the_show_is_currently_accessible_free_is_guilty_of_promotion?|here]]). {{ping|HighInBC}} {{ping|NinjaRobotPirate}} I accept I may have acted prematurely in referring the matter here, but I feel like the current final warning is insufficient as it fails to address the points I just listed IMO [[User:CiphriusKane|CiphriusKane]] ([[User talk:CiphriusKane|talk]]) 12:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Another Believer]] == |
== [[User:Another Believer]] == |
Revision as of 12:26, 23 August 2021
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search) |
|
User:Chinnusaikrish
Chinnusaikrish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Chinnusaikrish (CSK) was involved in Talk:RRR (film)#Regarding RRR Title expansion and the controversy surrounding it discussion where all the editors, except CSK, agreed that the existing title of the article, RRR, is according to the article titles policy and that there was no abbreviation for the title. The abbreviations marketed in various languages were sourced in the Marketing section. CSK argued for an abbreviation of "Roudram Ranam Rudhiram" but failed to prove it. The user has come back after about 10 days and has just edited the article to what their argued version [1], which is directly against the consensus. (The discussion was rather draining for the editors who participated in the discussion with CSK, which could have spent on more productive stuff, only if CSK understood the policies properly.)
There was another instance at the article Talk:Rajahmundry, where CSK started an RM, three times in one year, the latest being last week after the above RRR discussion, and failed consistently to prove the move on the lines of common name policy. In the latest RM, CSK has admitted in own words that the common name has not changed but raised the request anyway stating the new name would become common name only after Wikipedia changes it. A tightly scoped TBAN was also called for on CSK restricting any new RMs.
At this point I think a normal discussion with CSK would just be fruitless and counter-productive for us, who are involved. -- DaxServer (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Chinnusaikrish's attempt to push their own version on 16 August was reverted by DaxServer. Instead of seeking consensus for their version per WP:BRD, they've returned on 17 August to re-instate their preferred version. I've reverted the same asking them to discuss but they simply reverted it again ignoring the discussion at Talk:RRR (film). The edit warring behaviour is not new for Chinnusaikrish as they tried to the same on 2 August ([2], [3], [4]) and 4 August ([5], [6]) despite being warned ([7], [8]). -- Ab207 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Had a block for 3RR couple of days ago, CSK is still continuing the same pattern of editing against WP policies. Reverted my edit [9] where I removed unsourced criticism. Requesting an indef block. -- DaxServer (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Supermann
Supermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been attempting to push a political agenda on the film article The Suicide Squad. On the talk page, he acknowledged having a "military agenda" in an effort to have "Colonel" hyperlinked in the article. After other editors, myself included, informed him of MOS:SEAOFBLUE, he proceeded to make off-topic comments about the ongoing Taliban offensive, implying we "want America’s exit and Taliban rule over Afghanistan with Sharia law" because we didn't support hyperlinking a military rank on a fictional film article. He also mocked Adamstom.97 for his nationality. Bluerules (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't remember ever seeing this kind of pedantic nonsense. This obviously isn't this user's first lapse in behaviour; see their talk page for a previous thread dating from July, which also includes similar comments. Persistent failure to abide by WP:CIVIL is grounds for a block. I've given them a final warning for now, if an admin thinks that this behaviour is likely to continue, feel free to give them a block. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Happened to be passing by looking for a different thread, and I apologize if it's inappropriate to reference very old stuff, but it's possibly worth noting that this editor was topic banned from film topics back in 2017 for similar political agenda pushing and made similar agenda pushing comments at Talk:Film censorship in China#2019 Censorship, if one is discussing behavior likely to continue. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know who is more pedantic. Your and Adamstom's pedantic insistence that we follow the MOS:SEAOFBLUE exactly or there couldn't be an exception when it provides better context? There is actually a sample sentence regarding the usage of "pedantic" on Merriam-Webster dictionary. Pedantic | Definition of Pedantic by Merriam-Webster. It describes exactly the kind of behavior you two are demonstrating. I don't know what kind of bad military agenda he thought I was pushing when I am more like a pacifist and advocate for human rights. I wasn't mocking his nationality. What I don't understand is why all three here in the developed world can't have empathy for those in the developing world, if not poorly developed world. Btw, whatever you guys are "cheering" certainly have not unbanned Wikipedia in China. wikipedia.org is 100% blocked in China | GreatFire Analyzer Cheers. Supermann (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Beyond my comments here, I'm not previously involved in this, so I really think you should heed the advice being given to you, and stop digging. Thinking that you are right does not give you the right to be rude and pedantic (yes, if it wasn't already the case, firing back dictionary definitions to "win" an argument is certainly pedantic) about it. People objected to the inclusion of a link (all of this over a mere link - how trivial a reason to get upset over), the debate isn't going your way. So what? Unless you really want to die on this hill, I suggest you slowly back away and find something else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I am involved in this situation to some degree, as I saw it unfold. I just want to come here to say that I corroborate the claims and that, yes, user was pushing a political and military agenda. Even after I added Colonel to the credits he still insisted upon hyperlinking it and ranted on about the political situation of the Afghanistan and Taliban situation. Multiple users already warned him to stop pursuing this line of discussion, and a policy was cited, but the user still continued arguing this point. For now, we don't need to do anything. We can just keep living life as normal and if the user makes further disruptions, appropriate sanctions can be taken. Case closed. Cheers! -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is at least the second time Supermann has tried to link Wikipedia editing to the Taliban link. They have also accused other editors of totalitarianism for rejecting their edits, as well as tried to use the Five Pillars to override policy and consensus. I was actually considering taking them here over their behaviour over Stephen Hogan, as their behaviour there to me indicates that they're unwilling to compromise and will just keep browbeating until they get their own way. See for example their repeated attempts to use play reviews repeatedly stated to be insufficient to establish notability: link link link. This sort of behaviour has been going on since at least May by my reckoning CiphriusKane (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Given personal experience with them here at ANI, at DRN, at RfM, and at one point a declined ArbCom request, they've been attempting to use IAR to overturn consensus longer than that. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like Supermann has decided to lay low until this blows over. Well, I think this complaint should function as final warning. It looks to me like we're approaching WP:NOTHERE-levels of "treating editing as a battleground". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: Can I get yer thoughts on Supermann's behaviour here? The bad faith accusations here are concerning CiphriusKane (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like Supermann has decided to lay low until this blows over. Well, I think this complaint should function as final warning. It looks to me like we're approaching WP:NOTHERE-levels of "treating editing as a battleground". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Given personal experience with them here at ANI, at DRN, at RfM, and at one point a declined ArbCom request, they've been attempting to use IAR to overturn consensus longer than that. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with NinjaRobotPirate that this thread should serve as a final warning that further disruption from this user can result in action. In particular I find the attitude that no matter how many people tell them they are wrong it does not matter to be problematic, example[10]. @Supermann: HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @HighInBC, @Supermann has threatened another user with canvassing, specifically here where he tries to argue with @CiphriusKane saying that he would have 500 million more users agree with him "if Wikipedia was not blocked in China." I'm also confused why China is constantly brought up. Sleptlapps (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I just posted that exact same diff. I did not interpret it how you did. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agreeing with HighInBC here, the China reference is just empty political hyperbole that Supermann likes to engage in. I'm more concerned about the assumption of bad faith, victimhood-assuming, refusal to listen and wikilawyering. Supermann seems quick to assume malice when confronted, aggressively insists they are the victim, and refuses to listen when asked to stop (which can be seen in their messages here). @HighInBC: @NinjaRobotPirate: I accept I may have acted prematurely in referring the matter here, but I feel like the current final warning is insufficient as it fails to address the points I just listed IMO CiphriusKane (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I just posted that exact same diff. I did not interpret it how you did. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I edited Template:RuPaul's Drag Race on the 15th August. Almost immediately, User:Another Believer reverted my edit, writing "I disagree, so please discuss on talk page". I have reverted Another Believer's edit, because they failed to provide a reasonable motive in their summary. After that, another user reverted my edit once more - this time inviting me to discuss on the talk page. Which I did: Template talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#Template edit suggestion. I invite you all to read the discussion between me and AnotherBeliever. Today, I edited the template again. This time, my edit was focused on a different issue: the template is named after RuPaul's Drag Race (the US TV show), however it links all the articles related to the "wider" Drag Race (franchise). Since Drag Race (franchise) exists, and since all of the franchise's pages are currently featured in the template, I edited it in good faith to reflect this. Again, immediately Another Believer reverted my editing, this time stating: "Restore; ongoing discussion(s) on talk page". I reverted their revert, but again, Another Believer reverted back once more - their summary: "Restore again; please quit while you're ahead...". Now, I may not be the biggest expert on Wikipedia's policies, but I suspect that User:Another Believer may have ownership issues, specifically with articles related to RuPaul's Drag Race. Their motivations for reverts are very weak in arguments, especially the "I disagree" comment. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia, but my edits have been challenged and reverted with no reasonable reasons every time by Another Believer. --92.28.190.117 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see reasons for the reversion on the talk page and edit warring behavior from you. Do not continue to reinsert your edits when there is no consensus for them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- My first edit on the template was reverted with "I disagree" as the reason. I don't believe that every edit has to go through consensus, but for Drag Race-related articles this seems to be the norm, since Another Believer reverts edits often inviting people to start discussion (I presume when they don't like the nature of the edits). My edits from today concern other aspects of the template, so saying that there is an ongoing discussion is not accurate: there is a discussion, but it's about other things. I didn't edit war, and I did not break the three-revert rule. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then you should have no problem following through with discussion at the talk page and abiding by the consensus that results from the editors (more than just you and AB) involved in the discussion there. I see no reason for administrative action here in relation to AB's actions. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- That's what I did, I started a discussion on my first edit (after Another Believer reverted them). Today I made other edits of different nature and they got reverted by Another Believer again. Using the "please discuss" excuse to perform ownership of article is not a fair practice to me. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then you should have no problem following through with discussion at the talk page and abiding by the consensus that results from the editors (more than just you and AB) involved in the discussion there. I see no reason for administrative action here in relation to AB's actions. —C.Fred (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- My first edit on the template was reverted with "I disagree" as the reason. I don't believe that every edit has to go through consensus, but for Drag Race-related articles this seems to be the norm, since Another Believer reverts edits often inviting people to start discussion (I presume when they don't like the nature of the edits). My edits from today concern other aspects of the template, so saying that there is an ongoing discussion is not accurate: there is a discussion, but it's about other things. I didn't edit war, and I did not break the three-revert rule. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Glad you started this discussion. I was anticipating. I have a feeling this editor is the same as User talk:78.148.25.46, who has been blocked. I am not entirely opposed to some of the editor's proposed changes, but they are going about this process all wrong by overhauling the template and edit warring during active discussions. I stand by all of my edits and invite this editor to use the template's talk page to propose specific changes and gain editor consensus before implementing. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am not that user. I didn't overhaul the template and I didn't edit war. You revert too easily and don't allow other users to edit articles that you care about if the edits are not to your liking. Reverting with no reasons and say "please discuss" is not productive. Not every edit has to go through discussion. You are not reasonable. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- You are proposing significant changes to the template, some of which I'd prefer not be implemented. When there's disagreement, editors discuss on the talk page. This is a very simple process. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Let me remind you that your first revert was accompanied by "I disagree" and nothing else. How is that constructive? 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- ... because I informed you that I disagreed with your changes. That was the purpose of the revert. People disagree. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- You should've provided a reason for your disagreement in the edit summary, but still, it doesn't seem to be that big a deal to make an ANI thread out of it. —El Millo (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's common practice for Another Believer. They revert the edits that they don't like, inviting users to start discussions. More often than not these discussions have little to zero traction, resulting in no changes made. In this way Another Believer get to keep the page the way they want it. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not true. You seem to think I have ownership issues when that's not the case. I'm totally open to template changes if other editors agree to them. Also, WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race is relatively active. If you propose specific changes, post a note there seeking feedback, you just might get your way. Follow the process and be patient. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's common practice for Another Believer. They revert the edits that they don't like, inviting users to start discussions. More often than not these discussions have little to zero traction, resulting in no changes made. In this way Another Believer get to keep the page the way they want it. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- You should've provided a reason for your disagreement in the edit summary, but still, it doesn't seem to be that big a deal to make an ANI thread out of it. —El Millo (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- ... because I informed you that I disagreed with your changes. That was the purpose of the revert. People disagree. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Let me remind you that your first revert was accompanied by "I disagree" and nothing else. How is that constructive? 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- You are proposing significant changes to the template, some of which I'd prefer not be implemented. When there's disagreement, editors discuss on the talk page. This is a very simple process. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am not that user. I didn't overhaul the template and I didn't edit war. You revert too easily and don't allow other users to edit articles that you care about if the edits are not to your liking. Reverting with no reasons and say "please discuss" is not productive. Not every edit has to go through discussion. You are not reasonable. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can see both sides to this one. 92.28, please review WP:BRD. Your edits were the "bold" edits, once they were reverted, they should not have been reinstated until and unless there was consensus for them. The WP:ONUS is on the editor making the bold edit to gain consensus for that edit. Reinstating the edit without consensus is edit warring, and "bad edit summary" is not an exception. That said, and though it's not a requirement, edit summaries for reverts really ought to give a substantive reason for the revert beyond just "disagree" (that much is obvious from the revert itself), even if the substantive reason is a totally subjective one, like "flows better before" or "better word choice before," at least giving a reason in the edit summary gives the reverted editor an idea of what the problem is. To not give a substantive reason for a revert in the edit summary just compels the reverted editor to start a talk page discussion, ping the reverting editor, and ask, "what's the problem?" which is an unnecessary step. So save editor time and give a substantive reason in the edit summary when reverting. This is especially true if you're reverting the same editor multiple times, and even more especially true if it's across multiple pages. I'd also be annoyed if someone was reverting a bunch of my edits on different pages without giving any substantive reason in their edit summaries.None of this is ANI-worthy, though. AB's suggestion below for moving forward seems reasonable to me. Levivich 18:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. My slight caveat is that I think good template editing should be a little less bold than article editing. I'm a fan of consensus first for all but trivial edits. That said, I wouldn't recommend unexplained reversion. Can an admin wag their finger at both parties and we call it a day? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Finger-wagging needed Levivich 18:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. My slight caveat is that I think good template editing should be a little less bold than article editing. I'm a fan of consensus first for all but trivial edits. That said, I wouldn't recommend unexplained reversion. Can an admin wag their finger at both parties and we call it a day? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- semi protected the template in question. Now they can thrash it at the talk page. Finger wagging does not require the Admin bit. I will leave that to the Community. I stand ready to unprotect when everyone is ready. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra, Thank you. If IP editor will agree to the solution I've suggested below, I think the page protection can be removed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Bad protection, Deepfriedokra. WP:SEMI is clear that the relevant condition is:
Subject to edit warring if all parties involved are unregistered or new editors (i.e. in cases in which full protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved.
(Emphasis in original.) This is clearly a two-sided edit war between an IP and an XC user, neither of whom are vandals. You needed to fully protect or apply no protection. — Bilorv (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Bad protection, Deepfriedokra. WP:SEMI is clear that the relevant condition is:
- Deepfriedokra, Thank you. If IP editor will agree to the solution I've suggested below, I think the page protection can be removed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: Thanks for your input. I read it as disruption by an unregistered user. I think it is sorted now. If things start up again, full protection might be needed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have to say that I find the IP user's assertion that they are not the same person who was editing through 78.148.25.46 a couple of months back quite difficult to swallow. They're both on the same network (OPALTELECOM-AS TalkTalk Communications Limited, GB), and the contributions of both show a pretty-much single-minded interest in this range of TV shows - it's hard not to conclude that they're the same person, who just got assigned a new IP. That said, the block on the 78 IP expired ages ago, so this wouldn't be block evasion. Girth Summit (blether) 16:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: Thanks for your input. I read it as disruption by an unregistered user. I think it is sorted now. If things start up again, full protection might be needed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Possible solution?
