Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pingingisnot enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
This is a bit of a mess, but it does look at first glance as if D.S. Lioness is attempting to whitewash the article to remove cited criticisms of specific politicians and political parties. For the record, Lioness, do not accuse other editors of "libel", as that can be construed as a legal threat resulting in you being blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite— Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of the article in question. The best solution is that both editors just refrain from contacting each other. This is a disagreement that started over at Greek Wikipedia apparently.BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no, dear! it didn't start on the Greek Wikipedia, at least not with me. The user on the Greek Wikipedia via i.p. tried to pass the same text to the article of the party, where an administrator blocked him by locking the page. So, it was moved here. And he even put the exact same text in both the article about the party and the article about the person. I don't know if this is acceptable but does no do a good impression to the reader.
I also don't see not talking to each other as a solution, as it is imperative that differences are discussed. If you want to help perhaps you can take participate on the discussion page of the article. D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the only relevant quote I found regarding your comment on the word libelous is this A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat" let me explain that by libelous I mean putting content that does not match to what the sources say. It's hard for someone who doesn't know Greek to be able to judge if the sources are being misused, I understand that, but if you're interested you can use a translation app to understand. Also, it is a bit hasty to conclude that i want to whitewash somewhat insulting I think to my person. I'm just trying to make the text NPOV, something the user is completely indifferent to. D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does the fact that I am blocked in the Greek wp have to do with my problem? What do you mean by sticking there? What i have to do? D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently replied to a request for third opinion on this case, but I failed to realize it was (in multiple subthreads!) at ANI already. The dispute is much worse than I recognized in my 3O response and it does seem like administrative action is warranted. At a minimum the article should be protected and the participants referred to WP:DRN, in my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure a block is necesssary, but topic bans for either or both users may be necessary. I'm not sure that either editor has shown that they can edit in the area of Greek politics effectively. From what I've seen, DS Lioness has edited other users' talk comments to remove personal attacks (against themselves, making them not the best person to remove them), and from what I can see, Michalis1994 is trying to ensure the article is "NPOV" - which to them means that any negative information they think is relevant is included. Neither editor seems to be discussing based on policies/guidelines, but based on their own opinion of the other editor and their own opinion of what's relevant. Pinging User:VQuakr (and will notify on their talkpage) as they responded to the WP:3O request, but to quote VQuakr During a content dispute, it is more important than ever to focus on content, not editors - neither user here seems to be able to focus on the content rather than taking digs at the other. I don't think an interaction ban would be fair here unless it is accompanied by them both being unable to edit topics related to Afroditi Latinopoulou (including any politics related to that person) - so I think either a time limited topic ban or an indefinite topic ban (with ability to appeal after contributions elsewhere, as standard) would be better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not remove the term 'whitewashing' as the deletion of cited content in the article raises significant questions about the author's intentions. Additionally, this concern now extends to the political party founded by Afroditi Latinopoulou, Voice of Reason. It is evident that D.S. Lioness has prepared a similar version in her sandbox, aiming to completely replace and distort the cited content regarding the party. Hope you can all see the pattern here. If this isn't whitewashing, then how should it be described? Moreover, there is nothing inherently negative about accurately describing the political party as a far-right organisation - something that has been confirmed by the third opinion, to which D.S. Lioness responded with further personal attacks. The so-called 'negative' tone identified by the other author is, in fact, the result of ideological analysis from reputable sources, which they seem eager to conceal. The replacement of reliable sources with questionable material, coupled with the aforementioned actions, raises concerns about whether D.S. Lioness is going to stop those actions and seek consensus. I have expressed my willingness to discuss this further, but it currently seems impossible to find common ground. Additionally, I must point out once again that they have been previously banned from Greek Wikipedia for exhibiting the same behavioural pattern. Michalis1994 (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I demand a single piece of evidence of alleged whitewashing: which cited content I removed?
Your edits deceive readers and vandalizing w.p by adding lies such this June 2024, she called for Pride Parade to be dissolved, saying, "It is a celebration of vulgarity, emphasising the sexuality of sadomasochists and other various abnormalities in public view." Where the source mention something like that? Here the source in Greek and tranlated by google translate in english
As for Michaelis, I'd suggest a voluntary topic ban for 3 months to just take a break and come back when they're feeling less hot-under-the-collar from this mess. The article can wait, and there's already more eyes on it from this ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 6 months definite ban for D.S. Lioness. And 3 months voluntary topic ban for Michalis1994, would be appropiate.BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The assumption that D.S. Lioness will cease her vandalism is fundamentally flawed. Her disruptive editing and vandalism have now extended to other pages, such as the Alexis Papahelas article, where she removed cited content just a few hours after discussions began to address concerns about her contributions. This mirrors her previous behaviour on the Afroditi Latinopoulou page and is unlikely to stop there. This serves as a warning to anyone who believes the situation might improve or that her actions are confined to the Afroditi Latinopoulou page. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Υou are trying to take advantage of users who don't know Greek, who don't know Greek political parties, who can't confirm what is written in order to achieve my complete exclusion. This is totally immoral!!!
you accused me of whitewashing the far right without providing a single piece of evidence for your claim. Not a single one!!! You manipulate users who are perhaps sensitive to political issues and especially the far right to achieve your devious ends!!! D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what should I call a user who is trying to mislead the community into kicking me out of the project? Have you checked to see if what he claims is correct? D.S. Lioness (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think an interaction ban between the two would also possibly be appropriate. This sequence of threads is indicating to me that neither of the parties in conflict can simply leave well enough alone.--Insanityclown1 (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is, at the very least, rude to call someone pov pusher without providing any evidence. I will wait for diffs prove your accusastion. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are waiting check user results, i think the calmest solution is to "freeze" the issue )unless it is possible to accelerate the procedure) because it may turn out that this conversation is meaningless, just like the one below. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note D.S. Lioness is currently sitting out a 24-hour block for Edit Warring, and cannot contribute here during that time. Posting so this section doesn't archive before they can respond to further comments. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite17:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it might be for the best if both of them got blocked, at least from interacting with each other. I just don't see them getting along. Insanityclown1 (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an interaction block would make the most sense, having interacted with both these users on Niki (Greek political party). My impression is that Lioness has some personal bias but wants to build an encyclopaedia, and Michail wants to correct this bias. Both users seem very forthcoming and open to third party input but their disagreement appears entrenched. So long as Lioness’ edits are scrutinised I don’t see a problem, but she might need to be explained WP:Undue and that hers is a minority view. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Michalis1994 is blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and "repeated attacks labeling other editors' edits vandalism despite multiple warnings" and will not be able to make further comments here until the block expires. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adityagoyal6363 (talk·contribs) predominately edits in Indian reality television articles. On Bigg Boss OTT (Hindi Digital series) season 3 I've been having an small issue with their edits as some of their are contrary to MOS:CAPS with this being the most recent edit on their part changing the section headings back to mixed-case. I'm not thrilled about that, but the larger issue I have is the lack of communication or response from them about the issues after leavinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adityagoyal6363&diff=prev&oldid=1231958415 warning] messages on their tak page. They have responded to earlier messages on their talk page, so I know they are aware of the messages, but ignoring the WP:MOS from an editor with 2000+ edits of a year is not a minor thing. Given the lack of response around this, perhaps a page block from this page until they acknowledge they will follow the MOS is needed here. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not optimitic given the lack of engagement from Adityagoyal6363, but I have started a talk page discussion here to maybe see if something will happen. Still, some admin attention here would be helpful to avoid a slow-motion edit-war over capital letters. Ravensfire (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of MOS:CAP in itself is not a very serious issue, but the fact that they have refused to engage at their or article's talk page as well as at ANI is actually concerning. Perhaps a temporary block is necessary until they learn to start using talk pages. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a warning at user talk. Please let me know if problems continue. You might start by pinging me from a relevant article with a diff of a repeat dated after the date in my signature. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently closed an RfC on Yasuke and feel like the situation at Talk: Yasuke is deteoriating once again as more WP:SPA's are arriving to argue about the subject. There is a not insignificant amount of WP:SOAPBOXING occurring as well as some vaguely nationalist rhetoric where editors are proclaiming that Wikipedia is being governed by black supremacy and DEI as well as considerable activity taking place offsite on a Wikitionary Talk Page where aspersions are being cast on other editors involved in the dispute such as outright accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth as well as what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor as well as WP:Tagteaming seen here. Because of all of these many preceived issues, I think some admin attention is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrhns (talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am on mobile device so forgive the poor formatting and lack of tagging. If I recall correctly the main person who's behavior crosses into WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OR is Shinjitsunotsuikyu who declares that what's going on is Western imperialistic revisions on Japanese culture/history, due to the questionable nature (in Shinjitsunotsuikyu's opinion) of the sources used. I would like to point out that the the majority of the editors involved in the discussion are posting on good faith, and now that the RfC is closed the article currently matches what was determined in the RfC (i.e., The article refers to Yasuke as a samurai.) For anyone reading this, please do not conflate this behavior with the behavior, content, and opinions of the other editors including but not limited to Eirikr and Hexentante. If there is further discussion or disagreements about the RfC I believe there is a proper appeal process as Chrhrns outlined on that Talk page. I will say that the Eirikr and Hexentante, when explaining their positions, have needed to put up with several editors accusing their behavior as wrongful, staunch, original research with little engagement besides these accusations, despite the many attempts by Eirikr and Hexentante to explain otherwise. However the Rfc summary by Chrhrns is fair and I do not take offense to it, as it explains both sides pretty neutrally. This is a very terse summary of my perspective of the Talk page. Lastly, regarding the discussion of whether sources are unreliable (not other topics such as Yasuke's height and sword), I believe most of the discussion conforms to WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:CONTEXTFACTS, not WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, which is why the discussions were ongoing and did not halt. Green Caffeine (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I generally dislike accusing others of wrongful behavior withoit backup and I'm typing this all very fast and perhaps brazenly. If you are not referring to Shinjitsunotsuikyu then please read my comment with that in mind. Green Caffeine (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Soapboxing, I was mostly referring to that particular editor doing it repetitiously after having been warned about it, but also instances which seem to have occurred sporadically on both sides of the debate. Chrhns (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure my position is clear for other readers, I amend the language of my post dated 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC) to say "For anyone reading this, please do not conflate the disruptive and soapbox behavior with the behavior, content, and opinions of the other editors including but not limited to User:Eirikr and User:Hexenakte. That is to say, those 2 individuals have not been disruptive. The reason the conversations about whether the sources are unreliable have not concluded is due to WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:CONTEXTFACTS and other parts of WP:RELIABLE, not the so-called original research or synthesis.