I would like to propose a possible solution to 92.28.190.117. If you agree, I would like to archive this discussion and this discussion. This way we can start from scratch. Then, you can propose very specific changes to the template, one at a time. Right now your changes involve the header/link, naming conventions for International section, displaying full titles of spin-offs, etc. In other words, you're proposing too much at once, which makes discussion difficult. Start a new section for each of the proposed changes, and let editors respond to you before you implement on your own. If you agree to this, please let me know and I will archive the discussions so we can start again. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- (Repeating sentiment posted on template talk page, where I was previously involved.) I'm fine with this solution, though I don't think it should be the standard for all changes to the template going forward (WP:BOLD is a thing). Colin M (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I will start a new discussion in the Talk page, with a list of the proposed changes. I hope that many users will contribute, but if that won't be the case then it will demonstrate the situation I illustrated above. Thank you User:Colin M for your comment. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I will archive the two aforementioned discussions. Please start a series of new discussions, proposing specific changes to the template so editors can weigh in. Thank you very much! I'll try to revisit this section later to make sure there's no additional commentary, but from my perspective this is resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- I will start a new discussion in the Talk page, with a list of the proposed changes. I hope that many users will contribute, but if that won't be the case then it will demonstrate the situation I illustrated above. Thank you User:Colin M for your comment. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Follow up The two disputants are talking, but probably more people could join the discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy link to the discussion for anyone reading this thread backward. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra and Firefangledfeathers: Thanks. Historically, this template talk page has hosted thorough discussions, so I'm hoping more editors will weigh in soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- While discussing the proposed changes to the template, I mentioned how some articles shouldn't be included it (in my opinion). I specifically stated that another article (The AAA Girls), who wasn't featured in the template shouldn't be included in it. Another Believer then proceeded to edit the template and add such article. I have reverted their edit, because consensus in the talk hasn't been reached yet, but it's interesting to note how Another Believer feels entitled to make edits even when other users clearly expressed their disagreement, yet when other users (like me, as reported above) make other edits Another Believer reverts them and invite to discussion. Another Believer wasn't interested in discussing this with me, when I pointed out their obvious double standards in their Talk Page 92.28.190.117 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I misinterpreted your comment. I thought you were suggesting the TV shows should be removed because the girl group article was not included. Since I thought the girl group articles should be included, I added them and offered to continue discussing their inclusion on the template's talk page. I'm fine admitting I misunderstood your preference to not include the girl group links, and I didn't push back when you reverted. You're making this a bigger deal than is necessary. I think we're doing a good job of talking out proposed changes on the template's talk page so let's please continue to do so. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for clarifying. 92.28.190.117 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I misinterpreted your comment. I thought you were suggesting the TV shows should be removed because the girl group article was not included. Since I thought the girl group articles should be included, I added them and offered to continue discussing their inclusion on the template's talk page. I'm fine admitting I misunderstood your preference to not include the girl group links, and I didn't push back when you reverted. You're making this a bigger deal than is necessary. I think we're doing a good job of talking out proposed changes on the template's talk page so let's please continue to do so. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- While discussing the proposed changes to the template, I mentioned how some articles shouldn't be included it (in my opinion). I specifically stated that another article (The AAA Girls), who wasn't featured in the template shouldn't be included in it. Another Believer then proceeded to edit the template and add such article. I have reverted their edit, because consensus in the talk hasn't been reached yet, but it's interesting to note how Another Believer feels entitled to make edits even when other users clearly expressed their disagreement, yet when other users (like me, as reported above) make other edits Another Believer reverts them and invite to discussion. Another Believer wasn't interested in discussing this with me, when I pointed out their obvious double standards in their Talk Page 92.28.190.117 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra and Firefangledfeathers: Thanks. Historically, this template talk page has hosted thorough discussions, so I'm hoping more editors will weigh in soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:AGF and WP:HOUNDING violation on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitchens's razor. I have received abuse from this user in the past and they are far too experienced here to be behaving in this manner. MarshallKe (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- MarshallKe, if you express the intent of doing something about an article on your user page, like the possibility of nominating it for deletion, don't be surprised when editors with an interest of the subject matter follow up on that. Roxy the dog wasn't hiding that this was the impetus for their attention here. To me, that looks more like due diligence than hounding. El_C 15:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) MarshallKe, you are going to have to be specific about the abuse you say you have received in the past (in the form of diffs), and what it is you think they have done (also in the form of diffs). !Voting in an AfD discussion you have started on its own does not match the behaviour described at WP:HOUNDING. Is there anything else we should look at? Girth Summit (blether) 15:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I will endeavor to compile the information you've requested soon. Is the AGF violation self-evident enough, or do you request more information on that, as well? MarshallKe (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- MarshallKe, I'm not seeing the failure to AGF, you're going to have to spell it out for us, or withdraw the accusation. Girth Summit (blether) 16:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I will endeavor to compile the information you've requested soon. Is the AGF violation self-evident enough, or do you request more information on that, as well? MarshallKe (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Frankly, if an article in which I had an interest was nominated for deletion, and the nominator admitted the purpose of the AfD wasn't to remove a non-notable article but instead to encourage improvement of the article, I'd be upset too. You made a serious error in judgment, and I think you need to shift your efforts in Wikipedia to something more constructive instead of, as Roxy stated, wasting people's time. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, you've misunderstood me. If the article is notable, I want to improve it. If the article is not notable, I want to delete it. There has been enough discussion on the article's talk page about notability concerns that it was time to submit the AfD. I am sorry that I was not more clear in stating my intentions. MarshallKe (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- MarshallKe - I'm going to echo what Roxy the dog stated in their reply here: What do your beliefs have anything to do with what you're doing here? I don't understand why you added that to your response. What was the purpose of doing that? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Roxy said this: "Came here via noms user page, where they state that figuring out what to do about Hitchen's razor is one of their aims. We should keep it". I'm not sure what noms means, but this statement implies that I am trying to get the page deleted in bad faith. My reply to Roxy was my attempt to reassure them that I have no conflicts of interest or bad intentions in the deletion request. MarshallKe (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- MarshallKe - "Noms" (or "nom's") is short for "nominator's", meaning you - the person who nominated the article for deletion. Roxy the dog stated that they came to the AFD discussion because of what was on your user page. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Roxy said this: "Came here via noms user page, where they state that figuring out what to do about Hitchen's razor is one of their aims. We should keep it". I'm not sure what noms means, but this statement implies that I am trying to get the page deleted in bad faith. My reply to Roxy was my attempt to reassure them that I have no conflicts of interest or bad intentions in the deletion request. MarshallKe (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- "where they state that figuring out what to do about Hitchen's razor is one of their aims" reads to me like an accusation of bad faith motives. I'm not sure what the point of writing that line is other than to impugn Marshall's motives for filing the AFD? Although I also don't see how "figuring out what to do about Hitchen's razor" being an "aim" is problematic or relevant. So I'm a bit confused about why Roxy wrote that line at all, but I understand why Marshall would object to it. It doesn't in and of itself rise to the level of a personal attack though in my opinion; if there is a history (as is claimed but not yet diffed) that might change my view, but as of now, doesn't seem urgent or chronic to merit an ANI report. Levivich 17:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's a legitimate question that was asked. You definitely can state your beliefs but if you do then expect there could be a follow up question about how that relates to the AfD. I'm not sure how any of is hounding or assuming bad faith, however, a quick look at the nominators talk page does show that there is somewhat of a history between both parties. I don't find anything Roxy said as problematic and I don't find anything Marshall said as problematic either, except, in regards to the filing of the AfD. Based on their comment here, in which they state that their intention is to "bring the article up to WP standards if possible", I would have questioned their reasoning as well. Either the subject is notable or not. AfD is not for article clean-up. These are things experienced editors should know. I am sure that Marshall feels hounded and I am certain they feel Roxy has assumed bad faith because of their history. That does not mean what they feel can be equated into something actionable. I am certain Roxy feels the opposite is true. That's why we can't act on feelings. If Marshall has any follow up diffs to what we have researched and stated here then I encourage them to bring it to the community's attention. --ARoseWolf 17:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Like Levivich, I read
Keep Came here via noms user page, where they state that figuring out what to do about Hitchen's razor is one of their aims. We should keep it
[11] as an imposition of bad faith. The only reason given for keeping the article here seems to be that it was (supposedly) not nominated in good faith. I guess thatFiguring out what the heck to do about Hitchens's razor
[12] could be read that way, but only, well, if one assumes bad faith. Now since the subject of the AfD was conceived of in a book called God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and is commonly used to argue against the existence of God, it's reasonable to infer that someone who would want to 'do something about it' would do so from an anti-atheist agenda, whence MarshallKe's clarification [13] of their beliefs. If Roxy knows about the subject they are voting on, and there is every reason to suppose they do, they should have understood why MarshallKe was doing that (i.e., as a defense against a possible bad faith agenda). But this also means that askingwhat on earth do your beliefs have to do with this?
[14] is not a genuine question, but rather disparaging rhetoric. Roxy has told this user before that with regard to being told tofuck off
and tofuck right off
by another editor [15] [16],if you continue with such behaviour, you need to get used to such responses to it
[17], and that theycouldn't stop laughing at your lack of understanding of this project
[18] It's true that MarshallKe sometimes makes poor decisions related to inexperience (they're around since 2007, but have only made 579 edits in that time [19]), but that's no excuse to deal with them in such an uncivil manner. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)- Apaugasma, Levivich I don't see Roxy's comment as an accusation of bad faith - I interpret it as 'I saw that this user was planning to do something about Hitchen's razor, I wondered what it was, I found that it was an AfD nomination, and I think we should keep the article'. There's nothing in there about bad faith, which is about intent. If I squint at it, I can see a way to read between the lines and infer 'This user is short on clue, so I thought I'd better check on what they were doing', but that's not about bad faith. If you advertise your intention to do something about an article, you are inviting other people to look at what you do - if they show up at AfD and honestly say that's how they found out about the discussion, they can hardly accuse you of hounding. Girth Summit (blether) 10:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think we should keep the article, as an argument at AfD, would be classic WP:ILIKEIT. You seem to assume Roxy has a clue, as do I, but why then do you assume they would make such a transparently invalid argument? That just doesn't tally up. It seems much more natural in any case to read it as an ad hominem: 'the nominator seems focused on this article, and that's always a bad sign'. Agreed though that this is no hounding. I also tend to agree with the general sentiment here that there was by far not enough to be sanctionable, or even to come to ANI with, yet. But that doesn't mean we should just brush it off as if nothing at all happened, either. MarshallKe does not
need to get used to such responses
. Roxy should be reminded that civility is not optional: it's the key to expert retention, and to a much more diverse user base more generally. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)- It's not a persuasive argument at AfD, but it's a very common one, and I don't think it approaches anything problematic. Digging into what elicited those uncivil remarks you've referenced, I see MarshallKe giving out EW warning templates to regular editors, when MarshallKe was in fact only person to have reinstated their own edit after a revert (the two editors they templated had both reverted back to status quo and engaged on talk). "Fuck off" isn't an ideal response, and it's not what I would have written; on the other hand, if someone gets into the habit of templating people while engaging in edit warring themselves, they probably shouldn't be too surprised if they receive less-than-optimal responses. Girth Summit (blether) 10:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Less-than-optimal, sure. I have given out some such answers myself after having been irked one time too many. But I did recognize they were wrong, especially after other editors pointed it out to me. What is happening here is the reverse, with people saying it is to be expected, something they should get used to. No. We should point out that we expect a different standard. By all means, also warn MarshallKe for their undue templating and their untimely report at ANI. Please just stop (what I perceive to be) enabling incivility. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a persuasive argument at AfD, but it's a very common one, and I don't think it approaches anything problematic. Digging into what elicited those uncivil remarks you've referenced, I see MarshallKe giving out EW warning templates to regular editors, when MarshallKe was in fact only person to have reinstated their own edit after a revert (the two editors they templated had both reverted back to status quo and engaged on talk). "Fuck off" isn't an ideal response, and it's not what I would have written; on the other hand, if someone gets into the habit of templating people while engaging in edit warring themselves, they probably shouldn't be too surprised if they receive less-than-optimal responses. Girth Summit (blether) 10:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think we should keep the article, as an argument at AfD, would be classic WP:ILIKEIT. You seem to assume Roxy has a clue, as do I, but why then do you assume they would make such a transparently invalid argument? That just doesn't tally up. It seems much more natural in any case to read it as an ad hominem: 'the nominator seems focused on this article, and that's always a bad sign'. Agreed though that this is no hounding. I also tend to agree with the general sentiment here that there was by far not enough to be sanctionable, or even to come to ANI with, yet. But that doesn't mean we should just brush it off as if nothing at all happened, either. MarshallKe does not
- Apaugasma, Levivich I don't see Roxy's comment as an accusation of bad faith - I interpret it as 'I saw that this user was planning to do something about Hitchen's razor, I wondered what it was, I found that it was an AfD nomination, and I think we should keep the article'. There's nothing in there about bad faith, which is about intent. If I squint at it, I can see a way to read between the lines and infer 'This user is short on clue, so I thought I'd better check on what they were doing', but that's not about bad faith. If you advertise your intention to do something about an article, you are inviting other people to look at what you do - if they show up at AfD and honestly say that's how they found out about the discussion, they can hardly accuse you of hounding. Girth Summit (blether) 10:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Apaugasma, Levivich This can become a slippery slope. You have to make a bad faith assumption to conclude Roxy was acting in bad faith. Pretty soon we are all acting in bad faith to assume others are doing the same. Without an expressed action of bad faith that clearly violates WP:CIVIL I don't believe we should be trying to make that leap. With regard to the comments by the other editor and Roxy's response to Marshall, the initial comments were entirely inappropriate and uncivil to say to any editor here no matter the context, though I would need to see the full context of the conversation prior to such comments to verify Marshall hadn't goaded or antagonized the other editor, inappropriately, into a response which would make both parties at fault. I maintain that we should be able to control our emotions or simply walk away. Roxy's initial response,
"if you continue with such behaviour, you need to get used to such responses to it"
, is the typical response I expect from someone who has had interactions with Marshall prior to and with whom they disagree. I wouldn't have necessarily said it the way they did. Instead I would have encouraged Marshall to evaluate their comments and responses and make sure they weren't taking too much of an immediate antagonistic approach to a discussion knowing how others would respond but ultimately it is Marshall's place to govern their actions, not mine. The laughing comment was in poor taste and we should expect better. I would strongly urge Roxy to not treat fellow editors, even ones they disagree with, in such a way. I do not feel there is enough here to take action over beyond a call for all sides to act with kindness. Others may see it differently. --ARoseWolf 13:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)- I agree. Hey, everyone! ACT WITH KINDNESS, PLEASE. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay on this, I had been sleep deprived and busy with work. Apaugasma's comments make a sufficient history of my interaction with Roxy. My hounding accusation was premature and based more on intuition than facts, so I am sorry for that and I withdraw it. For those asking for an explanation of why the statement was bad faith, others here have explained it sufficiently and I also see how others interpret it in good faith as well. I can see how what has happened here could be the result of a Causal loop of WP:Bad faith, where an assumption of bad faith in person A causes an assumption of bad faith in person B, and they reinforce each other. I will try not to react in such a kneejerk manner in the future. MarshallKe (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- MarshallKe, thanks for this statement. Are you happy for this thread to be closed with no further action (other than a reiteration of Inedible Hulk's excellent advice above?) Girth Summit (blether) 12:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am happy for this thread to be closed, yes. MarshallKe (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- MarshallKe, thanks for this statement. Are you happy for this thread to be closed with no further action (other than a reiteration of Inedible Hulk's excellent advice above?) Girth Summit (blether) 12:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Yerfdog71 adding unsourced articles and their complete refusal to communicate
For years, Yerfdog71 has been publishing unsourced and wildly under-sourced articles of undrafted free agent NFL players who played their college football at BYU with no evidence that the player passes WP:GNG. People have tried to communicate with Yerfdog71 on his talk page about notability standards and referencing (example here), however the editor refuses to interact with other editors and deletes any message posted on his talk page. I believe a block is probably necessary to, if anything, bring Yerfdog71 to acknowledge and communicate that they understand notability and referencing policies. I am going to ping @Eagles247: who has nominated many Yerfdog71's articles for deletion over the years. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment) The relevant WP:SNG is WP:NGRIDIRON. Players who don't meet that will have to pass WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- The articles are of undrafted rookie players on training camp rosters, so WP:NGRIDIRON is not met. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Gordon Ramsay and Rod Stewart had unsuccessful try-outs as professional footballers. Neither is notable because of that; WP:NFOOTY applies. Narky Blert (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- The articles are of undrafted rookie players on training camp rosters, so WP:NGRIDIRON is not met. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed about a block, which is long overdue. Communication is required here, and Yerfdog71 seems to be only using Wikipedia as a sandbox for their BYU football fandom. The user has been here for 11 years, with 63 created pages, a third of which have been deleted (mainly through AfD), with other articles likely to be deleted in the future upon further inspection. Talk page warnings and AfD discussions have not deterred the creation of articles for non-notable subjects. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Bloomshouse Undisclosed Paid Editing and refusal to communicate
- Bloomshouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Today i noticed an article title Rex Nosa was created by Bloomshouse, I opened the article and the image there was described as their “own work” suspecting a potential COI I drafitified the article and left them this personal message see here trying to initiate a dialogue as to how they got the image they refused to WP:COMMUNICATE, rather they moved it back to mainspace, Due to the nature of the potential COI, I moved the article out of mainspace and explaining to them why a dialogue was important especially since there is a cogent and warranted COI suspicion, here, I furthermore tell them it is not good practice to move an article with a potential COI back to mainspace and told them to use the WP:AFC method to create the article and expressly mentioned I was going to file a report here if they moved the article back to mainspace if they failed to disclose how they got the image to be their “own work” they ignored me and for the third time moved the article back to mainspace/copy pasted it back to mainspace see here
- Upon Further Observations of their TP I note the following;
- In 2017 they are warned about COI by Reb1981 see here
- In 2018 Bri categorically asks the question Are you a paid editor see here
- In 2018 also they were reported to COIN see here
- In 2019, Bri, reports them to COIN see here
- In 2021, I asked them how they got a particular image(different incident) I ask them how they got an image labeled as “Own Work” see here but they didn’t reply
- In 2021 I warn them about UPE see here.