Also, taking a step back, the fact that there are many editors involved with this situation should be a sign that the situation is not as black-and-white as people may think. It's a serious indicator that ongoing discussion was warranted, not to be shut down on presumptions of bad faith.
This is not a complicated issue at all. Refusing to drop the stick and the constant original research is against the spirit of a Wikipedia, and makes them very disruptive. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. A few editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia.
Normally I would hesitate to use that word, but off-site discussions between Eirikr and Hexenakte demonstrate that they both had intent to circumvent the RFC process even before it concluded. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating the same things over and over with no explanation or reasoning, and you just ignored my last message. This is the third time you have ignored us in a row. This shows you are being disruptive with WP:ICANTHEARYOU and your continuance of bad faith assumption towards us despite us being as transparent as possible about it. Hexenakte (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that looking at Theozilla's contribution page, while his recent activity is nothing but Yasuke, he has engaged in content outside of it in the past. Chrhns (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Wiktionary talk page is mine, I feel compelled to comment.
Re: "accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth":
I never outright accuse. I state what it looks like. This is in the context of the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference, and the inappropriateness of using "wikivoice" to state certain details as objective fact, rather than giving those details properly cited as the opinions of the secondary-source authors.
When that editor then edits the Yasuke article to add a detail ("as a samurai") with citations, and those citations do not say anything about that detail, I can only see two logical ways of viewing such a change: incompetence (the editor not noticing that the cited references do not corroborate their point, or not understanding why this is a problem), or intent (the editor noticing that the cited references disagree, and not caring).
Re: "what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor":
You ascribe a lot of bad faith to my actions. The RFC itself was carried out in a very poor manner. The putative point of an RFC is discussion to arrive at consensus: instead, what we had was many people posting a vote, minimal commentary as to why, and in apparent ignorance of past discussions about many of the sources. This was more of a mobbing than a discussion. I was very concerned that this was producing a consensus born of ignorance.
Note too my wording there (emphasis added): "If you have any clear idea on who of the admins to involve in this, to prevent a popularity vote from dictating the article content in contravention of any sane survey of the actual sources, by all means please reach out." My concern is that most of the voters were ignoring past discussions about sources, and often even ignoring attempts to discuss the sources directly with them. I had no intention of "circumventing the RFC consensus": I was hoping to get an admin involved to bring the RFC back on track, to actually get people to discuss.
@Chrhns, through all of this, you have not done anything to talk with me directly.
To then cast aspersions, as you have amply above, is inappropriate. Even more so for an admin.
As I have said to the other editor when I saw your Wikitionary talk page. I am not, nor have I ever purported or represented myself to be, an admin.. The issues on your Wikitionary talk page are numerous and involving far more users than simply yourself. While there are some links which have not formatted properly, the "lying" was supposed to direct to a post by an IP Address that outright accuses others of lying. As for the source the user cited, the link to the edit you provided directs to the Encyclopedia Britannica article which states "He was the first known foreigner to achieve samurai status". The Smithsonian also calls Yasuke a samurai, as does the time magazine that is sources. You are still accusing the editor of fabrication (and now incompetence) for reasons that elude me. As for the rest of the discussion, I am not here to argue with you, or anyone. I am merely notifying the admins of what appears to be many issues occurring surrounding this article's talk page. When you are discussing finding an admin because you do not like the way an RfC is going, and you are doing it surreptitiously on your Wikitionary talk page, it looks bad. Chrhns (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying your status as non-admin, and I apologize for my mistake. Thank you too for clarifying the "lying" comment, that seemed odd and I noticed the link didn't work.
Re: Smithsonian, TIME, CNN, BBC, etc, these are all tertiary or even quaternary references, which all depend on Lockley's book for any description of Yasuke as a samurai. I'd be happy to post a through analysis of these sources, which I'd already begun drafting a few days ago.
Re: my own view of the other editor's actions as incompetence or intent, I posted my reasoning above. If an editor writes "this is a factref 1, ref 2", then I (and I suspect most readers) will take that to mean that "fact" is supported by "ref 1" and "ref 2". If I go and read "ref 1" and "ref 2" and neither say "fact", what else am I supposed to think but that the editor who wrote that is either writing incompetently in not noticing that the references do not support their point, or writing intentionally and misrepresenting the sources? Serious question: if you have a third option for what is going on, please present your thoughts. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig20:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot a point.
Re: "When you are discussing finding an admin because you do not like the way an RfC is going, and you are doing it surreptitiously on your Wikitionary talk page, it looks bad."
I see your point about appearing bad. However, I have had (and have) no ill intent. The thread itself is not hidden, and indeed anyone seeking to converse with me directly at w:User_talk:Eirikr will see my comment there directing anyone to wikt:User_talk:Eirikr.
Specifically about "because you do not like the way an RfC is going", my concern was not that I "didn't like the way it was going", but much more seriously, because it appeared to be an abuse of process. RFCs are supposed to be about discussion and reaching consensus. What happened instead was a popularity vote, with most participants apparently ignorant of, and some even seemingly hostile to, any serious discussion of the sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig20:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To your point about RfC, it has been explained multiple times that an RfC specifically calls in outside, uninvolved people to render a comment (hence "Request for Comment"), there is no obligation to engage in protracted debate of the subject matter at hand. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Responding to an RfC. Specifically, the RfC format used was "Separate votes from discussion" which does carry the notation ((emphasis mine)):
This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises
While I understand in hindsight that this format seems inadequate, it should he been brought up in the 30+ days the RfC was extant. In short, your complaint about what happened on the RfC is less an "abuse of the process" and more "it did exactly what it was formatted to do". Chrhns (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Separate votes from discussion
If you expect a lot of responses, consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "Survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second sub-section called (for example) "Threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth. You can ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section, but you can't require people to follow your advice. Editors are permitted to freely refuse your request.
This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises. It is most suitable for questions with clear yes/no or support/oppose answers, such as "Shall we adopt this policy?". Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers, such as "What kinds of images would be suitable for this article?" or "What should the first sentence say?" This style is used for RfCs that attract a lot of responses, but is probably overkill for most RfCs.
The RFC section itself should have explicitly included room for discussion, and the survey should have been in addition to that — if at all, since, as the guideline says, "Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers".
Adding onto this really quickly, Eirikr and I have given many of the other editors who oppose our arguments multiple chances as a way of giving a fair chance to present their cases as to why these sources are reliable or to at least acknowledge the many apparent issues these sources have, and multiple times, with the exception of a few editors - who then agreed with our concerns even after initially opposing - have they refused to do either. We have implored them multiple times and every time they get ignored (WP:CANTHEARYOU) or brushed off as "editors aren't allowed to analyze sources and their citations" (contrary to WP:REPUTABLE, WP:SOURCEDEF, and WP:CONTEXTFACTS which allows editors to consider the content itself as a factor of reliability and individually pick certain claims as reliable while dismissing others as unreliable in determination of, most easily, whether it is properly cited and if those citations state the facts they claimed).
We do not intend to circumvent anything, however I did not believe that RfC that was just closed was the right method to handle this complex issue. The Japanese language is highly contextual and its written form relies on the context of the conversation, as this can affect the meanings of those words, especially more so when you factor that kanji symbols can often have multiple different pronunciations that are not anywhere close to each other (for example, 米 can mean rice, meter, or USA (kome/yone (archaic), maitre, or bei respectively)). Simply put, editors who make it to out to be black and white without considering the complexity of the language nor the issues of the secondary sources provided, it makes for a very muddy battle. With the way the RfC was going, majority of the Yes votes did not acknowledge these issues, and some outright did not explain their reasoning at all. We cannot have a productive discussion if half of the discussion consists of ignoring each side's point and bad faith accusations. The number of times I have been accused of OR (which initially I did do, I apologized for it due to the fact I am new to Wikipedia as an editor and was not aware, which I have corrected this) even after explaining and providing multiple secondary sources is innumerable. It was an extremely hostile environment for both Eirikr and I, which felt like we were talking to a brick wall.
The main reason for my collaboration with Eirikr is because I recognized his proficiency in Japanese etymology - which he has a long history of on Wikipedia just by looking at his Wiktionary talk page - and believed he was the right person to discuss with in terms of the issue at hand relating to a specified quote in the Shincho Koki that was missing, supposedly from the public eye. Eirikr and I have both made sure to be as thorough as possible, considering all possible avenues before making any decisions on what to do with the quote. The user talk page is public for everyone to see, we have nothing to hide, and we have encouraged participation from other users who have joined in. It would have been preferable to acknowledge the discussion with us directly before making these claims, however this has been resolved as Chrhns understands we mean no ill intent, and I hope other editors who are reading this realizes that as well.
I have made it clear multiple times throughout the talk page, I have been wrong on certain points and apologized for making them. I also made the mistake of assuming Chrhns was an admin, I have apologized this to him and made sure to remove any mention of it. I am very willing to accept the responsibility of my actions, because I am not here to push any view or any agenda. I simply want to present what is verifiable in accordance with the privilege of editors being able to do basic verification on these secondary sources. I have advocated for a positive claim of making Yasuke be referred to as someone who was retained as an attendant, as this was properly cited by some of the secondary sources in the talk page, and it is much easier to prove someone is an attendant by way of noted role and if they are in a lord's service, than it is to claim someone is a samurai, which is an extremely privileged class that was not the default of the Japanese people nor those under a lord's service as the noted existence of the ashigaru that were levied under a lord were named as specifically non-samurai, and Toyotomi Hideyoshi was a prime example of this as was explained in the talk page.
I do not care whether Yasuke was actually a samurai or not, that is not the reason for my involvement in the talk page. I am not looking to reduce Yasuke to less than what he actually was, as some people such as Shinjitsunotsuikyu wanted him to be referred to as a slave, this requires cited reliable sources just as much as the samurai claim does. I am not against Yasuke being stated as a samurai if there were proper citations of him being one. If there was actual proper citation of the samurai claim in these secondary sources, we would not be having this conversation, however that issue still remains and it cannot be ignored.
I will be back to add more to this discussion as I am very busy in my life and I wrote this up really quickly to add to the current claims that Eirikr and I were trying to circumvent the RfC process, accusing others, and tagteaming (which was later cleared up with Chrhns in my user talk page, he was extremely courteous and understanding which I highly appreciate even after my initial mistake). Hexenakte (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fluent in Japanese and it is not a complex issue. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. Editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen reliable sources that state he was a samurai (unambiguously, with either backing from primary sources or a reasoned argument backed from primary sources), in either language 英語であれ日本語であれ / be it in English or Japanese.
Even so, for purposes of our article, I think it would be great if we could say "According to [sources], Yasuke was a samurai". Any statement of Yasuke as a samurai, as objective fact, without citations, is what I have a problem with. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many reliable sources stating it and broadly speaking, it is not the role of us individual editors to "have" or "not have" problems. The RfC already covers this in detail. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There are many reliable sources stating it"
Do you have any sources stating this? You have made this same claim, and related claims (such as that the Lockley / Girard book is peer reviewed), several times, but you have not provided any sources. Do you have any?
"it is not the role of us individual editors to "have" or "not have" problems."
I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well. I will keep things short and to the point (as best as one can with this subject matter). Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai. There are no reliable sources that argue otherwise.
Meanwhile, you've got editors like Hexenakte and Eirikr that have made massive threads all across the talk page trying to put in their own WP:OR interpretation of said sources, claiming that the sources aren't reliable because they translated the Japanese wrong or didn't show the primary sources they were using, ect. I've tried to explain to them time and again that editors aren't allowed to be sources and claim their interpretation is the factual one, especially if they don't even have a single reliable source backing their claims. My statements in that regard have fallen on deaf ears time and time again with both of said editors (and they are likely to reply to my comment here with yet another wall of text arguing the same points again). SilverserenC21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well."
(uninvolved non-admin comment) It is not considered a personal attack to point out that ANI is about behaviour not content. Neither is it a personal attack to point out walls of text. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with @HandThatFeeds characterizing this page as "dealing with the people, not the content" — in the context of their post as a reply to my post above, this seems exactly backwards from the guidance at WP:No personal attacks. I honestly struggle to see how @Silver seren's comment is not disparaging, something specifically prohibited by WP:No personal attacks.
In addition, they mischaracterize (or at a minimum, misunderstand) my efforts at due diligence in evaluating sources as somehow WP:Original research -- things like digging into cases where a source says "this is a factref 1, ref 2", reading "ref 1" and "ref 2", finding that neither "ref 1" nor "ref 2" state "fact", and then posting on the Talk page that the source itself is misrepresenting its own sources: and not as a matter of my own personal opinion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig22:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your "issue" with my characterization, the page explicitly states at the top: This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. (emphasis mine)
Taking into consideration of the fact that the person who made this topic in the first place has long since understood that we had no ill intent and clarified that he was moving the RfC issue to be resolved by dispute, this was not made to be a punitive measure, but rather to move a very complex issue to dispute resolution where it belonged. Acting like we are engaging in bad faith behavior despite the repeated clarifications in this topic that we aren't is an issue. Hexenakte (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai."
One source in particular contains fabrications: Manatsha's "Historicising Japan-Africa Relations" (available here via ResearchGate).
Multiple editors, myself included, described at Talk:Yasuke#Samurai status (among other places) that this reference has serious problems, and is not reliable.
You continued to claim it as a "reliable source", more than once, without addressing any of our concerns.
Apologies, you are correct, upon review of the many threads, I see that it was Loki and Gitz that kept bringing that one up. I believe my confusion comes from your repeated insistence that sources given were reliable (albeit without listing that specific paper). I did ask you about reliable sources a couple times, including mention of this Manatsha paper, and you did not respond. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the problem I was talking about. Just as I stated above, I acknowledged the initial OR I did and apologized for it, multiple times, just above if you even read what I posted. Please stop disparaging us with these accusations, especially Eirikr who did not do any OR, and I already accepted responsibility for that matter and have corrected it months ago. Hexenakte (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I haven't read the RFC or brushed up on this issue, I find it odd that this brand new user was the one to close what was evidently a contentious RFC. Aside from a few edits setting up a Wiki Ed course that doesn't seem to have actually happened and updating their userpage, the closer's first substantive edits were to find WP:RFCLOSE, mark it as {{Doing}}, and then close the RFC 6 minutes later. There was roughly an hour between their first edit and the RFC close, the account has never edited mainspace or anything outside of this RFC, and appears to know a lot about the more intricate parts of Wikipedia for someone who has never been a Wikipedia editor. It might be worth taking a second look at this RFC. The WordsmithTalk to me21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Wordsmith I cannot find a way to reply to you, so I just figured I'd shoot off an explanation. I was added to Wikipedia as part of a University course I took years ago. We could edit Wikipedia articles, or we could write book reviews. While we familiarized ourselves with the Wikipedia process, I disagreed with my professor's request that we should be improving articles that were related to authors associated with our university (by way of her inviting them to speak, or by way of them serving on faculty). I familiarized myself with Wikipedia's policies as best that I could before I opted out of doing Wikipedia work and instead did book reviews. I saw that anyone could close RfCs and I thought that it would be a neat usage of my time since I'm between semesters and was bored, so after I read the RfC Closure Requests section I logged in to my account, edited my Wikipedia page, and went to work. It seemed to me that the closure would be easy, since there were a large number of 'yes' votes. As I explained in my rationale, "yes, but as a minority" view was argued to be inappropriately editorializing the subject since there weren't any sources that contradicted the statement. As for the closure "six minutes later", that's because I found the format for closing, typed out my rationale/summarization/assesment in a text document, dropped the {doing}, posted the closure, and then posted the {done}. I did not realize that I needed to have a substantial history of actively editing Wikipedia to close an RfC and figured it didn't get much more "uninvolved" than someone who hasn't edited anything. So, my apologies. I was just interested in the closure process because summarizing and assesing arguments falls within my skillset and I do not have a desire to actively edit articles. I didn't realize that this would be disallowed or problematic, and I'll stop doing so going forward. Chrhns (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the statement "appears to know a lot about the more intricate parts of Wikipedia", I'm unsure as to what "intricate" parts of Wikipedia you are referring here? My statement that DRN might be more appropriate for the issue was derived from reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Guide which states
For complex content-related issues between two or more editors, you may bring your dispute to the informal dispute resolution noticeboard. This is a good place to bring your dispute if you don't know what the next step should be
and
For simple content-related issues where concise proposals have been made on the talk page, you may bring your dispute to the informal requests for comment to have the broader community look at the dispute and make suggestions.
.