- All the aforementioned are even more detailed in their TP, see here. Communication is the bed rock of any collaborative project, now coupled with potential UPE editing and the actions I referenced in the beginning of this report, I do not believe they are here to build an encyclopedia I feel an indefinite block should do the trick here or in very least a topic ban from creating biographical articles as this has been ongoing since 2017. Celestina007 (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Noo, not mobile diffs. My one weakness. El_C 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- @El_C, you have a weakness? Lmao no, it’s I who has weakness. In any case I have removed the diffs in mobile format. luckily for me I learnt how to do so yesterday as if I knew it would come in handy today Thanks to Barkeep49, Lee Vilenski and Clovermoss. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy Ping to Bri who if isn’t busy at the moment may be interested in this discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also campers, Celestina. Or is it the other way around? Jury's still out. El_C 00:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @El_C Seriously though My major concern is that this has been ongoing since 2017. I brought this here instead of COIN as this isn’t an isolated issue regarding one article but a pattern of creating promotional COI looking articles, and observing their TP I believe it’s rather overt they aren’t here to build an encyclopedia, but I’d let you sysops handle the rest, I am suggesting an indef block or in the very least a Tban from creating biographical articles. Celestina007 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also campers, Celestina. Or is it the other way around? Jury's still out. El_C 00:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy Ping to Bri who if isn’t busy at the moment may be interested in this discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @El_C, you have a weakness? Lmao no, it’s I who has weakness. In any case I have removed the diffs in mobile format. luckily for me I learnt how to do so yesterday as if I knew it would come in handy today Thanks to Barkeep49, Lee Vilenski and Clovermoss. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Noo, not mobile diffs. My one weakness. El_C 22:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Celestina007: I'm not seeing where Bri asks them if they were a paid editor in the page you linked. I think you linked to the wrong page. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Psiĥedelisto, I’m sorry that was the wrong diff, I have corrected that now. Celestina007 (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
It's fair to say they're not a great communicator. Their only talk page edits are actually moves, but there's a bit more in the user talk space - initially asking other editors to review pages they had created, handing out a couple of barnstars, and then replying on their own talk page to the question about paid editing (which they deny). It's concerning that they haven't responded to any questions on their talk page since 2018. My guess is they're not a paid editor, but are uploading lots of other people's images and passing it off as their own work in order to avoid copyvio tags, which is clearly not acceptable. I've no qualms about editors avoiding all the drama of talk pages, getting their head down and writing articles, but ignoring direct questions on your own talk page is a big problem. I suspect they're not even looking at their talk page, are ignoring notifications and probably haven't seen the questions they've been asked. Sadly if that's a case I suspect a block will be the only way of getting their attention. WaggersTALK 10:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Draft:Rex Nosa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Bloomhouse/Rex Nosa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nosa Rex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rex Nosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There's something hinky about the draft, userspace page, and two articles above. Maybe an article was userfied then re-created. Perhaps one of the fine admins reading this case can sort it out. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree Bloomhouse/Rex Nosa looks like paid promotion. Regarding images as "own work" (mentioned further up) , I don't think that can be definitively concluded to mean one thing or another. It's a drag to chase down likely COI like this, since we have not instituted the mechanisms to deal with it effectively. --- Possibly ☎ 21:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive removal of content
Benchu937711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user has made several disruptive edits where they've removed content from various articles, such as [20], [21], [22], and [23]. I left a note on their talk page that their edits could be considered vandalism (see [24]) since I wasn't sure at the time if they were editing in good faith; since then, they've removed content from other articles, see [25] and [26], and made this article-breaking edit [27]. I'm disinclined to AGF in this instance since several of their edit summaries do not accurately reflect the changes being made to the affected article, which suggests they're using edit summaries to intentionally obfuscate the nature of the edits they're making. Musashi1600 (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Has not edited since Aug. 18. We could partial block from article space till they address concerns. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: notified user of this thread on talk. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 19:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
User:84.69.10.242
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Special:Contributions/84.69.10.242.
This IP User responded to another editor (me) in a Talk page discussion with the following comment: "...you're clearly part of that transphobic clique....
"
(MBTalkpg). This personal attack is a violation of WP:NPA. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Pyxis Solitary, I agree that a comment of that nature constitutes a personal attack, and is entirely inappropriate on an article talk page. I've warned the IP that they may be blocked if they repeat that. I would have considered redacting the comment, but since you have quoted it here and on the article talk page, I am not sure whether you want that to happen. Girth Summit (blether) 10:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for handling this. I prefer that the comment remain so that others can see what is not acceptable in an article discussion. Thanks, again. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- After further disruption at the talk page in question, a further personal attack at the IP's talk page, and a refusal to retract it, I've blocked the IP for a week. Girth Summit (blether) 13:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for handling this. I prefer that the comment remain so that others can see what is not acceptable in an article discussion. Thanks, again. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
IP hopping
A user appears to be IP hopping under the IPs 101.127.139.158, 2409:4060:206:5A3E:14DD:86A4:69C8:87D2, 111.65.59.33, and 2406:3003:2002:1E5F:6460:D47A:7539:DB33. The edits in question often incorporate nonsense edit summaries "Got em", "Nice", "Finally add something special to this m16 fact", and many of them (albeit not all) are either OR, or MOS violations through adding excessive infobox detail. I should probably also note that people on WP:DISCORD told me that IP hopping warrants a rangeblock, even if the edits aren't disruptive. Loafiewa (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- The 111 IP seems to be someone else. But Loafiewa, I wonder where you heard that, that we put rangeblocks on IPs that are NOT making disruptive edits. We do not. If IP hopping were a reason for blocking, most IPs couldn't be editing in the first place. These edits are not disruptive. The edit summaries are not nonsensical; they are enthusiastic with non-standard capitalization--not a big deal. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- The 2409 IP is in India and uses no edit summaries, while the others are in Singapore and talk a lot, so that might be a different person. You may want to choose to not listen to whoever told you that on Discord. I wrote a page some time ago about IP hoppers: Wikipedia:IP hopper. It's not great but I hope it conveys at least the basics. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- What zzuuzz said. Some ISP's have limited IP's and reassign them as needed each time a customer connects. (AOL, I hear.) And then there are the IPv6's-- with an astronomical number of IP's per customer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
User Dalie747's contributions
I have been repeatedly stumbling across and am now watching user Dalie747 (contributions) as they have been making several disruptive edits, such as creating G12-violating articles and recreating articles after they have been deleted for so or moved to draftspace. Their articles consist of Korean food recipes translated into English and usually submitted with little to no improvement from the copied article. Another user, Someee1112 (contributions) may be a sockpuppet, since they edit Dalie747's articles and creates new ones with a similar writing style and topic, but I won't accuse. Maybe they should be investigated. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- You failed to notify Someee1112; I have done so for you. I recommend filing at WP:SPI. I've looked at the two users' edits, and behaviorally they look similar. However, there are some technical differences that give me pause, and unless a CheckUser wants to look at it based on this thread, I think it should be investigated more thoroughly than can be done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
2603:7000:9A00:4E:EC8F:31AC:4B7B:5FD7
A series of edits were performed on the Charlotte Hope article by the IP 2603:7000:9A00:4E:EC8F:31AC:4B7B:5FD7, who made false allegations about my contributions to the article and added information with the intent of insulting the subject. They falsely and inaccurately referred to my contributions as "paid PR agency edits" and "PR agency puff edits", while also emphasizing that their edits were intended to "demonstrate Hope achieved record low ratings in her first and only lead role" and her appearance on The Spanish Princess "did not aid Hope's career". These unproven comments about Hope's career utilized a source that did not directly support this assertion.
Based on these edit summaries, I do not believe this IP is editing in good faith. This occurred nearly a month ago and only came to my attention now, so the IP might be finished with the article, but I would like the administrators to be aware if this problem resurfaces. Bluerules (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hide these racist edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.104.195.180
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.14.45.152
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/194.233.74.46
https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_Americans&action=history
Protection request for Black people articles: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_people&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African-American_culture&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:400:a83c:e436:2af3:fec:dacc (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Very good. All the users named are already blocked or globally locked by various admins for racist vandalism in addition to copyright violations and at least one proxy block, but some simplewiki edits from these users and https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:8001:400:A83C:0:0:0:0/64 + https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:8001:400:A83C:0:0:0:0/64 still need to be redacted. That said, simplewiki is outside our jurisdiction. Requests for page protection should be filed at WP:RPP. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I am concerned that User:Jaydoggmarco may be here for the wrong reasons, judging by their revision history and their recent blocks. It appears that this user has a history of making BLP violations and edit warring, and is unfazed by blocks. Their most recent block, which was less than two weeks ago, was for edit warring on the Jimmy Dore article. The edit warring noticeboard discussion leading to their recent block demonstrates to me that this user treats Wikipedia as a political battleground; their only commentary in that discussion was profanely lashing out at the user who reported them and accusing them of being biased. Just 7 days before that, this user had another block for edit warring, which was for violating WP:3RR at the Ricky Schroder page. I'm surprised they weren't blocked for repeatedly blanking an entire section at Democracy Now!.
With this user's history out of the way, I can get to the reason why I'm typing this now. For context: there has been a lot of discussion at the Jimmy Dore talk page (which they were recently blocked for edit warring at) over whether or not it is a potential BLP violation to include [[Category:American conspiracy theorists]]. After plenty of discussion, there was no consensus to include the category, and so it was removed. Ignoring the consensus, Jaydoggmarco just re-added the conspiracy theory category anyways without any edit summary, despite the fact that edit warring on that very article is what got him blocked two weeks ago. If it was just this one revert, I'd probably just ask them not to ignore the consensus and leave it at that, but knowing that this user has a track record of getting blocked for edit warring and adding BLP vios and doesn't seem to care how many times they get blocked, I'm seriously concerned that they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, this edit shows some snively get-away-with-it-ism. Not good. On the heels of the edit warring on Jimmy Dore, it seems that editor is exhibiting too much WP:BATTLE, even though this editor seems to be reverting some serious POV and WP:BLP issues like [28], [29] and [30]. Volatile issues like these require a bit more finesse and thick skin than what we're seeing. Perhaps an attitude adjustment and some basic education in wiki-process is necessary but it seems they're trying to contribute constructively despite the epic violations. Two recent blocks didn't deliver the message so WP:NOTHERE seems like an easy conclusion, but I think there's more going on here. If this editor is to continue here, some major behavior changes seem required. Unless they commit to that, it seems indef is the direction they're headed. Toddst1 (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I can't comment on the articles other than Jimmy Dore. I don't recall Jaydoggmarco being part of the talk page discussion regarding the tag. Yes, they restored the tag that didn't have consensus but when the issue was pointed out they acknowledged the error. I think the edit had already been reverted at that time but their talk page acknowledgement suggests they understand. I would not hold that against them. Springee (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I do think I jumped the gun starting an AN/I thread about this user given that they did seem to acknowledge the error in the edit that prompted me to question if this was a WP:NOTHERE case, although blanking my comments at AN/I is certainly not the best way to express that acknowledgement. I was mostly interested in what other editors thought, and I agree with what Toddst1 had to say; this user has made some positive edits in the past, but they have some significant behavioral issues. I'm not aware of any appropriate restrictions I could recommend to try to reel in some of the negative aspects of their behavior, and it would be odd to suggest something like a 1RR restriction when their most recent problematic edits weren't necessarily edit warring. I suppose the best option is to take no action for now and hope that, going forward, this user will be an overall positive presence on the encyclopedia. If they try to participate more in talk pages, don't remove other editors' comments, and continue to avoid edit warring, then there should be no issues. Cheers, Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Disruptive non-communicative editor
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Michael Ylvisaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user insists on repeatedly changing album release dates without sources despite multiple talk page warnings, reverting edit summaries and personal requests. On top of that, they also have yet to communicate with concerned editors such as myself regarding their problematic behaviour. Please could I ask a willing admin to cast an eye. Robvanvee 08:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Macklevine calling me racist when I'm actually a woke anti-racist.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Macklevine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Macklevine has built a small walled garden of COI articles over the past ten years. Their edits also include what look like a hundred or more "plugs' for Bayer Mack projects, inserted into a multitude of articles. Someone reported their editing to COIN, where I looked into it and left them some messages about COI editing. Melcous agreed that it looks like COI editing and tagged/edited some affected pages.
Mackelvine logged in today to find that the promotional days are over, more or less. They agreed to post a PAID notice on their user page, seeing as they appear to have a financial COI on all the articles created. They've been really difficult. However the reason I am here now is that they have just posted to their user page that the COI articles "have been (and continue to be) the targets of malicious editing and attempts at deletion that are possibly politically and/or racially-motivated in nature." So they're accusing me of racism, which is baloney. Also, they are making what is a simple job (informing them of COI and PAID guidelines and policies) into a giant pain-in-the-ass job. I'm sort of fed up with them at this point. Help, please. --- Possibly ☎ 08:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have left a hopefully informative warning on their talk page. I am concerned about this user's future here given their past. There is little to their contributions beyond their recently declared conflict of interest and their attitude is very confrontations and seems to blame others but not themselves. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Possibly, have you read the Woke article? The word now largely serves as a pejorative, thereby making this a bit of an odd self-own. El_C 13:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: What "woke" means seems to depend on which part of the world you live in. It is not so much of a pejorative here in Montreal where I live, because we have not suffered as much from the extreme left/right polarization that the United States has suffered from in the past four years. Here, it mostly still means socio-politically aware/educated. I added that word to try to use little humour to moderate the disgusting feeling of being called something so offensive--i.e. racist, which frankly sucks. Maybe I should have left it out; feel free to change the header. @HighInBC: I appreciate you talking to them. Not sure it will help, given the very long term exploitation of WP as as advertising platform for personal projects, but it is worth a try. --- Possibly ☎ 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- @El C:That's not what I get from reading the Woke article. I don't see that using a term which originated in "African-American Vernacular English" and "referred to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans, especially racial prejudice and discrimination" is automatically racist when using by non-African American people. Just because it was appropriated and weaponized by right-wingers as described in the "Woke as a pejorative term" section doesn't make it so. WP is not a reliable source for such claims anyway. Carlstak (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Further reading: Woke#"Woke"_as_a_pejorative_term. Similar to what happened to political correctness, which had a different usage prior to getting culture war'd up. El_C 14:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't this technically qualify as a content dispute? WaltCip-(talk) 15:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, this is editor behaviour that is worthy of some admin attention. The editor had been creating and editing articles on project for which they have a clear COI, without any kind of disclosure of that COI, for nearly ten years. When discovered, they said that other editors were racists (diff above), and in two other instances wrote on talk pages edits are "possibly politically-motivated in nature" (diff). I posted it here because I do not think we should allow someone who abuses our PAID policy and and COI guideline for a close to a decade to also get away with baselessly calling other editors racists and accusing them of being politically motivated. HighinBC has dealt with is pretty smoothly, but on the other hand I do not understand how we block accounts some accounts for paid editing after ten edits or less, while we let others like this one, who violated Wikimiedia's paid disclosure for almost a decade, to remain active. --- Possibly ☎ 16:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't this technically qualify as a content dispute? WaltCip-(talk) 15:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Further reading: Woke#"Woke"_as_a_pejorative_term. Similar to what happened to political correctness, which had a different usage prior to getting culture war'd up. El_C 14:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Possibly, I kinda wish I wouldn't see your name on their user page so often. Having said that, thanks to you, to Scope creep, and to Melcous for improving those articles, esp. Bayer Mack. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Possibly, given the earlier discussion, please see this, which is discussed a few sections below this one. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Another editor that refuses to abide by policy
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Monkeylady999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Despite repeated warnings, descriptive reverting edit summaries and personal requests on their talk page, Monkeylady999 refuses to make any effort to reliably source their edits, specifically genre changes as can be seen in the current tangent they're on. Then there is their blatant lack of communication, something that is required to edit here. Please could I ask an administrator to take a look and assist. Thank you. Robvanvee 10:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- As they've been warned several times over the past few months, I've issued them a short block of 31 hours to hopefully bring them into more harmonious editing territory and hopefully begin communicating with other editors. -- Longhair\talk 10:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Peace is contagious (talk · contribs)
Can someone take a look at this editor's recent edits, particularly at Sammy Davis Jr.? The problem seems to be one of attitude, as well as competence, and they do not seem receptive to suggestions. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone find it ironic that someone whose username is "Peace is contagious" is acting so aggressively and warlike? --MuZemike 18:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not everyone's username is necessarily an accurate reflection of their character, though some are... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm actually deciduous in real life EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- ... and I'm really rather more a shadow of darkness than a gleam of light ... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- And I'm El Comandante, pleased to greet you. El_C 20:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Whereas I am both narky and a blert (and not, as one editor once suggested, a Belarusian named Наркиӥ Блерт).