I found the Reliable Source Noticeboard and when looking about the policies on reliable sources, and the rest I learned just from reading through policies before I set out on doing anything, and the other RfC about tornadoes sounded more complicated than what was presented as a "yes" or "no" RfC. Chrhns (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies are needed, but thank you for the explanation nonetheless. I'm absolutely not saying you weren't allowed to close the RFC or that you did a bad job at it (I haven't read the whole thing) Just that closing an RFC is difficult, so experienced editors should review it to make sure it complies with our policies and guidelines. New editors must be treated with respect, but they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards. Closing discussions is allowed, but per WP:NAC they're generally left for administrators or experienced editors, especially the discussions that are likely to be controversial. Getting involved with Wikipedia and learning our policies is a great thing and I hope you continue. The WordsmithTalk to me22:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really see an issues with the talk page. That said I will add that I am fluent in Japanese and this is not a complex issue. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. A few editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as personal agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia. In any case the RFC had a very clear consensus.
I also agree that the off-site discussions between Eirikr and Hexenakte strike me as calculating how to influence the article and bypass the outcome. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Granted what it might have looked like, do you accept my explanations above?
I find it concerning how you continue to accuse us of conspiracy for seemingly no reason, even after much has been said that we did not have any ill intent. I really should not have to repeat myself on this matter, but the entire point of that wiktionary page was to do further research on a missing quote that is supposedly hidden from the public eye. Yes, we did talk about the issue at hand with the RfC and recognized that it was merely a popularity contest with no attempt to look into the secondary sources themselves. That is why we are here to do a dispute resolution as this is a very complex issue. I am trying to be as honest as I possibly can here, and no matter how much I try to be transparent I am always accused of something and I still fail to see why.
Another thing is you insist that this is not a complex issue because you are fluent in Japanese and you deem it so. Yet you haven't demonstrated it once since the 3 or 4 times you mentioned it. You have not provided any dictionary entries for your point and you have not written in Japanese once. You are essentially saying "I am right and you are wrong" without further explanation, and when you are asked, you completely ignore it, just as you did above.
If it isn't already apparent by now, this is a recurring pattern among those still pushing for these secondary sources. There is no argument being presented against our concerns, much less being at least acknowledged. Somehow those interpreting that the very basics of verification of these sources that anyone is capable of doing is bludgeoning the process, and then refusing to engage on those grounds, despite it being very prevalent among several editors in the talk page, not just Eirikr and I. This is not to mention the multiplehostileaccusations on this section alone.
I know you do not agree with us, but I really have to point to WP:CIVIL. It is very difficult to have a meaningful conversation if half of this discussion is filled with hostility, and the fact I have to mention this several times is problematic. Hexenakte (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, given they left comments like Special:Diff/1232446414 on the RSN thread, I'm ready to recommend a topic ban.
They've been asked to improve their behavior if they wish to continue participating and have not, if anything, have gotten worse.
You conveniently left out the reply to that from another editor, debunking your absurd claim.
DarmaniLink, who complains that Symphony Regalia is casting aspersions by mentioning the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing assault on the Yasuke article, began their first comment on the Yasuke talk page with Descendent of an (actual) samurai of the saeki clan, with a preserved 15th century land grant document in my family's possession here. Another editor complained about black supremacy and DEI propaganda. Personally I don't care about their motives, whether they are right-wing nationalists or passionate amateur historians and samurai enthusiasts - I'm not interested in their agenda, but I'm interested in their sources. Unfortunately those opposing Yasuke's status as a samurai have not provided sources contradicting Encyclopaedia Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, BBC, or the research of Lockley and Lopez-Vera.
I don't know why I'm still sticking around, but I can send you a picture of the document if you want proof. I have samurai heritage going back to the 15th century when some distant ancestor was granted land by Mori Motonari. Accusing others of lying, as well as harassment is a personal attack. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three points:
re Eirikr's the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference. Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book [7] and Lopez-Vera's book [8] are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.
reWhen that editor then edits the Yasuke article to add a detail ("as a samurai") with citations, and those citations do not say anything about that detail. Again, I don’t know if that's bad faith or lack of competence but this edit of mine replaces "retainer" with "samurai", which is directly supported by all cited sources, and modifies one sentence, As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend, which is supported by the quoted source, CNN, stating "Today, Yasuke’s legacy as the world’s first African samurai is well known in Japan (...) Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records".
Chrhns' closure was flawless, and I support any measures necessary to make that talk page workable and policy-compliant.
I wanted to point out that Eirikr misinterpreted my edit, as this conversation on Wikidictionary makes clear. This does not directly affect the question of Eirikr's ability to interpret 16th and 17th century Japanese and Portuguese sources, which I am not in a position to evaluate. However, most of the editors who !voted in the RfC preferred to stick to the numerous reliable secondary sources that suggest that in medieval Japan a man who had a sword, a servant below him, and a lord above him - a lord with whom he had a direct personal relationship - was most likely to be a samurai, that is, a warrior of higher rank and prestige. This was the case, according to sources, even if that man happened to be black and born in Africa. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your point #1 above, you list eight sources. You then claim (emphasis mine): "They [Hexenakte and Eiríkr] argued that [sources] are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research."
I must emphasize, that despite your apparent opinion of my position, I don't care one way or the other whether Yasuke was a samurai. My issue is simple academic integrity and verifiability. I care what reliable, confirmable sources have to say, and I care that our article at [[Yasuke]] accurately and fairly presents what such sources say.
Of your eight sources, the first six of them are tertiary or quaternary references.
Britannica includes zero sourcing or references, and presents speculation that isn't confirmable anywhere (about Yasuke fighting in several battles). I honestly fail to see how this is a reliable source.
The next five all depend on the seventh (Lockley) for their statements about Yasuke as a samurai.
Lockley and López-Vera are secondary sources, and while they lack in-line citations, they at least include bibliographies that list primary sources.
So of those 8, we have only two that are secondary sources. Which anyone would know, if they did their due diligence and read the sources in their entirety.
Two secondary sources is a less compelling picture, and this is a big part of why I continue to oppose writing our article such that it states that Yasuke was a samurai, as an uncited statement of fact (in "wikivoice"): most of the sources brought up at Talk:Yasuke in support of making a "wikivoice" statement are either tertiary and merely repeating the statements of other secondary sources, or they have other issues (like the Manatsha paper).
What I have done in evaluating these eight sources is hardly OR, this is simple due diligence in evaluating sources and the bases for claims made.
In your point #2 above, I see some confusion. I take issue with this sentence, which you changed to add "as a samurai" that appears underlined here:
Nobunaga was impressed by him and asked Valignano to give him over.<ref name="JapanForum" /> He gave him the Japanese name ''Yasuke'',{{efn|The origin of his name is unknown.}} made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai.<ref name="ExcludedPresence" /><ref name="Hitotsubashi">{{Cite journal |last=Wright |first=David |date=1998 |title=The Use of Race and Racial Perceptions Among Asians and Blacks: The Case of the Japanese and African Americans |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294433 |url-status=live |journal=Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=135–152 |issn=0073-280X |jstor=43294433 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230313173327/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294433 |archive-date=13 March 2023 |access-date=19 May 2024 |quote=In 1581, a Jesuit priest in the city of Kyoto had among his entourage an African}}</ref>
The issue I take is that, as written, the text appears to source the "as a samurai" part to the given references — which themselves make no such statement. Hence my predicament: I do not know if you are mistakenly claiming that these sources support your contention, or if you are intentionally writing so as to make your claim seem as if others are backing it up, even when they do not. Given the way it appears that you are trying to ram through a "wikivoice" statement of samurai-ness, I confess that I have begun to doubt your motives.
In your point #3 above, I think it's clear from the existence of this very thread that the RFC closure was not "flawless". I do not fault @Chrhns for their good-faith efforts, but the closure was not without its issues.
No, sorry, but your point 2 is just wrong: you are falsifying my edit. This is the code of my first edit:
Subsequently, Nobunaga took him into his service and gave him the name Yasuke. As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and [[stipend]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jozuka |first=Emiko |date=2019-05-20 |title=The legacy of feudal Japan’s African samurai |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/asia/black-samurai-yasuke-africa-japan-intl/index.html |access-date=2024-06-27 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>
It is identical to the code of my second edit (restoring the first one after the RfC). As you can see, there is a full stop between "...into his army" and "As a samurai". "As a samurai" has a capital "A". The sentance I added is supported by the quoted source CNN. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the fifth color-coded paragraph down.
The paragraph in question is not the one you quote here. Again, the exact sentence I take issue with is (minus the wikicode bits): "He gave him the Japanese name Yasuke, made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai." ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Now I understand what happened. My first edit did not add that "samurai" there. It was added later by another editor here [9]. After the RfC I undid this edit [10] and in doing so I restored that "samurai". I had no recollection of it because I had not included it in the first place. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, one issue resolved! Thank you for tracking down where that crept in, apparently in this edit by @Natemup.
@Natemup, the sources cited as references for that sentence ("He gave him the Japanese name Yasuke, made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai.") do not support your addition of the "as a samurai" bit on the end. Would you object to removing those three words?
It's fine to move them somewhere else, but the body of the article must mention that he's a samurai if we're including it in the lede. natemup (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i just want to drop, that i heavily pointed out, that one of the mentioned sources, Lockney, heavily evades the term samurai in his own comments and publications to describe Yasuke AND that the same sources about Yasuke's samurai status talk about Yasuke slavery status with zero interest to insert this fact of Yasuke's origin into the article as Original research.
If we allow these sources to "prove" the samurai status of Yasuke, we have to insert into the article, that he had a slavery background in his live. I will add, that in Japan academic papers talk about the view of slavery by Japanese with the example Yasuke. We just ignore these academical talks in the western-centristic views of some people here and silence thereby colonial actions of the Portuguese empire and explicit the Jesuits in Asia for a samurai-demand by few people, who neve rinteracted with the primary sources and rather read news articles about a netflix show.
I even highlighted, that the majority of the "reliable sources" talking about the samurai status of Yasuke were NOT about the historic figure of Yasuke, but about modern cultural media products, who showed Yasuke as a samurai in these shows. The article referring to this samurai-Yasuke in the media and tries to find a historic base to this figure of a samurai-Yasuke.
This doesn't make Yasuke in hisotry to a samurai, this just tells us, that these newsarticles talks about this show with a depicted samurai-yasuke. We have a section about this matter in the article about his cultural depiction. It is not a source for his historic title and lacks in Verifiability!
We lack any kind of primary source, that calls him a samurai. We even lack a primary source, that secures to us, that he was ever freed from slavery before, in or after being in Japan.
And this view is even heavily supported by the main source for Yasuke as a samurai, Lockney, who is evasive to the term and often used the term as a "personal view" about Yasuke in his own publications and comments in newspapers.
For example, the Jesuit records never mentioned Yasuke as a samurai, the Jesuits call him a term, typical used for black slaves or servants in Asia by Jesuits and Portuguese at these times, only call him once by his name, call him a gift given to Nobunaga by them.
The articles use a single sentence in the whole record, about various things given to Yasuke as their CLAIM, that this could mean, that he was made a samurai to justify the depiction of him as a samurai in these modern cultural products. This is not a historic fact about Yasuke or even a statement about the real Yasuk by these news-papers, who wouldn't make original scientific comments about Yasuke in the first place.
According to this academic review (accessible through WP:TWL), Lockley 2019 is a work of popular history. I quote the paragraph most pertinent to the discussion here:
The book is clearly intended as popular history, and, while it might be unfair to judge a book by what is it not, the scarcity of primary sources on Yasuke is compounded by the lack of scholarly citations or other means to document the narrative. The afterward lists chapter-by-chapter “Selected Readings” of primary and secondary sources, but no direct citations. The omission of citations is not necessarily a question a veracity of the scholarship, but the authors frequently go into detail about Yasuke and his personal reactions, like his kidnapping from Africa and his sword fight with a young enemy samurai, with no cited documentation. Likewise, there is no discussion of the evidence that explains how, in just fifteen months, Yasuke and Nobunaga developed such a close relationship. Was it just Yasuke’s height and skin color? Presumably, much of this might come from Fróis or be based on reasonable speculation, but, without specific references, details often seem like creative embellishments, rather than historical narrative.
_dk (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
(s. Archiv1; section: Lockley 2016, Lockley 2017, and Lockley 2019?)
In 2018 you made 6 edits to userspace. In Novemeber 2020 you blanked your page. Upon returning almost 4 years later you blanked your talk page and an hour later you closed a contentious RfC. You've now gone ahead and made an ANI report over the issue too.
You're quite clearly an WP:SPA yourself. The RfC should be re-opened and closed by someone with experience (no clue whether the close is valid or not but someone with 10 edits should never close an RfC). Traumnovelle (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing I saw policy wise that indicated that I shouldn't be doing closures. As I stated above, I simply saw an avenue in which I could use my time to contribute that didn't involve actively editing articles and as the other options were far more complicated than the yes or no question presented, I went with what seemed to be the simplest. I also closed the RfC on Line of Duty today prior to reading I shouldn't be doing RfCs. I blanked my page because it had material from an irrelevant course still on it. I created this ANI not about the RfC but over conduct violations appearing long before I had such as declaring nationalist screeds. I won't be doing any RfCs any more and do not particularly care if the one I did do gets reverted, though I stand by my suggestion that the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard might be more productive. Chrhns (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you did anything wrong, and nobody should be biting you for it. You made a good faith attempt to help out, and that's very much appreciated and welcome here. The only issue is that you started in an area that's very difficult for new editors, difficult even for experienced ones. You also did the right thing by bringing the conduct issue here for discussion. If you have any questions about different ways to participate around Wikipedia, I'd be happy to answer them on my talkpage if you like. The WordsmithTalk to me06:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved observer, I agree with SilverserenC and Loki that it would be helpful to (semi- or ec-)protect the talk-page for a moderate length of time in order to allow more experienced editors to implement the result of the RfC without constant disruption. (The article itself is already semi-protected.) --JBL (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. It has already been pointed out that this was the first thing I have done, and I have offered an explanation (and apology) here. In short, I thought doing RfC closures would be helpful and a way I could contribute my time since I do not wish to actively edit articles, and the other RfC about "tornadoes" seemed a lot more complicated to me. Any other action I have taken in regard to the Yasuke content was directing people to more appropriate venues (such as starting a reliable source noticeboard discussion on the contentious source instead of constantly arguing about it on the talk page). Arguably, the Single Purpose of my account was to participate in my course requirement. I brought the talk page up to the Admin board because there seemed to be a lot happening in the discussion, such as proclaiming that Wikipedia is conducting "black supremacy", a bunch of nationalist rhetoric about how Western sources are colonizing history, and various accusations of editors lying. Chrhns (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even your first edit anyways and you already explained yourself above when this was asked. It's clear JackTheSecond didn't even read the discussion. SilverserenC22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the closure request, and specifically requested an experienced closer, mainly because of the SPA issues the OP has brought up. That being said, I also think that the close was surprisingly good for a very new editor who's never even participated in an RFC before.
Despite this, I wouldn't be opposed to an admins reclosing it, if it's felt like that's necessary. But I would suggest that it'd be so hard to reach any other conclusion that it might not be worth bothering. Loki (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Soo are we gonna do anything about this guy or do we have to wait for him to go on another rant about "wokeism"?--Trade (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“The historical Japanese records and Jesuit records say that Yasuke was GIVE by Jesuit to Nobunaga. People who get treated like a property in human trafficking are slaves.
So Yasuke was a slave. There is no confusion on this.
As a Japanese, I feel a great threat to our culture and history by foreigners who try to falsify our culture and history for the benefits of their interests.
And now someone just edited the content to Yasuke "as a samurai" and put a semi-lock until November when the AC Shadows releases.
Wikipedia is now a tool of black supremacy and DEI propaganda.
We need to stop any attempt for history falsification.”
should be a sign this user isn’t gonna be very useful to the project. Their edit comments alone are just disruptive and wastes productive editors time. I believe a block is warranted.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with his accusation, that i would translate my comments to english, that he couldn't understand me and that he is in general not interested in discussing about sources reliability on this talk page to other editors questioning his sources.
But in recent days there were finally some form of logic reaching him about the questionable source of Lockley and the Britannica article, so as a rather new contributor i presumed good faith for Gitz and didn't pushed these questionable presumptions on my side about his contributions, as i am not so perfectly adept to the rules in Wikipedia and may mishandled the situation myself as i don't want to allege incompetence.
---
To prove the point, that Yasuke would actual be a slave, i provided reliable sources on countless occasions, but Gitzs just dislikes to interact with these sources in any manner in the same manner, that he doesn't want to speak about the reliability of sources in general over the last weeks, like this attempt of @Hexenaktehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Hexenakte-20240628162500-Gitz6666-20240628160200, that got completely ignored, just as one of many examples.
A) One of my sources is simply a source repeatability linked and used by Gitz's itself. https://time.com/6039381/yasuke-black-samurai-true-story/ IN this news-article Lockney himself calls Yasuke a slave and openly talks about this narrative around the figure of Yasuke by Others.
B)
A different reliable source would be the National Diet Library (NDL) of Japan, who is calling black people in Japan in these times in general, this includes Yasuke, servants and slaves.
And i even provided the official English translation: https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/e/entry/14/2.html to make it possible to check into the facts, that a major Japanese institution talks in these areas of time about the first black people in Japan about the terminology of slaves or servants.
C)
Than i quoted the work: Japan's Minorities. The Illusion of Homogeneity by J.G. Russel, 2009
We hear once again of Yasuke and the services he and other black people did under Nobunaga. Not as a samurai, but "as soldiers, gunners, drummers and entertainers." And i highlighted, that Russel points for this statement at the works of Fujita 1987 and Leupp 1995.
Fujita is Fujita Satoru, a Japanese historian, who writes specific about terminologies of titles in the era of Yasuke's time in Japan and i highlighted, that this may be a reliable source about his samurai status or rather a different view of his status by Japanese scholars, rather than to trust recent western news-articles.
D)
At least i quoted:
Interracial Intimacy in Japan, Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900 by Gary P. Leupp, 2003
"In 1581, a mob in Kyoto broke down the door of a Jesuit residence in their eagerness to see an African slave, who had been born in Mozambique and brought to Japan by the missionary Alessandro Valignano. Several people were injured. Apparently embarrassed about the incident, the warlord Oda Nobunaga himself summoned the man, inspected his person carefully to ensure that his color was genuine, presented him with a gift of money, and then took him into his own service. <Yasuke>, as Nobunaga named him, subsequently accompanied his lord in battle. After the latter was trapped by Akechi Mitsuhide and forced to commit suicide in 1582, Yasuke was captured but released. (This was, after all, not his quarrel: <He is not Japanese,> noted Akechi)"
Because i already experienced Gitz and Others to simply call a source unreliable to be able to ignore it, (he does it here again to explicit ignore D) as a source to be discussed on the talk page) i added to it, that we already uses Leupp extensively in the article as a reliable source. So yea, we have reliable sources calling Yasuke a slave, while not mentioning this fact in any form in the article.