- Isn't there a WP:ESSAY somewhere which comments on the inferences which can be drawn from Wikipedians' usernames? Narky Blert (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- And I'm El Comandante, pleased to greet you. El_C 20:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- ... and I'm really rather more a shadow of darkness than a gleam of light ... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm actually deciduous in real life EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Taking the knee
Can someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:2A02:C7F:B44B:1600:3D69:556F:5118:2775_reported_by_User:Bilorv_(Result:_)? IP is on some-number-of-RR-much-greater-than-3 and making unlimited numbers of reverts of now at least three people, including one other IP who clearly noticed the overt vandalism, and this looks to be getting enough pageviews that having these silly claims about "woke Marxism and communism" is a serious reputational problem. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- The lede of Taking the knee is currently a WP:POV nightmare. Compare this version from 8 August 2021 before the edit war broke out and the way it reads now. There's a case for reverting all the way back (about 90 edits) to that earlier version. Steve Baker for one might be surprised to find himself called a communist or a Marxist. Narky Blert (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the point. The IP needs to be blocked so we can rollback to the status quo. There's no good faith discussion to be had with someone who behaves in this manner, and no-one but the IP who supports any part of the changes. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Range blocked for a month, they've been doing this for a while, and I agree that there are BLP concerns with their editing. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Looks like Acroterion did this, much appreciated and thank god. But it's a disgrace that we were promoting far-right misinformation for several hours on a high profile page. — Bilorv (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked new User: True Format who popped up to restore the IPs content twice. Obvious block evasion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'll semi-protect for a few days as well EvergreenFir (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Acroterion, I put a sprinkle of block account creation on your /64 block. Thanks Cullen. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, I must have unclicked that option by accident. Acroterion (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Acroterion, I put a sprinkle of block account creation on your /64 block. Thanks Cullen. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'll semi-protect for a few days as well EvergreenFir (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely blocked new User: True Format who popped up to restore the IPs content twice. Obvious block evasion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the point. The IP needs to be blocked so we can rollback to the status quo. There's no good faith discussion to be had with someone who behaves in this manner, and no-one but the IP who supports any part of the changes. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Browse-check-it thank spam
Browse-check-it has been thanking a massive number of users every few days. This is pure notification spam. Other users have complained about this on their talk page. To my knowledge, they have made no other contributions to the project. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- You are correct Susmuffin. Per Browse-check-it (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) they have not edited a single article or talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 19:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have blocked as not here to build an encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just noting this odd edit where a new user tried to hide this section. - MrOllie (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- That's the second new user who tried to that. The first attempt was here. DanCherek (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- @MrOllie: And they've done it again [31]. I'm fairly sure there's a LTA case involving a user that goes around thank spamming people, but I can't recall the name. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I found more here. There is some Quarry code to help find them. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Fictitious reference in Banu Qurayza and Banu Qaynuqa articles.
it's stated in this revision of Banu Qaynuqaa
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banu_Qaynuqa&oldid=1039872744
And the current revision of Banu Qurayza that the cause of the invasion of Banu Qaynuqa was that a muslim woman got assaulted with her clothes pinned by the jews, with cited sources (Guillaume 363, Stillman 122, ibn Kathir 2)
But, one of the sources (Guillaume 363) doesn't consist such information, which the full book can be found here:
https://archive.org/details/GuillaumeATheLifeOfMuhammad
Instead, the source (page 363) only talk about Muhammad after raiding many tribes, went back to Medina and gathered the jews in their marketplace and started inviting them to islam with threat. Which in turn provoked the jews to retort, and a dispute arose, with a verse revealed to Muhammad from God that the jews would be vanquished.
It's totally different with the cause of the banu qaynuqa invasion written on those 2 wikipedia article.
And the other source being cited {ibn Kathir 2} is too vague, since, Ibn Kathir wrote a lot of books, with many volumes each.
and {Stillman 122} born in the 20th century, it would be very weird if the information only exists in his book.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arief1982 (talk • contribs) 20:01 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have no idea why this is at ANI but while the referencing needs work, I assume from [32] that it means Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, Vol III, p. 2. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- As for Guillaume, I think the section which deals with the woman part in particular is in 366-367. I still have no idea why this is at ANI. I mean there is even an open talk page discussion? Why not continue that explaining your concerns about the referencing without edit warring or making claims of fictitious referencing? Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- As Arief1982 has already been told several times, the sentence in the article doesn't only talk about the part regarding the Muslim woman, but also the war between the Quraysh and Muslims itself, which he omitted here because reasons. Thus the source is legit enough (as it talks about that part). He has refused to investigate the other sources and keeps using this as a argument to remove sourced information, which is a big no no. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Let me correct your statement. The cited source (Guillaume 363) IS not talking about any muslim woman being assaulted at all. --Arief1982 (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
@Arief1982 and HistoryofIran: Those 3 references were used as a source for four different things in our article [33]. In a case like that, it's natural that some may not cover certain incidents completely. It's fine to raise concerns about references and discuss how they can be improved on the article talk page. And Arief1982 does seem to have had some legitimate concerns since at a minimum 363 doesn't seem to cover the woman story at all. Later pages may or may do partially do so, I don't know as I said below. So at a minimum the page numbering could do with improvement. If it's decided the story is too incomplete in Guillaume, it may be better to remove the reference completely while keeping it for the other things it may be used to support.
Likewise Arief1982 IMO has a point that ibn Kathir 2 seems too incomplete to work out what reference this refers too from the article at the time. I think I worked out what reference this referred to from the history which potentially Arief1982 could have done themselves but regardless while Arief1982 had a point, they also clearly did not handle this properly.
There was no need to edit war over this. And rather than quickly making aggressive accusations of faking references etc, the correct way to handle it would have been to politely raise the issue in the talk page i.e. something "Hey I checked out Guillaume 363 and it doesn't mention the woman story anywhere. Also what is ibn Kathir 2 since there are a lot of works/volumes by ibn Kathir?". This would hopefully have received a response like "You're right Guillaume 363 does not mention the woman bit. It does discuss other details (?and briefly mentions the woman story in page 367). Do you feel it would be better to remove the reference from this section? And ibn Kathir 2 is....." etc etc. Instead we have this mess which for all its faults still doesn't belong at ANI for either party.
Note that if referencing does not support details it's being used for or if the reference being referred to is unclear, this is something that all editors need to fix. It's not Arief1982's responsibility in particular although it is true that removing it point blank was not a good solution, especially since so far I haven't seen it contested that Stillman supported the claim. I'd note that it's perfectly fine for only a modern ref to be used, indeed often quality modern refs are preferred since their authors are better able to summarise all the information available, with hopefully less biases than historic scholars may be subject to, and using modern understandings of how trustworthy and reliable different sources are, how to understand and interpret their texts etc. Obviously the details modern scholars use came one or more historic texts, but these may not necessarily be the best sources.
Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: Thank you for your lengthy explanation. And sorry if I actually wasn't supposed to post this here. I searched how to deal with this kind of problem. And I found in this wiki article that I should report it to the administrators' noticeboard.
- I initially asked kindly to HistoryofIran who reverted my edit, if he can provide any more details about the other 3 sources since the {Guillaume 363} one doesn't consist of such information. But instead, his response was dismissive and he told me to do the search myself.
- Regarding the (Ibn Kathir vol.3 p.2) one, yeah it's there, but I think the chronological order is different. It's said there that after raiding many tribes and defeating the Quraysh in the battle of Badr, Muhammad went back to Medina and addressed the people of Qurayza by saying, "O Jews, beware of God afflicting you as He did Quraysh. And so accept Islam. You well know that I am a prophet sent with a mission; you find that to be so in your Book an God's pact with you". Seeing that as a threat if they don't convert to Islam, one of them retorted by saying "Muhammad, do you think that we are your people? Don't delude yourself, just because you did battle with those who lacked knowledge of warfare, and so you could take advantage of them. If you fight against us, you'll find us to be real men!"
- And then after the verses about the non-muslims would be vanquished if they don't accept Islam revealed, the Muslim woman being teased in their jewelry story began. So I think the main or initial cause of the invasion of the Qaynuqa shouldn't be the Muslim woman being teased in the market story, but instead the threat made by Muhammad to the Qurayza if they don't accept Islam they'd be vanquished. Since in Saheeh hadiths Muhammad already stated his intention that he wanted to expel all the non-muslims out of Arabia. https://sunnah.com/muslim:1767a
- Arief1982 (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Let me correct your statement. The cited source (Guillaume 363) IS not talking about any muslim woman being assaulted at all. --Arief1982 (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, that's a totally different incident. The information that the claimed sources support says, "When a Muslim woman visited a jeweler's shop in the Qaynuqa marketplace, she was molested. The goldsmith, a Jew, pinned her clothing such that, upon getting up, some portion of her legs became naked."[34]
Here, I uploaded the page 366-367 for your convenience https://i.ibb.co/9G1mWGG/Guillaume-A-The-Life-of-Muhammad-0206.jpg. --Arief1982 (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)- Why is this brought up here on ANI? Bad referencing is a very common issue on Wikipedia.--Berig (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Arief1982: it's not at all clear to me it's a different incident or it partly describes the same incident, I know very little about the issue. I've seen page 366-367 otherwise I wouldn't have made my comment. If the ref partly supports the incident together with potentially Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, Vol III, p. ~2 and Stillman 122 that seems more than good enough. You can discuss whether improving the page number for Guillaume or simply remove it if the description is incomplete on the article talk page. As Berig said, you still haven't explained WTF this is on ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why is this brought up here on ANI? Bad referencing is a very common issue on Wikipedia.--Berig (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- As Arief1982 has already been told several times, the sentence in the article doesn't only talk about the part regarding the Muslim woman, but also the war between the Quraysh and Muslims itself, which he omitted here because reasons. Thus the source is legit enough (as it talks about that part). He has refused to investigate the other sources and keeps using this as a argument to remove sourced information, which is a big no no. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- As for Guillaume, I think the section which deals with the woman part in particular is in 366-367. I still have no idea why this is at ANI. I mean there is even an open talk page discussion? Why not continue that explaining your concerns about the referencing without edit warring or making claims of fictitious referencing? Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just as a general note here: Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Kathir are primary sources which should only be used for literal quotes illustrating content already covered by citations of secondary sources, but never for any evaluative or paraphrasing statements for which there is no secondary source. It seems to me that these articles (Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Qurayza) contain quite a bit of original research, which should be removed rather than form the subject of a dispute. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- On the whole I find Arief1982's edits to be unhelpful. They tried removing a well-known story, that is widely covered in secondary sources, just because one of the page numbers were wrong. Then they tried adding voluminous quotes sourced to primary sources, giving them more weight than secondary source analysis.VR talk 14:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, it seems you're not following. Maybe because of my bad English. But this English wiki is also often read in my country so it's quite a problem.
- I deleted it before because the story doesn't exist on page 363 of Ibn Ishaq {translated by Guillaume} which is used as one of the sources for the claimed Muslim woman got molested information, "Guillaume 363".
- And at that time, the other source [ibn Kathir 2] is too vague to me since Ibn Kathir wrote a lot of books, with many volumes each.
- But then a user, Nil Einne (above) told me that it's Ibn Kathir Al-Sira Al-Nabawiya vol.3 page.2, and I found it. But rather than being molested, the Muslim woman was more being teased, and the chronological order is different.
- https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfTheProphetMuhammad-EnglishTranslationOfIbnKathirsAlSira/TheLifeOfTheProphetMuhammad-EnglishTranslationOfIbnKathirsAlSiraAlNabawiyyaVolume3
- All the sources however is said to goes down to Ibn Ishaq, but some said that he was quite problematic, even the IP user who reverted my edit before you used that reason.
- However, one clear thing is, in one of the two most trusted collections of hadith, which is Sahih Muslim, Muhammad had already stated his intention, that he wanted to expel all the non-muslims out of Arabia.
- https://sunnah.com/muslim:1767
- So that must be the actual reason.
- Arief1982 (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Arief1982: there's something which you don't seem to understand here: any information on Wikipedia that is solely based on Ibn Kathir, Ibn Ishaq, Sahih Muslim, or other medieval ('primary') sources should be removed. Writing something based on them is what scholars do (original research), but it is strictly prohibited here. We don't look to what Ibn Kathir and the others wrote, but only to what modern scholars ('secondary sources') have written about what they wrote. A wrong page number in Ibn Ishaq or an incomplete reference to Ibn Kathir is not a good reason to remove something if there is a secondary source. If there is no secondary source it should be removed, but only for that reason. We don't go into arguments here about what Ibn Kathir did or did not write, or how that should be understood. We take this understanding directly from the secondary sources. Please read our policy page on original research. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE by BestProgrammer989898
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BestProgrammer989898 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
More or less all of this users edits have been reverted. He engages in pov-pushing and edit warring, removing/altering any information he doesn't agree with. He has also just broken the three-revert rule big time.
Some examples:
--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Re
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
BloggerOfficial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been attacking a page and while I am typing if graffitiing (probably) now. I do think that giving him warnings will be a waste of time, you can tell that he is not here to collaborate also I am pretty light and would not go that high but he is urgent. --216.87.237.181 (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
JardelSoares
- Special:Contributions/JardelSoares
So they keep adding inaccurate info to articles. Adding Justice League to LSH members, for example.
I've warned twice and I and others have reverted the edits, but they continue. - jc37 06:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Added an {{ANI-notice}} to their talk page for you. Zudo (talk • contribs) 08:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks - jc37 19:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
They are still at it.
As these are mobile edits, I would wonder if this was the "mobile editor not seeing talk page" issue, that's been discussed of late, if they had not removed previous notices from their talk page - [40]
Not sure how this should be handled. - jc37 19:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Jc37 - The user looks to have been warned plenty of times, I think that if the user does this again, starting with a temporary block for adding unreferenced content would be a reasonable and logical next step here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikihounding
Okay, I hate bringing things to ANI. Not sure when the last time I did was. However, at this point I seem to have no other choice. Approximately 2-3 months ago, I had a disagreement with another editor, NemesisAT about something which I honestly do not remember what it was over. However, prior to that, I had very little, if any interaction with that editor. Since that time, there have been numerous interactions, the vast majority (if not all) of which are negative reactions to edits I made by this editor, see this report. I’ve asked them to desist in their obvious wikihounding, first in an AfD (which I actually can’t find the diff for), then on their talk page 2 weeks ago, User talk:NemesisAT#Wikihounding. I took their response there in good faith, however, since then, they have continued their behavior, although in a somewhat subdued fashion. The most recent interactions being, OKI Common Lisp, Patrick McDermott (Massachusetts politician), London Buses route 242, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld (2nd nomination), I Am a Lot Like You! Tour. Finally, there was Salem Local Planning Authority, which led me to send it to AfD, where I again asked him to desist. He refused to admit that what he was doing was wikihounding, which you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Local Planning Authority. This was followed up by their interacting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RenderDoc (2nd nomination). Finally, there is the interaction at Changde railway station, where once again, the editor in question had nothing to do with the page until I edited it. And what makes it interesting is that they did not revert my edit, which would have alerted me that they had reverted me, instead doing it in a way to evade letting me know. Same thing with Koonendah railway station, Huaihua railway station, and Nanyang railway station, Even after that, I was hoping they would go away. However, there was this just today, again done in such a way as to not alert me unless it was on my watchlist. At this point I’d like the community to impose an interaction ban on this editor. Onel5969 TT me 02:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- It seems the disagreement started from this - [41] [42]. The interaction timeline is indeed shows a large overlap with many edits being within hours or days of each other. A common pattern is Onel prodding an article and Nemesis removing the prod. Or Onel redirecting an article and Nemesis reverting it. However in Koonendah railway station, Onel redirected the article in 18 August and reverted by Nemesis 12 minutes later. Nemesis had edited the article before in June 30 [43]. Similarly Onel's redirection of Changde railway station in 14 August was reverted by Nemesis an hour later later, with that being their first edit to the article [44]. But Nemesis had edited the talk page in 26 June [45]. At least in these 2 cases it reasonable to believe Nemesis had watchlisted the articles. There are also several cases where Nemesis was the first to edit an article by reverting others' redirects and Onel tagging it for notability in the next edit - [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]. This can be explained as Nemesis patrolling prods and new redirects, and Onel tagging for notability and redirecting while doing New page patrol. So I am wondering whether this overlap is simply because the two editors have opposite editing patterns? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, me and Onel did have a disagreement (again, I can't remember what it was over) but if I remember correctly it was a message on WikiProject Trains about deletion discussions regarding bus content that opened my eyes to the amount of content being redirected and deleted here.
- I watch a large amount of articles, the railway station ones I was watching the article or watching the talk page of a user notified by Onel. The bus route article was also on my watchlist. I've also been using automated reports and categories to find new PRODs, deletion discussions, and redirects.
- In response to Onel, I don't think it would be fair to impose an interaction ban due to the wide number of pages they edit. I am not picking on them, if anything, I feel I'm being bullied here. They asked me why I was editing pages on topics I wasn't interested in, so to see them bring up articles on buses and railway stations (my core interests) is incredibly frustrating. NemesisAT (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I also completely disagree with Onel's suggestions that I was trying to hide my edits, and find it rather hypocritical after they made accusations in an edit summary, and later at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Local Planning Authority, without pinging me. I did not realise using the undo button gave a notification, and am not aware of any guideline requiring reverts to be made using the undo button. To be clear, I do not wish for any action to be taken against Onel. I would simply like them to stop accusing me of wikihounding whenever I edit a page they happen to have edited previously. NemesisAT (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Onel5969 makes PROD nominations frequently – their log indicates that they do this more than once a day. Such activity will naturally attract attention from the same small pool of prod patrollers. And if you nominate a string of topics of the same type, such as railway stations, you will naturally attract attention from editors who watch that sort of topic. The same applies with AfD nominations and draftifications, which Onel5969 often does too. Such actions are not low profile – they are, per WP:BITE, hostile and high-stakes. The recent case of John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld which Onel5969 prodded and NemesisAT deprodded, is a good example as this generated a huge furore which attracted many editors. The outcome indicates that this was not an appropriate topic to prod as the process is just for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". If Onel5969 follows these PROD rules more carefully, this will tend to resolve the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Andrew here. I also contribute to railroad related articles, as you might guess from my username (I have the WP Trains article alerts page watchlisted and frequently comment on the AfD notifications I see there). As two editors who frequently work in the same area, they will frequently encounter each other and that does not mean it is Wikihounding. I participated in several of the most recent AfD threads the filer mentions, not because I had any interest in Wikihounding but because I ran into them on AfD and felt I could comment on them. Editors have the right to object to PROD nominations. The few examples of Nemesis nearly immediately reverting actions other than PRODs that Onel takes are a bit concerning but do not justify an ANI thread. Nemesis should give Onel a bit of berth and should communicate via the talk page instead of reverting when appropriate. Onel should recognize that editors who are interested in a certain topic will likely be interested in PROD nominations on articles on said topic. If the two of you really can't resolve this, I would recommend another form of dispute resolution besides ANI. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
History of unsourced or poorly sourced population edits
GrannyDsRevenge (talk · contribs), blocked by Callanecc as 76.119.87.226 (talk · contribs). Persistent removal of sourced content, replacing with poorly sourced or unsourced at NH senate district articles. See also [52], [53]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Warned. Hey, IP, it's been... half a minute. Anyway, I've left them a final warning. Please feel free to drop me a line personally if problems persist. New tunes, btw. El_C 15:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Homophobic userbox
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Brandmeister has a custom userbox on their userpage that reads: This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman
. All userbox templates containing this phrase or a variation thereof were deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. They were deleted because the community reached a consensus that they violate WP:UBCR, which states: Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive
. I politely informed them of this but they have refused to remove the userbox. Wikipedia is not a forum for WP:FREESPEECH; we restrict speech that harms the community. In this case, content on userpages that advocates for restricting the rights of fellow editors who are LGBT can make them feel unwelcome and should not be tolerated. There is no right to bigotry on userpages. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- As long at the lad isn't posting his beliefs across the project? IMHO, it's alright for him to display said-userbox. Let's not overdo it, with political correctness. GoodDay (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- The userbox was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, which determined it's unacceptable. This user is attempting to circumvent that consensus. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- What'll next, not be allowed on one's userpage? I wasn't aware that attempts (in the past) were made to remove the userbox. Are we becoming a Wikipedia of censorship? How far will it go? GoodDay (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. There's a very clear consensus there. And userboxes are not Wikipedia content. Userboxes are meant to be a fun way to convey one's interests. Not for expressing hatred, there's no benefit to the community from allowing that. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sorry Tartan357, but would you care to explain to me exactly where you find expressions of "hatred" in the userbox on his page?--Berig (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Berig, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. All relevant arguments were made there and a consensus was reached, I'm not going to relitigate that deletion discussion here. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sorry Tartan357, but would you care to explain to me exactly where you find expressions of "hatred" in the userbox on his page?--Berig (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. There's a very clear consensus there. And userboxes are not Wikipedia content. Userboxes are meant to be a fun way to convey one's interests. Not for expressing hatred, there's no benefit to the community from allowing that. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- What'll next, not be allowed on one's userpage? I wasn't aware that attempts (in the past) were made to remove the userbox. Are we becoming a Wikipedia of censorship? How far will it go? GoodDay (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- The userbox was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, which determined it's unacceptable. This user is attempting to circumvent that consensus. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
People are welcome to believe what they want, however what they put on their userpage on Wikipedia is very much subject to community standards. We are not a forum for free speech. Given that this has nothing to do with improving the project and the community has already rejected it on the grounds that it is not appropriate I see no way to justify allowing it.
The MfD aside this is very much the sort of discriminatory comment we normally do not allow. Like it or not in many countries same sex couples are allowed to marry and to deny this fact is grossly insulting to those in such a marriage. If it said that they believe that marriage only existed when both people are the same race would that also be okay? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- What will be next? We can't reveal our gender or that we have a gender? Because, it might offend somebody? GoodDay (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- That is an absurd suggestion, and nothing to do with this situation. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've been aware of their deletion, but didn't start making a drama when they were gone. But as long as my userpage is involved I'll clarify my stance. The claim about "substantially divisive" is apparently overstretched here. In fact, we have a whole Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Ideology. And it looks disingenuous to me when people talking about tolerance and acceptance culture cannot apparently tolerate other people's views, throwing around homophobic accusations. Wikipedia editors may have different views on that matter and, as long as we want to be inclusive, we should respect that. Brandmeistertalk 08:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Brandmeister, it is homophobic. That is an unambiguously homophobic statement. You're saying that you should have more rights than me because of my sexuality. Advocating for the elimination of other users' civil rights is divisive and totally unnecessary. ― Tartan357 Talk 09:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Tartan357 I'm not saying I should have more rights than you. I'm saying that personally I believe in the man and woman union just like you believe in another union. That means I have the same rights to express myself as you do. Please don't interpret it another way. Thanks. Brandmeistertalk 09:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Brandmeister, it is homophobic. That is an unambiguously homophobic statement. You're saying that you should have more rights than me because of my sexuality. Advocating for the elimination of other users' civil rights is divisive and totally unnecessary. ― Tartan357 Talk 09:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed HighInBC, its is absurd. But, that'll be coming in the future, concerning userboxes. GoodDay (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've been aware of their deletion, but didn't start making a drama when they were gone. But as long as my userpage is involved I'll clarify my stance. The claim about "substantially divisive" is apparently overstretched here. In fact, we have a whole Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Ideology. And it looks disingenuous to me when people talking about tolerance and acceptance culture cannot apparently tolerate other people's views, throwing around homophobic accusations. Wikipedia editors may have different views on that matter and, as long as we want to be inclusive, we should respect that. Brandmeistertalk 08:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- That is an absurd suggestion, and nothing to do with this situation. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I have to agree with User:Tartan357. Regardless of the reason for it, this kind of statement on a user page is not acceptable for the same reason that the username "Gaysshouldntmarry" wouldn't be acceptable. There are plenty of social media sites on which people can air their personal views. Deb (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Consensus was quite clear in the deletion discussion that such content does not belong on Wikipedia user pages. If people want to relitigate that then the place to do so is WP:DRV, not this discussion. Unless and until consensus changes there then it should be respected. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree the place to debate this WP:DRV. This is an admin board and admins don't override deletion discussions that reached a consensus. I have removed the userbox per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Best you don't restore the userbox @Brandmeister:, or it may lead to your getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- We have a behavioral guideline, Wikipedia:Etiquette, that also covers such issues: "We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia". Please, stick to it. I have nothing against LGBT and don't tell them what to put on their own userboxes. But since when expressing one's own traditional believe in marriage is discriminatory? Heterosexual people have the same rights as LGBT do. Once again, it comes down to mutual respect for each other's views. The same goes for religion, political affiliation, dietary preferences, etc. This becomes too unhealthy. Gosh, come on folks. Brandmeistertalk 09:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Brandmeister you can take it to DRV if you disagree with the result of the MfD. Short of the consensus being overturned you are required to accept it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- So DRV be it. It's very disappointing, to put it mildly, that users are being harassed and threatened with block for their marriage beliefs in the supposedly inclusive Wikipedia. Brandmeistertalk 09:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Brandmeister you can take it to DRV if you disagree with the result of the MfD. Short of the consensus being overturned you are required to accept it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not to put too fine a point on it, but did Brandmeister manually recreate a community-deleted userbox which violated WP:UBCR? That in itself should call for a strong warning, IMO. Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Softlavender, yes, that is exactly what they did, and they've admitted to knowing about the deletion consensus when manually re-creating the userbox. ― Tartan357 Talk 10:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Further Comment: In my opinion, any effort to revive userboxes that clearly violate WP:UBCR and create a hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere are not going to end well, and will likely be reported to WMF T&S, which has taken a stronger and stronger stand against homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, and other divisive elements on Wikipedia. This is just a word to the wise. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
This is literally 1984. How can so many editors have a problem with homophobic userboxes that were already deleted, being revived and reinstated? Unbelievable, no logic at all. In all seriousness, it's not like there is already consensus regarding that userbox and it got subsequently removed, but the editor still circumvented it to put it in their page. This is the problem here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry to be such a pendant, but I'm afraid I can't let that use of "literally" go. It is figuratively 1984. It was literally 1984 37 years ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: For the life of me, I'll never understand how people feel that if they state homophobic beliefs in a way that isn't just chock-full of slurs, that it's somehow not discriminatory or hateful. Surely we must have a guideline somewhere about this? I've seen a worrying uptick in these sorts of things online. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well now he's resorted to just stating the viewpoint at the top of his userpage rather than using a userbox [54]. This seems WP:POINTY and a violation. Looking at his block log and his sanctions and his topic ban and his AE, it seems Brandmeister has a history of being disruptive and brooking no interference. Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith and don't accuse an editor for activity not related to editing. Thanks for understanding. Brandmeistertalk 11:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Everyone's past behavior is subject to being taken into account at ANI, especially when patterns repeat themselves. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's POINTy. If the argument is that it shouldn't exist as a userbox, well, it doesn't anymore. If the argument is that he shouldn't express the views, that's fine, but that's not what a significant portion of this ANI thread is about. I personally disagree with their views on this - but I don't see how allowing this is much worse than allowing someone to say "I'm a conservative Christian" on their userpage, which implies this view - and if we disallowed that, that would be quite an infringement on expression. I'm not sure what the solution here is - I generally think it's best to keep controversial views off of userpages altogether - but so far that hasn't exactly been community consensus. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- You make a good point, Elli. Not long ago I was hauled over the coals by other editors for preventing a new editor from promoting his Twitter feed on his user page. The broad drift of the opposition was that there is no actual rule that says you can't put your Twitter handle, Facebook ID, etc, on your user page. But there is a guideline that says user pages are not intended for material that doesn't relate to Wikipedia. Deb (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. I think by trying to create an inclusive community we've created a toxic environment where editors in good standing are being harassed for their views and beliefs. As I noted above, this runs afoul of Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:Assume good faith. There was at least one such case in Russian Wikipedia where a user effectively quit Wikipedia over pressure on their userbox. Some red lines that should not be stepped over must exist. Brandmeistertalk 11:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Implying and directly saying it are two different things. You can say you're christian/muslim/etc all you want, but don't try to prove a point that's present in those religions on wikipedia. The editor not only circumvented the clear consensus to include that userbox in their page, but is now actively trying to do the same in a text form because someone happened to notice that hateful userbox and bring to ANI's attention. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Stating one's religious affiliation does not attack any group or person and does not create an unwelcoming and hostile environment. Softlavender (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith and don't accuse an editor for activity not related to editing. Thanks for understanding. Brandmeistertalk 11:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, "Brandmeister" means "Firemaster". Interesting in this context. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Duden.de (like Merriam-Webster, but German) defines it as the commander of a firefighter unit. I do not think your contribution here is helpful. Moreover, since we are a international cooperation of volunteers, I think we should be tolerant of opinions that differ from our own. I do not support his opinions, but it's good to know who we're dealing with. Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Brandmeister: I'm just a guy, but I believe your user page is a place where you talk about what you do on Wikipedia, not where you WP:Advocate for your views. I would not pick this hill to die on if I were you. MarshallKe (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I will not argue much over this, but here's just one thing. I've been editing Wikipedia for 16 years, started hundreds of articles, uploaded 25 featured pictures and this is the first time I see such an aggressive behavior towards me out of nothing. I just ask some editors to adhere to WP:AGF, WP:ETIQ and stop harassing any editor for their personal beliefs not related to editing. It's not helpful to wiki-collaboration. And as long as WP:Advocate is involved, it acts both ways. Personally, I've never had a problem with an LGBT user and ask the same for me. Brandmeistertalk 12:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you feel that this is your personal belief not related to editing, why is it on your Wikipedia user page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- For the same reason we have Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Ideology to begin with. If you disagree, you can start an RfC to prohibit expressing any personal beliefs on userpages. Brandmeistertalk 12:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you feel that this is your personal belief not related to editing, why is it on your Wikipedia user page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I will not argue much over this, but here's just one thing. I've been editing Wikipedia for 16 years, started hundreds of articles, uploaded 25 featured pictures and this is the first time I see such an aggressive behavior towards me out of nothing. I just ask some editors to adhere to WP:AGF, WP:ETIQ and stop harassing any editor for their personal beliefs not related to editing. It's not helpful to wiki-collaboration. And as long as WP:Advocate is involved, it acts both ways. Personally, I've never had a problem with an LGBT user and ask the same for me. Brandmeistertalk 12:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think it should be pointed out that Tartan357, the user who created this AN/I post also has a number of potentially divisive and inflammatory userboxes. They are: "This user knows that democracy is so overrated", "This user is a South Park Republican", and (I submit this one somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although I personally find it offensive) "This user prefers to watch his anime dubbed". Would advise that there is a WP:POTKETTLE situation here. MarshallKe (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Have those userboxes also been thoroughly discussed? Is there any consensus on them? Did Tartan357 try to circumvent said consensus (if it even exists) and re-add any of those userboxes to their talk page? If not, then this is a false equivalency. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is this a serious complaint? I don't think those two userboxes are at all harmful. — Czello 13:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I've also removed this which was added straight after the UBX removal - Beliefs such as this really don't belong here nor do they help Wikipedia in any way, shape or form. –Davey2010Talk 12:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)- This appears to be a matter of semantics? The community has stated "This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman" is exclusive. Therefore, an inclusive phrasing is required, such as "This user supports heterosexual marriage." That is very much in line with other userboxes. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Heterophobia at its finest. — Ched (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Really? Have you ever seen anyone advocating having a statement on a user page supporting marriage for same-sex couples but opposing it for different-sex ones? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Ched, If you're referring to me as being heterophobic then I'm afraid you're completely wrong. I don't care whether you like the same sex or the opposite sex I honestly don't care at all .... but IMHO in the case of my revert the editor in question tried to circumvent the revert by reinstating it in a non-ubx format. Of course if the community believes the comment was fine and that it should be reinstated then I don't mind being reverted or even reinstating it myself but my revert was purely to revert something that thus far the community has seen as being problematic and as I said the offending text was already removed once per an MFD ... so IMHO trying to reinstate it in a non-ubx format is simply GAMINGTHESYSTEM/circumventing the revert, Hope this helps. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Don't know if I'm allowed to comment since I'm not an admin, but I see no problem with this. It is not our responsibility as wikipedia editors to make sure everyone in the world doesn't get triggered by our views. The editor simply pointed out their view on it which is fine. There was no insult or attacks towards a group. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~Contact 12:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Opposing same-sex marriage is blatantly insulting towards same-sex couples. It also implies that homosexual people should not be allowed to marry, i.e. do not deserve the same rights as heterosexual people. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok? We are allowed to have opinions. A person being Communist might be extremely offensive to others. Now we cancel Communism? What kind of mockery of logic is this? This world we live in is becoming crazier every second. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~Contact 14:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Ok"? You said there was no insult or attack towards a group, which the userbox blatantly is. Would it be okay to have a userbox advocating against mixed-race marriage? I would argue that advocating for a portion of the population to have less rights in society than another portion of the population is hateful discrimination and not just "an opinion", but regardless, you're allowed to think that way if you want. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a government, built on rules and consensi established through discussions. The established consensus was that this type of userbox is inappropriate, so it should not be used. It does not matter whether you disagree with that consensus. Overturning that consensus is not impossible, but using the userbox right now is actively going against site policy. If you want to cancel communist userboxes no one is stopping you from beginning that discussion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- There's a difference between "This user is a Quranic Muslim" and "This user supports criminalizing prayer by Kafir". You can see that, right? This isn't just "having opinions" or "pointing out their view", it's saying that a specific group of people should have fewer rights than anyone else. That's fundamentally incompatible with a project where we're expected to be civil and collaborate with one another. Woodroar (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok? We are allowed to have opinions. A person being Communist might be extremely offensive to others. Now we cancel Communism? What kind of mockery of logic is this? This world we live in is becoming crazier every second. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~Contact 14:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Opposing same-sex marriage is blatantly insulting towards same-sex couples. It also implies that homosexual people should not be allowed to marry, i.e. do not deserve the same rights as heterosexual people. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- "
This user believes marriage is between one man and one woman
" Pretty sure my parents and their parents would say this. Does that make them homophobic? No. I wouldn't care if he had a userbox saying he kills small babies with hammers, as long as their edits are good. Some people get all flustered over the least important of things these days. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)- That's oddly specific... aren't all babies small? If not, what about big babies? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Good point. Don't want to discriminate against them too! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Does that make them homophobic?" Yes, it's a blatantly homophobic statement. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Of course. Meanwhile, in Kabul... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- That there are worse forms of homophobia than being opposed to same-sex marriage does not mean that being opposed to same-sex marriage is not homophobia. What a strange idea. Opposing same-sex marriage is advocating for reducing the rights of homosexual people in society. Fairly straightforward. If the userbox had said "this user believes marriage is between two people of the same race" that would be blatantly racist, this is not that different. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Of course. Meanwhile, in Kabul... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Does that make them homophobic?" Yes, it's a blatantly homophobic statement. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. I strongly suggest we refrain from this type of behavior. Censoring userpages due to personal beliefs, reverting them and threatening with sanctions violates WP:HARASS, WP:AGF, WP:ETIQ and WP:BATTLEGROUND at least. I didn't expect to get such an ANI thread after merely expressing my stance on marriage. This has went too far. There's much more to say about this embarassing attitude, but I'll be succinct to avoid wall of text in this thread. Brandmeistertalk 13:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- This thread is very disappointing.