In all honesty, i rather presume, that it is disliked, that i give actual reliable sources for Yasuke to be a slave in a scope, that it could become the majority view in contrast to the notion, that he may be a samurai, claimed by the Spanish historian Jonathan Lopez-Vera. Gitz just dislikes this possibility.
For this reason, i pointed for example at Tetsuo Owada a famous Japanese historian about Hideyoshi and Nobunaga, used by Wikipedia extensively in the articles of these people, who is talking about the term samurai and the strong difficulties and reactions of others against Hideyoshi and other Japanese retainers of Nobunaga to become a samurai and the motivation of Nobunaga to dilute this title with Hideyoshi in contrast to the claim of Yasuke's samurai-status, that is not mentioned once by Owada and didn't created similar form of reactions at these times in any primary sources.
I want to add, that i had an extensive and long discussion with Eiríkr about the matter of primary sources not mentioning any form of rank given to Yasuke by the Japanese, while the Portuguese Jesuits were visiting Japan to achieve a form of legality in Japan and should have been keen on this prospect, that foreigners may get a title in Japan by a higher lord. In contrast to this important matter, the Jesuits just call Yasuke by the term, typical used for black slaves in their colonies in India over his whole service for Nobunaga and even after Nobunaga's death. I provided sources for these claims in the former sections, Gitz just ignores these areas and thereby presumes me to just state random things without sources. He could read about it, but rather he presumed Bludgeon and/or ignores me and my sources.
---
My clear interest on this talk page, prior to Gitz appearance on this talk page and always not hidden, is to highlight, that A) the sources about his samurai status are spare compared to other terminology used to describe Yasuke, even the slave-term has more reliable sources behind its back. and B) Yasuke is, not disputed by any source, a victim of Portuguese slavery and this matter is not mentioned in the article.
So, did i start a edit-war about the terminology of samurai on the page itself? No. I know about WP:CIR and i feel insecure about my ability to contribute to the article in major areas, as it would need major changes to the article to add this major part of Yasuke's live in this article about him on the top summary of his article and in the section of his Early live and about the section about him being a samurai. I know about my lack of competence and thereby i restrict myself to minor edits in actual articles. Even my contribution to Mark Kern was minimal about sourcing.
and with contributions on this page and in similar regard on the talk page Yasuke is like:
"Thomas Lockley is reliable. There are editors pushing personal/political agendas via original research over published peer reviewed sourcing. Mainly the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing culture war crowd. These people are starting from the conclusion they want, and then working backwards to attempt to discredit any published sourcing that contradicts it."
And i will leave than this paragraph: They always have to have the last word and may ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view. It is most common with someone who feels they have a stake in the outcome, that they own the subject matter, or are here to right great wrongs. from WP:BLUDGEON so in a form of self-critic i will presume, that some of my comments may act in a form to Proof by assertion and will attempt to limit my comments, i didn't bludgeoning, i face comments, who are rather bludgeoning on the talk page and here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240705042700-DarmaniLink-20240704051100
I checked the first source you mentioned, of which you claim "IN this news-article Lockney himself calls Yasuke a slave". What I see when I search for the word "slave" in that article is "Some have said that Yasuke was a slave, and Lockley acknowledges the theory but disagrees. “Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor,” Lockley said. Given that blatant misrepresentation of the source, I'm not interested in spending time looking at any of your other claims. CodeTalker (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it goes on.
The author speculates that given the circumstances of how the African man arrived at his employment with Valignano, it’s possible that Yasuke was enslaved as a child and taken from Africa to India. There, Lockley said the man could have been a military slave or an indentured soldier, but he “probably got his freedom before meeting Valignano.” ErikWar19 (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user is continuing their pattern of incivility and personal attacks towards editors who disagree with them. Since creating their account in late 2023, the majority of their edits of been in deletion/merge/split discussions.[11] They have been taken twice to ANI before.
In April, the complaint describes an incident in which SF was uncivil towards editors who disagreed with them,[12] was warned about their incivility (albeit poorly),[13] only to double down and attack the person warning them.[14] While no action was taken and the civility warning was dismissed as being uncivil in its own right, comments in the discussion including by Snow Rise and Hydrangeans expressed concerns over SF's tone and taking digs at the contributions of others nonetheless.
In May, I brought up what I felt were several issues related to SF's behaviour at AfD, among which was their incivility. The other issues were mostly dismissed due to SF's record at AfD, but again, nearly every editor who commented expressed concerns at SF's tone towards others, including their behaviour in the ANI thread itself. Clearly a message should have been received that their tone was unacceptable, but no acknowledgement of the concerns was made before the thread was archived.
[15] In a reply to me: "There's always a home for them in Fandom. Nothing wrong with that site, though. People should think before shoving junk into Wikipedia." Bolding mine; The "go to Fandom" comment is itself bad, but again he belittles and does not assume good faith of the efforts of other editors.
[16] In a reply to another keep !voter, WP:OTHERSTUFF would have itself been a sufficient reply, but SF can't help but make a personal attack about Fandom. "Fandom is always there for fans like you."
[17] SF then adds to his initial reply to me, with what is partially a line they use often at AfD but also partially a personal attack, "and do we need an WP:INDISCRIMINATE amount of sports results to clutter Wikipedia with, especially those the most ardent minority of nerds bother with".
[18] After I warned him about his incivility, he doubles down with "Wow, such snowflakes like the modern times, getting upset by words like 'nerds', I thought nerds like being called nerds. I was a car nerd at one time and am not ashamed of that label. I call 'efforts' like this junk because people write crap."
Given that the user has not heeded past warnings to keep it civil, or even acknowledged that their lack of civility is a problem, and continues to bring this behaviour into discussions on deletion, merging and splitting whenever they face opposition that they can't just quickly reply to with a wikilink (and even sometimes when they can), I believe something beyond a warning (like a topic ban) must be done. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SpacedFarmer is certainly assertive in expressing their opinions within the context of improving the encyclopedia, but I fail to see how calling another editor a "nerd" is an actionable insult. I've been editing Wikipedia for 15 years and if anyone called me a "nerd" for editing the articles that I choose to edit, then I will accept "nerd" as a badge of honor. Similarly with "snowflakes" which is a term that has been used, over used and counter-used so often that it has lost actual meaning in the fog of trading political insults. An assertion that specific content is "junk" or "crap" is bold and unvarnished, but the appropriate response is to advance a convincing argument that the content in question is neither junk nor crap. SpacedFarmer, I encourage you to select wording in such discussions that is less confrontational and more collaborative. Editors who initially disagree with you about "something" are not your enemy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The exact worlds used are less of a concern than the overall pattern of immediate confrontation towards disagreement. How many more people are going to have to tell this user to be less confrontational and more collaborative before they finally get it? ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 I had a somewhat similar response to the first ANI report about this user brought earlier this year. In that instance, I felt there was blame to go around and that the conduct being complained about with regard to SpacedFarmer constituted fairly minor violations of behavioural norms under the circumstances. When I was pinged here for this report, read it through, and reviewed the original ANI, I was initially anticipating saying something similar. But after reviewing some of the more recent comments in context, and especially after having just looked at the attitude on display in the second ANI, as well as in some other circumstances where SF has been asked to adjust their approach, I'm starting to lean towards agreement with the OP that there's an issue here that needs addressing.
For one, although I don't think that they are the biggest issue here, I don't think that the "nerd"/"fanboy" comments are entirely nothing. Context is king, and the fact is that SF is demonstrating a pattern of dismissing the concerns of other editors with these sorts of non-sequitor comments, combining ad hominem and strawman elements, thus violating the principle that editorial arguments should be based on content and policy, not one's suppositions about what they imagine to be the motivations and qualities of their rhetorical opposition (or, "focus on the content, not the user", as we usually say in short). There is definitely a problematic amount of WP:Battleground seeping into SF's approach here, from what I can see. And frankly a non-trivial amount of arrogance that they are a more serious editor than those disagreeing with them and that they know best what is called for, with their all of seven months worth of experience on-project.