- Everybody "believes in marriage between one man and one woman." Someone supporting same-sex marriage doesn't oppose heterosexual marriage. The only reason anyone says "I support marriage between one man and one woman" is to imply an opposition to same-sex marriage. It's the same. If this is somehow news to you; now you are aware. It's discriminatory, not just "disagrement."
- It's completely inappropriate to restore a userbox deleted as inappropriate via MfD.
- It's completely inappropriate to circumvent the spirit of that closure by putting it on your userpage without transcluding it or without having the form of a userbox
- It's completely inappropriate to fill an ANI thread with cartoonish slippery slope arguments as though "don't make discriminatory statements on your userpage that have nothing to do with Wikipedia" means anything more than that.
- If you think political ideology boxes are the same, you've missed the point. We can disagree; we just can't discriminate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- They never said
they believe in marriage between one man and one woman
they saidThis user believes marriage is between one man and one woman
andI also believe that marriage is between man and woman
both linking to the article heterosexual. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)- Indeed. I was looking at
I'm saying that personally I believe in the man and woman union just like you believe in another union
, which seems to imply Tartan doesn't "believe in the man and woman union" when it's really Brandmeister who is excluding "another union." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. I was looking at
- I was typing up a long response above, but Rhododendrites expressed pretty much exactly the same thing I was thinking much more eloquently. It's not that people *disagree* with the sentiment, it's that the sentiment actively discriminates against them. I would just add that, above, Brandmeister says that
as long as we want to be inclusive, we should respect [people with "different views"]
. Well, inclusivity is a two-way street; it doesn't just mean you get to do whatever *you* want and everyone else has to just deal with it. It means that, if someone makes a reasonable and not unduly-burdensome request of you to accommodate them, then you do it, and I don't see how a request could be more reasonable or less burdensome than to abide by a year-old community consensus and remove a single userbox that is self-admittedly not related to Wikipedia editing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- The userbox was inappropriate, as it circumvents a community consensus that interpreted a PAG (WP:UBCR). As for this, yes the guideline only applies to userboxes, however, it merely summarises two policies that already exist and apply to all content: WP:Civility and WP:NOT. It's not circumventing a deletion discussion to add it into prose, but it's not a good look either, and I suspect it's equally as much a policy violation. There's also WP:POLEMIC and WP:UP#GOALS, and I think the diff is in violation of both. Policy aside, these kinds of views don't have any purpose being aired onwiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I thought I had I participated at one of the MFDs on those userboxes to what I say below (But apparently not that specific one) but I'll reiterate concerns raised by Brandmeister and Good Day here - there's a slippery slope here given that we have apparently we have no problem with other political or ideological userboxes. I absolutely don't agree with the specific statement in question here, but taking that in mind, it is not directed at any editor or named groups of editors, and in fact still remains the principle belief of the Catholic faith (if not others), one of the major religions out there, so it is not like a complete fringe view. So the question of where such political or idealogical statements become inflammatory or divisive is highly questionable (eg in light of the last four years, I'd argue a box that says one is a supporter of the US Republican Party is equally divisive.) The key is that when an editor puts such a statement on their page, they are not editing with that POV on topics that touch that area. If Brandmeister was active on an article about gay marriage and constantly trying to include arguments against it or the like then we might have an issue at play. Yes, there was the MFD and thus technically the userbox should not be recreated, but I think that was a poor decision by the community done without thinking of teh consequences or larger picture. --Masem (t) 13:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is not the right place to relitigate the consensus or make special exemptions. Another deletion discussion can perhaps be had, but its result and interpretation of policy must be respected in the meantime. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- What Rhododendrites said. This userbox is 'civilly discriminating', and while we do disagreement and free speech, we don't do discrimination. This already got consensus in the MfD, and this noticeboard serves for acting upon that consensus, not for relitigating it. People who disagree with that consensus should take it elsewhere and not be posting here. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- While I do not agree with the userbox, it is not discrimination. You could make a lot of arguments why it is inappropriate but that is not one of them. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. I encourage others to have a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" (emphasis mine). This is not only a Wikipedia issue, but a blatant encroachment on freedom of thought which we either forget, turn a blind eye or are unaware of. Brandmeistertalk 14:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah... In my experience, when the UN Declaration of Human Rights appears in an ANI discussion, usually it's an indicator that we're heading into WP:IDHT territory. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, please. Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech, and never has been. It's not a "medium", it's a privately-owned website. There are plenty of others on the medium of the Internet where you can express your personal views if you want. Nobody has an unmitigated right of expression here. Nobody is expecting you to change your mind about your views, we just want you to express them elsewhere, not on this collaborative project. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. I encourage others to have a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" (emphasis mine). This is not only a Wikipedia issue, but a blatant encroachment on freedom of thought which we either forget, turn a blind eye or are unaware of. Brandmeistertalk 14:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- While I do not agree with the userbox, it is not discrimination. You could make a lot of arguments why it is inappropriate but that is not one of them. PackMecEng (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with ProcrastinatingReader that this is a new level of WP:IDHT. By the way, the Declaration of Human Rights also says "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" so opposing same-sex marriage goes against that document. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That you are not allowed to discriminate against other people on a volunteer encyclopedia-writing project does not mean you are being persecuted for your beliefs. We are not a country making rules for people who live here. We are a project with a purpose and rules to support that purpose. This is not an exercise in free speech. Being sanctioned on Wikipedia has nothing at all to do with your thoughts or opinions; only the way you interact with the rest of the community. The vast majority of speech is indeed allowed as long as it meets the rules we have in place involving treating other users with respect (and yes, requiring that people not be a jerk to each other is much more strict than a nation's laws should be). Asking you to treat the people who edit this project with respect (regardless of whether you think you are) is not discriminating against or attacking you. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Here we go again. If free speech is not allowed here, then why LGBT support is allowed? It acts both ways, otherwise we become hypocritical and dishonest both towards ourselves and others who hold different views. It's bizarre when someone who doesn't respect other people's views by telling them what to have on a userpage starts to demand respect for himself/herself. Now, opposers of same-sex marriage are legitimately important in same-sex marriage referendums where general public opinion is required. Suppressing someone's beliefs for the supposed benefit of others doesn't contribute to equal rights. Brandmeistertalk 14:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Explain in what way LGBT support is discriminatory. Your beliefs are not being suppressed, the policy per the aforementioned consensus is just that the userbox you used was inappropriate. If you want to change that, start a discussion concerning that, don't go against the policy by using the userbox anyway. No such discussion has been conducted on LGBT support, you're free to start one of those as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia gets to tell you which speech is acceptable on their private platform. It does not act both ways because they are not required to be "fair" in the eyes of anyone. They could even compel you to say something as a condition of being on this platform. MarshallKe (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Weird arguments by now. Wikipedia doesn't have any special privileges over other platforms in that regard, all are electronic media, itself part of "media" per Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. If Wikipedia thinks otherwise, then that's illegal. Brandmeistertalk 15:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is inherent irony in calling any argument "weird" after having gone down kicking and screaming, and even going so far as to appeal to the Declaration of Human Rights, over being asked to remove an offensive statement from one's user page because the overwhelming consensus of a previous discussion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Brandmeister: MarshallKe is right. If Wikipedia were to require you to state that you believe marriage is between people of the same race, then you'd be compelled to do that if you wanted to edit. It's not illegal. You're confusing your right to express your opinion with a non-existent right to use a medium not owned by you to express an opinion. What you can and cannot say on this medium is determined by the WMF and by community consensus. No human right violations involved. You'd be well advised to read this comment carefully and to act accordingly. Thank you, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Weird arguments by now. Wikipedia doesn't have any special privileges over other platforms in that regard, all are electronic media, itself part of "media" per Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. If Wikipedia thinks otherwise, then that's illegal. Brandmeistertalk 15:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I said
The vast majority of speech is indeed allowed as long as it meets the rules we have in place involving treating other users with respect
. Your response wasIf free speech is not allowed here, then why LGBT support is allowed?
- Again, it's not discrimination against you that other people have the same rights you do and/or that other people think they should have the same rights. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Here we go again. If free speech is not allowed here, then why LGBT support is allowed? It acts both ways, otherwise we become hypocritical and dishonest both towards ourselves and others who hold different views. It's bizarre when someone who doesn't respect other people's views by telling them what to have on a userpage starts to demand respect for himself/herself. Now, opposers of same-sex marriage are legitimately important in same-sex marriage referendums where general public opinion is required. Suppressing someone's beliefs for the supposed benefit of others doesn't contribute to equal rights. Brandmeistertalk 14:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody has mentioned that the userbox was also discriminating against polygamy. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Tartan357: might I suggest User:Gerald_Fernandez-Mayfield/Marriage, USer:Rev Mick man34/GovOut, User:UBX/Marriage Religious, User:Sundostund/Userbox/LGBT3? Alternately, this gives a list for somebody to propose these be deleted, as well. MarshallKe (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note that the last one, which is probably the most controversial, Was proposed for deletion and closed as keep. MarshallKe (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the validity of the discussion (per
(some of those above also dissented in the previous MfD)
). Seems like a WP:CONLEVEL issue:Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)- It is probably worthwhile to have a centralized discussion on the nature of what exactly can be "inflammatory or substantially divisive" UBXes in light of this discussion and those MFDs, which may subsequently require deletion reviews/new MFDs depending on that result. --Masem (t) 14:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the validity of the discussion (per
- Note that the last one, which is probably the most controversial, Was proposed for deletion and closed as keep. MarshallKe (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't about 'beliefs'. Marriage is a legal status - it is whatever the state says it is. If you "believe" that marriage is between one man and one woman, you are objectively wrong in the country I live in, and in much (most? all?) of the Anglophone world. You could say "This user believes that marriage ought to be only between one man and one woman", but you would be saying that you believe that rights already enshrined in law ought to be withdrawn from certain sectors of the community - I don't see how that can be seen as anything other than discriminatory. It's a belief you can hold, but I fail to see how it is in any way relevant to your editing here, or how it can be anything other than divisive. The arguments about other political beliefs are irrelevant whataboutism. I hope that Brandmeister will see that what they are doing here is wrong, and remove that irrelevant, hurtful and divisive statement from his userpage, without sanctions being necessary. Girth Summit (blether) 15:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Several users agreed with me here, at least partially. It's now obvious that a wider discussion is needed, perhaps on Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes. Brandmeistertalk 15:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Accusing a user of being homophobic is a personal attack. That the community chooses to tolerate such a personal attack because of ideological and advocacy reasons beyond the actual mission of Wikipedia is sad. Slywriter (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Huh. I had a all this sensory overload is triggering my anxiety line for da funnies, but looks like it only took YouTube 8 hours to remove https://www.youtube.com/c/joeybtoonz hilarious video about Comrades SJW. But fear not, I found it elsewhere. Point of privilege! Your esteemed delegate, El_C 15:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I would suggest treating this the exact same way we would treat someone having a userbox (or posting in plain text on their user page) "This user believes that marriage is the union of a man and a woman of the same race". --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. It does come up over and over again that when a userbox is deleted, it only applies to that userbox. So then we had people recreating the userbox display without actually recreating the template and people otherwise expressing exactly the same thing without using a userbox template as though all of the concerns expressed in the [many, now] MfDs are somehow assuaged because there's no CSS box. As with anything else here, it's the spirit, not the letter that we should be going by. The userbox is [almost] never the problem, and it would be better to stop framing it that way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Have we really spent this long playing a game of silly buggers, including but not limited to entirely misrepresenting the concept of free speech? Consensus was reached at the aforementioned MFD. Said consensus was based on content, not on execution; the meat of the issue was not specifically that a discriminatory sentiment was expressed in a userbox but that a discriminatory sentiment was being expressed at all, on a privately-owned platform to which no user has a "right" to remain. Whether that content is now displayed as prose text or in a little graphic tchotchke is largely immaterial and continuing to advocate for its inclusion is entirely circumventing an agreed conclusion; without overturning the previous decision (not something this noticeboard is to be used for) this issue should have had a line drawn under it from the outset. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 15:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Post-first-close discussion
- I don't think deleting the userboxes is enough, I think the users making and displaying these should also be indef'd. This isn't an acceptable opinion to hold or promote; using this website to promote discrimination violates our terms of service. Homophobia is no different than racism. If someone was going around saying they think marriage should only be between people of the same race, we'd indef them without hesitation. So should it be for anyone going around saying marriage should only be between "a man and a woman". It's time to stop treating this as if it's an acceptable point of view. I don't know about the rest of you but I do not want to be part of a community that tolerates the promotion of anti-gay-marriage opinions. Levivich 16:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with
I don't think deleting the userboxes is enough
and disagree with the close. The editor may well now be aware of the MFDs, but has made clear that he does not respect them and likely will not comply with them, believing that they infringe on the UN Declaration of Human Rights. There is a WP:IDHT issue here that requires administrative attention. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with
- Hard disagree. I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to be banning people for their personal views like that. Brandmeister was wrong to recreate the userbox, and he should be encouraged to keep his decisive views to himself, but I don't think it's right to ban someone for a different view on marriage. I would expect him to avoid any further disruption, however. — Czello 16:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Granted I'm not an admin, but I don't think banning people for expressing their views, even if it is a fundamentally immoral view like this one, is the right way to go either, but there is also the WP:IDHT issue at hand here and a persistent refusal to get the point and to accept community consensus, leading to this prolonged shouting match. If Brandmeister had accepted the consensus of the previous discussion and just removed the userbox (and now the message in text) this would have been over in a minute. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not for their personal views, but for promoting hate speech on Wikipedia. If they keep quiet about their personal views then I don't care. But this is not the website to advocate or promote discrimination, period, and anyone who does this needs to be shown the door. Levivich 17:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hard disagree. I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to be banning people for their personal views like that. Brandmeister was wrong to recreate the userbox, and he should be encouraged to keep his decisive views to himself, but I don't think it's right to ban someone for a different view on marriage. I would expect him to avoid any further disruption, however. — Czello 16:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- They may have removed the userbox, but they replaced it with text that is still there. That issue is still unresolved. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Kinda worried, what if a MOD is opened & passed, calling on the removal of republican PoVs or messages from user pages, because it offends monarchists? PS - BTW, why does anyone go around checking others userpages, anyway? GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- There should be no need for checking. If a userbox has been discussed at WP:Miscellany for deletion and formally deleted, anything that looks just like that userbox should also be deleted. But yes, you could reasonably argue that statements that someone might find offensive need only be removed from a User page if someone complains, which is just what happened here? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is a false equivalence. The statement is not only an opinion or a point of view, but a discriminatory one that implies that certain groups should not be allowed the same rights as other groups. Political opinions concerning how a nation should be governed (monarchy, republic, whatever) and most other political opinions in general (how much taxes should you pay, what should the government spend those taxes on...) are not the same. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Kinda worried, what if a MOD is opened & passed, calling on the removal of republican PoVs or messages from user pages, because it offends monarchists? PS - BTW, why does anyone go around checking others userpages, anyway? GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies to GS, but I'm unclosing this. The user still has the same divisive statement on their userpage - the fact that it isn't in a userbox does not make that OK, and I think this warrants further discussion. My own view is that they should be blocked from editing if they're not willing to remove it - not because they hold the view (I know plenty of people who do), but because they are insisting on putting it there when they know perfectly well that consensus is against them. It's classic WP:POINT. Girth Summit (blether) 16:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm seeing double here, four GSs! El_C 17:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- But this is no longer a discussion on whether a statement about believing in marriage being between one man and one woman is acceptable on a user page, it has (long since) degraded into an absolute clusterfuck, hence why I closed it - so kudos for re-opening and letting the nonsense continue. If you believe the statement should not be present in any form then remove it yourself/block the editor/do something. The longer this discussion stays open, the more unsavoury it is. GiantSnowman 17:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm seeing double here, four GSs! El_C 17:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- GiantSnowman, thanks for doing that - I support your action, and the consequences you have suggested. Your close didn't mention the fact of the user page statement, I assumed you weren't aware of it. Happy for this to be reclosed. Girth Summit (blether) 17:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Why would anybody want to go around checking others' userpages? Isn't there something better to do? GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Suggest re-close there is nothing to be done here, and the above discussion is indeed a clusterfuck. Brandmeister has been informed that site consensus is against this type of political statement on userpages, and has been informed how they may challenge that consensus. If they do not challenge the consensus and insist on acting contrary to it, they must be blocked. Nothing else can possibly benefit from discussion at ANI. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Post-second-close discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just as an addendum, they've now added a user box (User:UBX/heterosexual2) which reads: This user is heterosexual, and is proud of it. Like Masem pointed out above, perhaps a centralized discussion about this type of userboxes should be held (also note other UBX's mentioned above, such as this one, this one, and this one). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Concur. Are there any userboxes along the lines of "I'm male and proud of it", "I'm white and proud of it", or "I'm right-handed and proud of it"? Because IMO there shouldn't be. Nothing like that or the stuff discussed above encourages collaborative editing. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, and in WP who cares? (so long as the mutt is housetrained). Declaring your interests is one thing; passive-aggressive declarations which implicitly demean other people is another. Narky Blert (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ooh yeah, you just can't trust those dirty sinister left-handers can you. Especially the heterosexual married ones. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, I resemble that remark -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah I'd love to see someone add the user box "This user is white and proud of it" and see how that goes over. Support site ban for violating the terms of service by repeatedly posting hate speech on Wikipedia. Levivich 18:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- In reference to GoodDay's comments, I should point out, that while I'm sure the recent stuff does involve intentional checking of the user page and userboxes on it, this is only because it's been drawn to our attention and Brandmeister seems to have decided to test the limits. The user box has been on the page since October 2020 since this change about 3 weeks after the MFD was closed [55], that's over 10 months ago. While I can't speak for how Tartan357 came across it, this strongly suggests no one is really going around systematically checking user boxes or user pages for concerns. Most editors have user pages in part because they expect their fellow editors to see them, whether when getting to their talk page or just if they're interested in what the editor has chosen to share. A user page isn't intended to be some super secret page no one visits, that makes no sense since they are a normal part of how things work here which you can easily get to including by accident. Heck a link to the user page is sufficient to comply with WP:SIG. If someone wants a super secret user page, WP:NOTWEBHOST doesn't even have to come in to it because logically no user should have a user page if they don't want anyone to visit. Given that, it's perfectly normal for someone to be checking out another editor's user page. At a random guess, I've probably visited the user pages of at least 10 users in this discussion in the past 5 years or so. And as always, if an editor comes across something which violates community consensus when using the site, it's perfectly fine for them to consider what to do about it; whether ignore it, bring it up with the editor or bring it to the community. Nil Einne (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh, this again? Support a block for the WP:POINTy behavior, which directly contravenes what 力 said above. As for the most recent userbox, it probably ought to be deleted. There's nothing wrong with a userbox that declares someone is heterosexual, or white, or is otherwise a member of some majority group. However when you get into statements of pride surrounding these groups, there is no ignoring the historical context (see straight pride, white pride, etc.) The best case scenario with this userbox is that someone who doesn't realize the connotations adds it to their userpage thinking it a direct equivalent to a gay pride userbox, and accidentally conveys homophobia that they don't hold to the rest of the community. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are many similar userboxes and many users who use them. Recommend we stop, put away the torches and pitchforks and get to MfDing. MarshallKe (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
This entire conversation is focusing way too much on "offensive" and not enough on "against consensus." It does not matter how offensive or benign an opinion is, there was a consensus to disallow it and this user is repeatedly refusing to adhere to that consensus. The changes that the user made absolutely reek of POINTyness and a general unwillingness to abide by consensus. Support indef until they can demonstrate an ability to understand that they may not defy consensus even if they disagree with it. Mlb96 (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)- Actually, the new userbox is technically different enough from the old one to not violate the old consensus. It should probably be brought to MfD first, where it will inevitably be deleted. When the user decides to add it back again, we can talk about indeffing. Mlb96 (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't dissent from the close, but I would like to make a different point. There are beliefs that editors hold that should be known if they edit in areas relevant to those beliefs. For example, if an editor believes in the young earth theory, I want to know that if they edit biology articles that I work on. I would want to know an editor's views on equal marriage if they edited articles where this could be relevant. So I am concerned if editors are not allowed to state that they hold potentially relevant beliefs, provided of course that those statements do not amount to hate speech. Where, for example, is the line to be drawn in the following sequence, where <R/D> can be replaced by any appropriate religion or denomination:
- I am a member of <R/D>.
- I am a traditional member of <R/D>.
- I agree with the teaching of <R/D> on marriage.
- I agree with the teaching of <R/D> that marriage is between a man and a woman.
- I believe that the law should reflect the teaching of <R/D> that marriage is between a man and a woman.
- Peter coxhead (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see your point, but I see this community, as it stands in 2021, valuing regulation of speech deemed to be offensive over any desire for disclosure of conflicts of interest. I asked my cat and she thinks community consensus will land on #3 of your examples, because she just doesn't see removal of "user is a devout Catholic" succeeding here. Not yet. MarshallKe (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- If I add to my userpage - "This user is 6 feet tall" - Will that be too offensive? PS: It's creepy that anybody, is going around checking others' userpages. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- You're seriously approaching WP:IDHT territory, so let me spell it out for you clearly: It does not matter how "offensive" the userbox is when community consensus is to delete it. Do you understand that? Mlb96 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Adding a perplexingly large number of these "what's next...?!" hypotheticals, and/or ramping up their absurdity so as to be indistinguishable from satire, does not make them any more helpful or even relevant. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why does anyone go around checking others' userpages? IDK, maybe ask some of the 30 people per day who read mine? I'm not running a fanclub, I assume it's because they want to know something about an editor who's just fixed a typo or a bad link. Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support a site ban on this user. They've been warned and given many options, including avenues where to discuss whether the community consensus should be overtuerned and similar userboxes that aren't offensive. Instead they chose to repeatedly add userboxes or text with a similar content to the original one. They should take some time off to ponder why the words they so strongly want to have in their userpage are offensive to a minority several editors of this project are a part of. Isabelle 🔔 19:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Aren't blocks a last resort? Just revert their userpage & full-prot. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose a site ban. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is all way out of hand. Yes, it’s WP:POINTy, but FFS this is a productive user who’s clearly feeling under attack from the entire community and now doing heat-of-the-moment stuff. Everyone’s getting very worked up but all that’s happening is A lot being made of little. Cooling off is what’s needed. Just close this already. DeCausa (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment a short block is called for, but for "continued contempt of community consensus", not "harassing editors". A site-ban is not called for. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No site ban at this point. The most recent outcome involving a warning of a block is sufficient. Unlike what led us here, the new userbox, while so embarrassing [at least] that I'm surprised anyone would want to display it, has not been deleted or otherwise judged to be inappropriate in any formal setting. Time to let this thread close. Something else can be opened about that userbox, other userboxes, or [the best option] what kinds of messages along these lines are appropriate for userpages, regardless of whether they're in a box or a paragraph or a div or whatever. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose any kind of ban at this juncture. As far as I'm aware that userbox is not banned, and while I think his behavious could be better he's no longer breaking any kind of rules. I say just close this discussion and we all go our separate ways. Only reason to resume this discussion is if he re-adds the proscribed userbox. Also agree entirely with what DeCausa said above. — Czello 20:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, I think we all should keep our noses out of the editor-in-question's userpage. He hasn't been promoting it across the project. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. The time has come to WP:JUSTDROPIT. — Czello 20:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Time to take the dog for a walk MarshallKe (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, I think we all should keep our noses out of the editor-in-question's userpage. He hasn't been promoting it across the project. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
User:ssr is edit-warring to restore deprecated propaganda sources
Ssr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user is adding RT and Sputnik News, deprecated propaganda sources, into Munich speech of Vladimir Putin. They reverted removal of these sources at least twice 1 2. (I am not convinced that the material should at all be in the lede of the article, but this is a separate story). I tried to explain them at the talk page that the sources have been deprecated, to no avail (see User talk:Ssr#August 2021). RenatUK opened a topic at the talk page of the article, Talk:Munich speech of Vladimir Putin#Ssr sources RT and Sputnik, to no avail. As far as I understand Ssr (I might be wrong) they believe that (i) RenatUK and I are harassing him for some reasons unrelated to the article (ii) when they have written the article the sources have not yet been deprecated, and therefore should stay in the article. They also personally attacked RenatUK [56] basically saying that since they have longer been on Wikipedia they know better. Smth needs to be done.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I did not personal attack RenatUK, I was disagreeing with his "welcome to wikipedia" for me while I don't need such welcomes because of longer time being. As of yourself, you was involved in direct personal attack on me in the same year 2017, so you now again is attacking me now, but your previous attack turned to be senseless and disrupting. You should make no more personal attacks on me. --ssr (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Asking a former paid editor to conform to the terms of use and indicate the paid editing history at the user page is not a personal attack, even if you want to see it like this. Concerning RenatUK, they just put a DS template at your talk page, something they are obliged to do to make sure that the topic area is under discretionary sanctions. If you have listened to them, we were probably not even here. (If you have listened to me, we were not here either). Comparing the registration date of an account is an ad hominem argument, and, absent other arguments, is a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I just hope your complaint here will just help me to reach the goal that I cannot reach by normal explanation to you and RenatUK: that these links are relevant in the article and should stay in the article. I hope administrators evaluate it and make right conclusions as third-party watchers. --ssr (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is already explicit consensus of the community that these links can not stay in the article. Why can not you find reliable sources to prove the same point? If non-deprecated sources proving it do not exist than the point is not valid. This is a behavioral issue, not a content issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I just hope your complaint here will just help me to reach the goal that I cannot reach by normal explanation to you and RenatUK: that these links are relevant in the article and should stay in the article. I hope administrators evaluate it and make right conclusions as third-party watchers. --ssr (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Asking a former paid editor to conform to the terms of use and indicate the paid editing history at the user page is not a personal attack, even if you want to see it like this. Concerning RenatUK, they just put a DS template at your talk page, something they are obliged to do to make sure that the topic area is under discretionary sanctions. If you have listened to them, we were probably not even here. (If you have listened to me, we were not here either). Comparing the registration date of an account is an ad hominem argument, and, absent other arguments, is a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- (comment from involved editor) I think that Ssr's behaviour is unacceptable. And they not only reverted removal of the deprecated sources instead of discussing it, but before that they reverted maintenance template restoration (the same article, the same part of it) despite the fact there is a detailed edit summary why the template should not be removed in this case (diff 1 and diff 2). --Renat 16:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ssr is showing neither competence nor ability to work with others here - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Both. Acroterion (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- What is "both"? --ssr (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Both your judgment in discerning reliable sources and your ability to work constructively with other editors are in question. Perhaps you should consider that using sources like RT and then complaining when other editors object might indicate a problem, and that bluster at ANI is not a good look. Acroterion (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- In 2017, when I created the article and used the sources, everything was OK both with discerning reliable sources and with my ability to work constructively with other editors. I cannot predict a moment when someone at ANI decides to overturn this. I just maintain my article as I maintained it before. --ssr (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's not "your article," and RT has been deprecated as a source for years. Acroterion (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, both RT and Sputnik were deprecated in 2020 if I believe this table (though we all were indeed cautions with using RT as a source for years).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks - my recollection was that RT and Sptunik have been viewed with at least concern since about 2016, I thought they had been deprecated before last year.So Ssr, take this as an example of gracefully accepting a constructive correction and moving on, please, and do likewise. Acroterion (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's not "my article", but try to I maintain it as a normal wikipedian and hope for help with that. If there was a problem with RT, I could not insert it from the beginning, but I could because it was not banned at the time. --ssr (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Then please accept that when other editors tell you a source is deprecated and revert your use of it, it might be because they have a point, and that you should find a better source, which as I understand it is all that they were asking you to do. Acroterion (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, both RT and Sputnik were deprecated in 2020 if I believe this table (though we all were indeed cautions with using RT as a source for years).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's not "your article," and RT has been deprecated as a source for years. Acroterion (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- In 2017, when I created the article and used the sources, everything was OK both with discerning reliable sources and with my ability to work constructively with other editors. I cannot predict a moment when someone at ANI decides to overturn this. I just maintain my article as I maintained it before. --ssr (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Both your judgment in discerning reliable sources and your ability to work constructively with other editors are in question. Perhaps you should consider that using sources like RT and then complaining when other editors object might indicate a problem, and that bluster at ANI is not a good look. Acroterion (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- What is "both"? --ssr (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Both. Acroterion (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Defamatory content at Ray Blanchard
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting a block of the IP(s) and rev/deletion of WP:BLP violations. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I guess we are done here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I also oversighted one especially bad revision and reported the image uploader on Commons, hopefully they'll deal with that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Continued disruptive COI editing at RPSI
- Diningcarriage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
@Diningcarriage has been reasonably identified one of a number of COI editor by admins at Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (RSPI), some having a negative COI and possibly intending to simply to disruptive. Whether intentional or not that has certainly interferred with my update of that article. I believe I, and others, have issued almost every form of warning imaginable. Scrutinisers of this must consider whether I am issuing warnings to gain an editorial advantage, and must scrutinise my actions in totality. I would have likely to have got through the most of the update this weekend, RL, distractions and disruption to this article have all intervened; and my work on this is suspended. An option would be to stubify, work on a user page and then copy page over the top. I would like to collaberate in such as enterprise but realistically a collaberative effort in draft could equally be interfered with. The final edits questioning my improvements were at [57] which I am currently leaving in situ to de-escalate the edit war but leaves article in hiatus. Obviously risk of possible WP:BOOMERANG on myself but the minimum would be voluntary I-BANs/T-BANs as required. (Initially misposted to WP:AN by mistake) Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay ... I may have a WP:BOOMERANG here. If there has been a campaign against the article it has won. Will WP:STUBIFY per admin advice on the page. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- To confirm I have WP:STUBIFYed the article as originally suggested by an admin. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay ... I may have a WP:BOOMERANG here. If there has been a campaign against the article it has won. Will WP:STUBIFY per admin advice on the page. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
72.85.24.48
User:Dnywlsh is back but is instead using this IP Address - 72.85.24.48. He was previously reported above using 2601:140:50D:5F25:2D1A:6BD5:5E13:CE46. Joshua Shah (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Confirm for User:TenorT
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Coz21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Cozgem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- TenorT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Evidence users: Coz21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonBlast8 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- This seems to be about a possible COI issue: see User_talk:Justlettersandnumbers#Cozzetti_&_Gemmill (courtesy pinging Justlettersandnumbers). LemonBlast8, I do not really see an urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem here. What is it that you would like us to do? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, LB8 is saying that Coz21 is an obvious sock of Cozgem (talk · contribs · count), and he wants it "confirmed". I think LB8 is correct, although, as a new user, they are very suspicious.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Bbb23, it seems very likely; but – as I recall – I looked in early July at some contribs of Cozgem and did not see any firm evidence to confirm it. Coz21 and TenorT have openly declared their identities, but I don't see that Cozgem did the same (I may just have missed it). There's absolutely no doubt that there's a long history of seriously inappropriate promotional editing here, but that should probably be dealt with at WP:COIN. That said, Coz21 is not here to improve our encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, LB8 is saying that Coz21 is an obvious sock of Cozgem (talk · contribs · count), and he wants it "confirmed". I think LB8 is correct, although, as a new user, they are very suspicious.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm very suspicious of everything here. There is no reason for Coz21 to have contacted LemonBlast8, and no reason for LemonBlast8 to be aware of Cozgem or anything to do with TenorT. There is no overlap to result in these user accounts suddenly crossing each other. It's all rather odd. Canterbury Tail talk 21:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've taken a look at this (in a general sense) and sock-blocked the OP: LemonBlast8. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
User: Hemiauchenia
This user responded in an unnecessarily rude and dismissive manner to a recent post I made. Any other number of responses could have conveyed their perspective respectfully without being worded as a personal attack. The issue seems that much more pronounced as in the post I had referenced a recent news article outlining bias in editing on the Wikipedia site. It is my belief that the comment was meant to discourage users from diverse backgrounds or with diverse viewpoints from participating on the site by making the experience of doing so negative to the point that it becomes not worth it.