This attitude may well have been unintentionally enabled by those of us who blew off the first few episodes, but regardless, it's clearly starting to become irreconcilable with a collaborative environment, and I think we're headed towards either a block and/or a topic ban from sport/motorsport subject matter if SF is unable to perceive the issue with their approach and adjust accordingly. I don't know that we're at the point of such a proposal yet, but (for their own benefit if nothing else) SpacedFarmer should at least get a clear warning from us at this juncture. And a clear acknowledgment from them that they understand where the community concerns are coming from wouldn't hurt. Regardless, without a rapid change in outlook concerning how to regard and communicate with their fellow editors in content disputes, I don't see how they avoid some sort of sanction at some point probably not too far down the line. SnowRise let's rap00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A new response on SpacedFarmer's user talk offers fresh evidence of their increasing use of personal attacks: "People like you are what is shit about modern motorsport, no wonder why the once great sport full of pussies like you nowadays." I think something needs to be done. Toughpigs (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: SpacedFarmer topic banned from deletion, broadly construed[edit]
I think it's safe to say that SpacedFarmer doesn't have the temperament to work in the deletion realm of Wikipedia. I'm proposing a topic ban from all deletion areas of Wikipedia, broadly construed. Support, obviously. Maybe this'll give SpacedFarmer a chance to change his tact around deletion. ♠JCW555(talk)♠ 01:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of the constant & massive incivility towards editors and article creators within deletion discussions, as demonstrated in this and the previous ANI thread. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite my misgivings based on what has been presented in this thread, I wanted to wait and see how SpacedFarmer responded to the administrative block before weighing in on any additional CBAN. I have to say that I am not heartened by the complete radio silence in response to multiple admins reaching out on the talk page trying to encourage a change in tact. That said, unlikely though it is to be coincidental timing, it is at least possible that the user is simply busy off-project.
I additionally have another concern: if a TBAN is advisable in this instance, I'm not sure if removing them from deletion discussions is the right fit. Afterall, I don't think removing them from deletion is going to address the hostility that seems to characterize many of their interactions in the area of organized sport topics. And on the flip side, I'm not sure that they would be as problematic when discussing deletions matters for other topics. That said, the proposal may end up being better than nothing. I'm going to wait a little longer and hope for some response from SF before formalizing an !vote in any direction. SnowRise let's rap02:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: They've refused to adjust their behaviour despite past warnings. The incivility towards others, as well as the disparaging nomination statements they routinely make and won't adjust from, have grown quite tiresome. They routinely fail to do proper WP:BEFORE searches and then badger those who oppose them at various times. They've shown no signs that they intend to work at it and do better, so at this point I think it's time to say enough is enough. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there. 217.19.215.0/16 is 65534 IPs, and is used by at least 15 different networks in several countries in Europe. The network you named is a resold /24. You should be careful using large netmasks. 12.75.41.40 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to block the entire /16 address range, but I should have been clearer with this, my mistake. Mellk (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a user I first encountered because they added an irrelevant WP:AUTOBIOnotice to an IP I was watching. I don't know why they did this. When I left them a message on their talk page about it, they ignored it and blanked my user page. They later apologized on their own accord which I thought was surprisingly nice of them. They then proceeded to move their user and talk page to random namespaces ([19][20][21][22]) and made a bunch of other seemingly random, unconstructive edits. I reported them to WP:AIV but withdrew my request after they apologized and left this note on their user page (I believed their edits might have genuinely been mistakes). Recently they started editing again and made a few troll edits ([23][24]) then added these ([25][26]) notices to their talk page, suggesting their account has been compromised. I assume this is just a case of WP:BROTHER. Not really sure what to do here, but if you scroll far enough down their contributions, you'll see they did (or tried to) make some constructive edits in the past. Maybe an admin can give them a stricter warning about their troll (?) edits? CFA💬22:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked. They also claim their account is hacked. Not sure I believe them, but just another basis for the block, even though a troll is a troll.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, another reason for the block, so many. I'm having homemade mac 'n cheese tonight for dinner. Perhaps I should join the club.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Johann Grander was an Austrian with no scientific background who claimed to have received information from God on how to "improve" water and made all kinds of claims that his "revitalized" water had special benefits (including curing cancer). It was sold for large sums per liter and the devices were sold for even larger sums. It is a bit comparable to holy water. A company was formed that sold his "inventions". The claims by the company have been debunked over and over again by scientists.
Salvelinus umbla (talk·contribs) wrote: "To the best of current knowledge, the company Grander has never been a partner of Wetsus." despite Grander being listed as a company participant on the website of Wetsus, which means that Grander paid Wetsus money.
Wetsus names the sum on their website Company Participants: € 32,900/theme/year
The theme is "Applied Water Physics" and the coordinator for that theme is no other than Elmar C. Fuchs, who has at least since 2016 been writing at least 3 publications in support of Grander.
Salvelinus umbla wrote: Here, I must particularly insist on your source citation, as such accusations could very easily be misinterpreted as defamation of a respected scientist.
WP:LEGAL says: Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who post legal threats are typically blocked while the threats are outstanding.
I'm no expert but I'm not sure that asserting content that is poorly sourced (in their view) could be defamatory is the same as "I'm going to sue you" or "My lawyers will be contacting WMF". I don't see that assessment in a content disagreement as a threat of legal action, it seems more like an opinion. LizRead!Talk!07:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that is a distinction without a difference, considering that the user has referenced an employment relationship with the company (and yet not otherwise complied with our COI disclosure requirements). The implication they are making is pretty clear, and the LT seems to just be the tip of the iceberg with regard to competency, neutrality, and WP:NOTHERE issues in this user's approach. It doesn't seem we'd be losing anything with a block until they give us extensive assurances that they have undertaken to understand some basic editing principles they currently seem uneducated about and disinterested in. SnowRise let's rap04:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User repeatedly engages in non-constructive editing, often making unsourced changes (e.g. [27], [28], [29], see also examples below), or unexplained deletions of content (e.g. [30]). The larger problem is the edit-warring behaviour alongside this, of which they have a long history, e.g.:
They've previously been warned about disruptive behaviour ([55], [56]), unsourced editing ([57]), and about using AI-generated text ([58], [59]). I warned them about edit-warring specifically ([60]) shortly before they started edit-warring at War of the League of the Indies.
Edit summaries like this latest one, after I re-explained the problem to them and invited them to discuss on the talk page here, suggests they have no intention to engage in WP:CONSENSUS. They have never responded on any talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this should be posted here or at WP:CP. I was working through Copypatrol and found this user involved in three seprate cases. I cleared those and left a notice on their talk page. A lot of their larger edits contain blatant copyvios. I don't have time to go through and tag them all for RD1. Can an administrator go through their contributions and revdel the copyvios? They seem to be working constructively but also have clearly ignored the notice left by GreenLipstickLesbian four days ago. Thanks, CFA💬19:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through their contributions and removed all the violations I spotted- or rewrote as appropriate. Some cases could have fallen under WP:LIMITED, but were either unfit for inclusion, or I could rewrite them anyway. I didn't bother tagging those for WP:REVDEL, but everything else should be good to go. All that remains is their commitment to abide by Wikipedia's copyright policy- or at least some sign that they understand it now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing my work and for all the reminders. I will strive to be more careful in my next editing, especially when it comes to adding content from the sources I find. Ubivxoq (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is very nice and also unacceptably vague, Ubivxoq. What we need from you at this point is an acknowledgement that you have made copyright errors in the past, and an ironclad promise that you will be very careful to avoid copyright violations going forward. This is a matter with potential legal consequences for this project. Please reassure us that you understand this issue and take it seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the seriousness of the matter, and I truly appreciate all the reminders given to me as a beginner editor. I take the time to carefully read all comments given to my work, and I reply as promptly as I can to give reassurance that I am willing to learn and heed the advice of more senior editors. Again, I apologize for any errors I have committed especially in terms of copyright. I strive to rephrase information I find and I always cite my sources, but it appears that I still missed out on important guidelines. In light of the errors pointed out, I will review all guidelines once more in order to avoid further mistakes. Thank you. Ubivxoq (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the reporting IP whose only edits have been to add this here and at another noticeboard. The complaint is due to an admin blocking a few IPs used by an LTA which this IP miraculously noticed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can someone verify the blocking activity by this user? He has been blocking IPs as open proxies but a Whois shows they’re simply public access points which means you physically have to be at that location to access through that IP. 63.44.136.26 (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user returns every few months to revert a dozen articles to their preferred version, removing Vietnam but also intervening edits by other editors,(e.g. [62]) and ignoring attempts to communicate.[63][64]Kanguole23:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm just about to Wikipedia:PBPOL Deranged Thomas from those articles they have have shown an disruptive interest in. For those following along here, in the various historical states and kingdoms in what is now Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea and so on, Classical Chinese was the shared language of scholars, sort of analogous to Latin in Mediaeval Europe. Case on point: the "nam" in "Gangnam Style" is the same "nam" in Vietnam - please see Wikt:南--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, "OK, I'm just about to Wikipedia:PBPOL Deranged Thomas..." would appear to be pretty much synonymous with "OK, I'm going to precipitate unnecessary WP:DRAMA".: Change of plan. I'm just about to ask DelusionalThomaz515610 about this about this. And if that there isn't a satisfactory outcome there, seek more opinions, discuss it further, and so on.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not Cambodia, I think (used Khmer written with an Indic script), but the rest, yes. If past behaviour is any guide, DerangedThomaz is now gone until he returns in a couple of months to repeat. Kanguole23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting rangeblock on 223.185.128.0/21 for block evasion of User:Halud Foressa[edit]
Hello Wikipedia admins. I am requesting a block on the IP range above, for constant disruptive editing and block evasion of User:Halud Foressa. This IP user has been reported to WP:SPI four days ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Halud Foressa, but the report has sat there pretty much unlooked at ever since. Yet, this user continues to rapidly disrupt Wikipedia to this day, so I am posting here and requesting that action be taken swiftly.