Link: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Naturopathy
E.yorke0 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Three points 1) try WP:Diffs not links to edit sections which won't even work at some indeterminate time when the section numberings change. 2) We get a heck of a lot of people making nonsense complaints about correct coverage of alternative medicine topics. If this is you and I did not read your message so I have no idea if it is, it's easy to see Hemiauchenia's frustration. Perhaps they could have been kinder in their wording, on the other hand it's kinder on us all if people don't keep making nonsense complaints, remember we are all volunteers. 3) Even if we accept Hemiauchenia's comment was not as polite or civil as it should have been, it seems very far from the sort of thing ANI needs to deal with, especially in isolation. So um, see 2. Nil Einne (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think your complaints can be safely ignored too. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Here is a link to a diff (I think, I am new to the site and not sure exactly how to produce these). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=1040124567&oldid=1040123035
- My post was not the type of nonsense complaint outlined, and regardless of how the user Hemiauchenia perceived the content of the post, there remains a respectful and appropriate way to interact with other people.
- I brought the issue here because that is what the Wikipedia page "Wikipedia: Guide to addressing Bias - under the heading "How to successfully make a complaint about bias" instructs users to do. Specifically: "Revisit the talk page frequently. Engage civilly with editors who respond, and try to remain calm, even if you feel the others are being dismissive or rude. If you can remain calm in the face of personal attacks and rudeness, you are far more likely to get your way. If things get out of hand, and you have remained calm while others insult and belittle you, then visit the Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents and start a thread, using diffs to illustrate the incivility of the others. Be sure to notify the editors you are reporting. If the editors at the noticeboard agree with you that the others' behavior is out of line, then they will be blocked from editing, for anywhere from a few hours to indefinitely." E.yorke0 (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- @E.yorke0: is this the only incident you're referring to? If it is, then I wouldn't say that the
if things get out of hand
criterion has been met yet. Yes, the comment is a bit personalizing (people like you) and dismissive, but unfortunately, this happens quite a lot around here (as elsewhere on the internet; anonymity and being strictly text-based has a lot to do with it), and this isn't by far enough to be actionable. I recommend a speedy close of this thread. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- @E.yorke0: is this the only incident you're referring to? If it is, then I wouldn't say that the
- The post by user Hemiauchenia was not designed to be engaged with. Doing so would not have been productive. As stated, the user's comment was rude and dismissive, they referred to me as "people like you", and stated that my posts should be summarily ignored. These are not the types of comments that invite or where further comments from me would even be appropriate. Indeed, they are the kinds of rude and dismissive comments as referred to above. I have remained calm and acted as outlined. It may be that the practice of responding to incivility in interactions between users is different than the theory as outlined on the Wikipedia page providing these instructions. E.yorke0 (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- (EC) BTW I read your message now. You commented that people have been trying to address the issues on the talk pages for a long time without success since it's been rejected by plenty of editors. This very like means it was rejected by plenty of experienced editors who likely understand our policies and guidelines. Maybe 0.1% of the time this means there is really an issue, that unfortunately has fallen through the cracks somehow. 99.9% of the time, there is no issue and the editor complaining just doesn't understand our policies and guidelines properly. While we want new editors, especially editors from diverse backgrounds, it can be hard to learn when you are trying to edit a problematic area which you have strong feelings about; feelings which are at odds with that supported by reliable sources. It tends to mean editors make a lot of complaints which are unhelpful and waste time. By your own admission, if you complaint is trying to get changes which are unsupported by our policies and guidelines plenty of time has already been wasted on this by all those other editors. Again I'm not saying you are in the 99.9% since I have not looked at the details, but you need to be able to accept that maybe you're in the wrong and the plenty of experienced editors telling you that (as I see you also opened a discussion on the article talk page) are in the right. If all those editors are in the right, while I don't excuse Hemiauchenia being a little too personal and testy, I think it's understandable why they. It might be better if you learn to edit in less tricky area you have less strong feelings about since it doesn't help anyone if you are asking for changes which cannot happen because they are in violation of our policies and guidelines. See also WP:1AM. And to emphasise, whatever any of the pages say, this is not the sort of complaint that belongs at ANI even if your query was completely in the right and Hemiauchenia in the wrong. There is no realistic chance of any sanction over that single comment. While I appreciate you are new here, you bringing this here does not give credence to the notion you understand our policies, guidelines and norms here which again means there is a fair chance you assessment of your earlier complaint may not accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- It is true that I am not intimately familiar with Wikipedia's extensive policies and guidelines yet, I have only come to this site recently after a news article published by the CBC outlined that Wikipedia has an issue with bias and as such it is attempting to encourage more female authors to participate. However, I do hold advanced degrees and have written academically, and am familiar with the appropriate referencing of sources - which was the primary point I was making in the post on the other board. I did in retrospect make the assumption the standards used here would be similar, if I am wrong on this front I'd be happy for that to be clarified and to be referred to Wikipedia-specific guidelines for citation.
- Aside from this, I would say the rest of what is above represents a conflation of issues. I brought my thoughts on the article I was looking at to the POV discussion board, I did not bring those thoughts here. The only concern I raised here was that of mistreatment from 1 other user in response to said post. Which, based on all of the information I could find on the website is what I was instructed to do. This may not be the norm in practice and that is fair, but maybe also be conscious that new users have no way of knowing this and rely on articles outlining how we should conduct ourselves in what can be a rather confusing environment initially. Notably, it does not follow then that every other post I have made is somehow suspect, which you imply. It is also not true that many other editors have disagreed with me. In fact, I only had one response to the post on the POV board - the one in question. And the reason I posted to have a request for comment on the article's talk page was because I was asked to reach a consensus and there weren't any other editors engaging with the discussion at the time - the issue was actually a lack of engagement. The disagreements I referred to were based on other users' earlier work on other parts of the article. And regardless, none of that is actually relevant to my complaint here and should not have been treated as such. It would have sufficed to clarify that in practice if a user makes a rude or dismissive comment only once it is typically not subject to warnings or actions. Instead, what you have done is justify the actions of the user by blaming my inexperience as a Wikipedia contributor. It is not difficult to see how this would reinforce incivilities in culture rather than work to ameliorate them. E.yorke0 (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- E.yorke0 Your posts are very long, both here and on the noticeboard thread you've linked to - I haven't read through them all in full. I think that your complain is that in this diff, Hemiauchenia was dismissive of your argument. People are not required to respond to the substance of your arguments at length, and if they feel they are without substance they are permitted to say so, provided they don't make a attack on your person while doing so. While 'people like you' is not a phrase I would use when responding to someone, and I would generally encourage editors not to speak to people like that, I don't think it rises to the level of a personal attack that requires administrative intervention here. If there is anything else you want admins to look at, please explain it concisely; otherwise, I will close this thread. Girth Summit (blether) 12:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. There has been a problem recently with an IP editor in south India who has been vandalizing the pages Legality of cannabis, Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction, and Template:Legality of cannabis by US state. The user has edited the pages with the following IP's:
106.195.32.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
106.195.33.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
106.195.34.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
106.195.36.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
106.195.36.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
106.195.37.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
106.195.40.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
106.195.42.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
106.195.44.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
1106.197.183.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
106.203.2.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
106.203.16.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
117.213.72.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
117.213.76.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
most of the edits being obvious vandalism such as the following: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8, and diff9.
The user has not been given any warnings on their talk page as it is a constantly changing IP, but has been asked to stop in edit summaries and has already been rangeblocked from Legality of cannabis... and it's very obvious they are just trolling. So I think a full rangeblock is warranted. Thank you.--Jamesy0627144 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I've already semi'd Template:Legality of cannabis by US state for one year by way of RfPP a few hours ago. I've now applied the same to Legality of cannabis and Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction. The reason I'm erring on the side of severity so much is because inaccurate content in these pages may end up being detrimental to some readers (i.e. decisive to the manner in which they conduct themselves wrt to cannabis). El_C 22:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Barefoot socks
Need an uninvolved admin (who may or may not be barefoot, it's irrelevant). I've been trimming down Barefoot and the related (yes) Prison uniform, which seem to suffer from someone with an extraordinary interest in bare feet (I swear I'm not making this up: see Talk:Prison uniform): the editor User:Julian von Bredow. Lo and behold, who reverts me, with a brand-new account, but User:Kerbald König. If one of you could have a look and do what must be done, I'd appreciate it. (CUs: don't bother--geolocation confirms, for what it's worth, but it's a different range from the Julian account so we can't make the easy calls.) And let me add that I'm not sure what to do about the Julian account, which suffers from a very high NOTHERE quotient. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Julian von Bredow. --Blablubbs (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ha, I just saw that! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I cut the 'corporal punishment' section in Barefoot and left a link to the article elaborating it in the see also section; where it was elaborated in the article body just felt like it didn't belong in the body at all. Anyone outside JvB and KK can feel free to revert, but where it was felt like a diversion meant not to inform (and the article is already very long as it is). Nate • (chatter) 04:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ha, I just saw that! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Incivility by User:Bearcat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Bearcat telling an editor to "[expletive "f---" deleted due to automated filter] all the way off"[58] is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Civility. Could an admin please look into this? 216.154.39.94 (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Have you been editing that article, with mobile phones? GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, I haven't been editing the article at all. I simply came across the edit note and thought it was a prima facie case of incivility. 216.154.39.94 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Your post links to the civility policy but it doesn't look like you've done any of the steps outlined there, and instead have jumped straight to the endpoint of an ANI post. Perhaps raise your concern directly with the other editor first, and see how that goes. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I thought posting here and notifying the editor of the discussion was sufficient. I don't really have time to counsel the editor and am not an involved editor - I just saw a fairly clear case of incivility and wanted to bring it to someone's attention so they could step in. If you are saying I should ask him to apologise to the other party first, I'll do so [and have now done so, see [59], but I am not a regular wikipedia editor and am not intending to follow up so I would like someone else to monitor the response. 216.154.39.94 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Fuck all the way off"--is that Canadian? Drmies (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I think an admin or someone with more authority would have to actually go in and expurgate the edit note as an ordinary editor cannot do that, even if they made the comment in the first place. 216.154.39.94 (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to close this since we don't block for that phrase, and since it seems like the IP is here just to get a pound of flesh. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Editor Arbitrarily Removed Content and Source, Attempts to Discuss Reach Dead End
This is concerning the article Jeremiah Lisbo. The article contains the following statement:
In February 2020, Lisbo was among thirteen young actors selected to be a part of the Rise Artists Studio, a new talent agency developed under Star Cinema, the Philippines' largest movie production company.
The phrase "the Philippines' largest movie production company" was removed by an editor because it was not supported by the source. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Lisbo&diff=1040049761&oldid=1040018807
I then provided a source for the statement, undoing the deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Lisbo&diff=1040111360&oldid=1040094878
The source I provided is a journal article. Subsequently, a different editor removed the statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Lisbo&diff=1040209836&oldid=1040111360
I created a section on the article's Talk page and brought to this editor's attention that the reference they removed was a journal article. The editor then revealed that they did not bother reading the reference that they removed. They also seem pretty adamant in refusing to revert the statement back because they arbitrarily dislike the source and don't want to read it.
So to summarize: an editor removed a statement and its reference (which they did not read). When it was brought to their attention that the source backed up the statement, they insisted that the source is not good enough because they can't be bothered to read the source.
Since I do not think engaging in further discussion with this individual will be a fruitful endeavour, I am bringing this to an administrator's attention. Koikefan (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- The source provided by him never mentioned: "Star Cinema is the largest Film production in the Philippines". Later he also revealed that the source is need to be downloaded before you read those sentences. MaccWiki (talk)
- Koikefan (and MaccWiki), this noticeboard isn't used to decide content disputes. If you feel like you've reached an impasse on the article talk page, follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (including by making use of specific Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests). Good luck. El_C 10:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Those mechanisms seem to be explicitly about content disputes and not the behaviour of other editors, which is one of my concerns here (is this really a content dispute when the other editor is refusing to read the content they have removed?) But, sure, I will send a request if you say so. Koikefan (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Koikefan, wouldn't hurt to just quote the relevant passage from that source on the article talk page and maybe get a 3rd opinion about it. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing anything actionable in your report right now. El_C 10:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Those mechanisms seem to be explicitly about content disputes and not the behaviour of other editors, which is one of my concerns here (is this really a content dispute when the other editor is refusing to read the content they have removed?) But, sure, I will send a request if you say so. Koikefan (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Koikefan (and MaccWiki), this noticeboard isn't used to decide content disputes. If you feel like you've reached an impasse on the article talk page, follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (including by making use of specific Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests). Good luck. El_C 10:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)