Evidence of sockpuppetry (copied from the WP:SPI report) are as follows:
Both the IP and the [previous sock] 'User:Paul is describing' account seem highly (almost solely) interested in Indian films, and on the Deewana (2013 film) if we compare diff by accounttodiff by IP, they both are trying to remove the fact that the film is based on 2007 'Deepavali' film in one way or another. Little to no use of edit summaries either. Looking at their edits in general, they like to remove claims that a film is based on another (see example 1 and example 2).
It needs to be a rangeblock and not an individual address block, with a length of at least a few months, based on the fact that there was IP address 223.185.133.42 engaging in the same large quantity of disruptive edits (example) back in June, and same thing with IP address 223.185.128.39 in May (example). They are currently using 223.185.133.218 but just a few days ago they were on 223.185.132.111. I searched through the contribs history of the /21 range and could not really find any edits from the last few months that are undoubtedly not from User:Halud Foressa.
The latest IP address has been racking up quite a bit of disruption lately, for example check out the page histories of Mr. Sampat, Pabitra Papi and Deewana (2013 film). This disruption just needs to stop, and I'm sure User:Mehedi Abedin is very tired of it at this point. They actually tried to report the latest IP address at AIV twice (attempt 1, attempt 2), but both reports got ignored for long enough to become automatically removed as stale, so I'm helping them out here in regards to this. — AP 499D25(talk)01:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: whether it's the same person or not, almost a week ago an SPI report w/ CU request was initiated regarding the 'User:Paul is describing' account. A checkuser revealed they were abusing seven different accounts, most of them with very similar editing patterns and interests as the IP, as seen in the archive here. — AP 499D25(talk)04:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since last year I have been the target of (sometimes carefully hedged) accusations and smears from an editor who disagrees with me.
16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Calling me "continual and deliberate false accusations" [65]
04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Suggesting that I'm trying to use the "big lie technique, in the hope that Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" [66]
10:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
"adding misinformation" [67]
Suggesting that I'm being paid by a Chinese company to edit on their behalf
10:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
"Given the influence and the large amount of $ the Sing! China incident involved, it won’t surprise me if it turns out that someone is paid to edit in their voice" [68]
21:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
"That sea lion and their bait are really disgusting" [69]
"I hope you are paid, and well-paid. Otherwise it doesn’t worth the time and effort you’ve devoted." [70]
This is the third time since September last year. Whenever I said the truth, pointing out your mistakes / stating the fact that you attacked me, or you can’t win the discussion[71], you bring me to ANI. [72][73]. You did not succeed the last two times, and now you continue. When will all these end? Is there really no consequence for you to spread misinformation about me for so long (over nine months)? Is it the “norms” here that people who are more gentle and don’t like collecting diffs and filing at ANI deemed to WikiBullying/harassment? [74]
This is tiring. I’ll just copy and paste here my final comment (at ANI) in the last complaint you filed against me:
I don’t think people will be interested in the 24 diffs you posted above (most of which were months ago, back in 2023).
Perhaps I shouldn’t have tried to make peace with you. I’m too forgetful, and forget how good you are at misleading people with unrelated diffs, links and sources. Maybe you would like to post all the diffs at one time, like this.
It seems to me that your main purpose is not trying to improve the article. Rather, you are using aged or tangentially-related diffs in the hope that you can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs have been raised at previous ANIs that ended without the desired ban. I won’t comment on the issue of the former admin you mentioned, as I know nothing about that. However, I don’t think ANI is only moderated by one admin. Again, digging up old non-issue issues is a waste of community’s time and is exhausting other editors. Not to mention the untrue claims / potential WP:PA that are made. I don’t think I’ll take the bait this time. You can go on with your diffs.
I would say this kind of interaction is just exhausting. I really don’t think I have the time and energy to deal with the bait anymore. This is sapping up the community’s time. But I know you will never stop until there’s a boomerang.
@Dustfreeworld If you believe Vacosea is trying to get you into trouble to win an argument, why are you giving them so much ammunition? The "sea lion and their bait are disgusting" comment really sounds like you're calling Vacosea disgusting, which is a clear personal attack. Similarly, the "big lie technique" comment is hard to see as anything other than calling Vacosea a liar, which also seems like a WP:PA. Your accusations of paid editing might have merit, but the place to do that is WP:COIN, not an article talk page. And your comment telling Vacosea that you consider their accusations libelous, despite having cautioned Vacosea against using the term "defemation" for the same reason.
If, as you say, interacting with this person is exhausting, then perhaps moving to another area of the encyclopedia would be better for you. As valuable as your contributions are, that part of Wikipedia will survive if you need to move on, and the project will be all the better for retaining your time in an area that doesn't exhaust you instead of burning you out on this one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to the accusations (of which 4 out of 5 happened more than 9 months ago)[edit]
Hi there. Most of the diffs cited above were months ago, and I think I’ve responded to them (multiple times?) at different venues already. And now, you are asking me to respond to those again, one by one. Can you see how exhausting it is??
Not to mention that, ANI is a high traffic venue, making untrue claims against someone (in this case: me) can do much more harm to them (e.g., to their reputation) than doing that on talk pages. And this just happens again and again.
Filing a case for them is easy. And it’s a great way to harm others without any consequences (I’m not commenting on the other cases here, but just this particular one that I know so well. I believe many cases are legitimate). All they need to do is just start a discussion like this, and then those who see their comment will just help them keep the ball rolling. Even if I reply to your concern above, you and others (who maybe relatively new to what had happened before) or maybe them, will continue to respond and again, I’ll need to answer one by one. This is the third time it’s happening in this venue, not including talk pages. If memory serves, the first ANI I mentioned above had lasted for months (with dozens of irrelevant diffs they posted). Isn’t that tiring? Issues like this are exactly what drive good editors away. Further, all these and the stress that brings can drive people crazy I would say, especially when occurs repeatedly.
They are the one who made untrue claims, but they don’t need to reply or worry about that at all, just because the victim is not interested in filing compliant, and also, is now busy defending themselves …
Anyway, I’ll response to some of the newer claims now. I’m not sure if there’s any language barrier. For me, the word “disgusting” is just similar to “annoying”, “discouraging”, etc. it’s just a word used to describe my feelings and I don’t think it’s “attack”, and it’s used to describe my feelings towards the sealioning behaviour:
”Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip ...”
If I was wrong and that word does mean attack and shouldn’t be used, I’ll retract that, with apologies. As for “moving to another area of the encyclopaedia”, do you mean I should quit editing an article of my choice, and which I’m the main contributor to, just because I have been trying hard to protect the page from misinformation (which results in untrue claims / PA / case against me)? It shouldn’t be how things work ...
I think just about everyone at any level of community rightsholding is aware of this case right now. Stewards, checkusers, functionaries in general, IRC ops and Discord mods have been dealing with it for a while. Best not to engage, report to someone appropriate and move on. -- ferret (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My original close was Revisions deleted, partial block applied. StarMississippi 16:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC) but they were repeating the same edits logged out so noting here that I've semi'ed. If further action needs taking, I'm offline so reopening. StarMississippi12:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've rev del'ed the comment. I did not block, although I'm tempted as they're clearly not here and have no objection to someone doing so. Would someone else more versed in the CT templates make them aware please? StarMississippi13:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reluctant to report this editor BeauSuzanne (talk·contribs) again because my previous report filed back in April was overlooked, but I've reached my limit with BeauSuzanne who has a history of consistently creating BLPs on non-notable Pakistani subjects (many of which I suspect are WP:UPE) using WP:FICTREF. Despite my repeatedwarnings, they continue to disregard the WP:BLP rules against adding WP:OR with WP:FICTREF, and making assurances they don't keep. And not only myself, but others have warned them too about violating WP:BLP by adding WP:OR, yet they persist in doing so. It's unrealistic to monitor every article they create, so I'm concerned about how many more articles they've done this to.
And just yesterday, they created an article on some WP:ROTM actor Yasmeen Tahir that I also suspect is WP:UPE, laden with WP:OR using WP:FICTREF so when I asked them why they added WP:OR, they plainly denied doing so. Hence, I decided to draftify the BLP, but another editor moved it back without addressing the underlying problems which also led to a move war. So I had to put in a lot of effort and time to remove the WP:OR - but only to discover today that BeauSuzanne has re-added WP:OR again today and this recurring issue needs immediate attention. BeauSuzanne have also been previously advised, both by me and others, to refrain from creating articles directly in the main NS and to use drafts instead, but they disregard this advice as well. And fwiw, they also engage in LOUTSOCKING. — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 15:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib. Yes you removed some stuff. But I only added the dramas in which she worked and the award section. I listened to your advise. Yes I made it in mainspace which I admit. But then when you moved it back to draft. Then I didn't moved it to mainspace. Before making a article I do my reserach to make sure everything is correct like I added her interview which I also archived.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
BeauSuzanne, Clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT! Please don't act like you've done nothing wrong. Despite multiple warnings, your ongoing practice of adding WP:OR with WP:FICTREF and your refusal to admit your mistakes are deeply concerning. I won't continue this discussion further as it risks becoming a pointless argument between us. I've stated my case; now, I encourage others to weigh in. I don't have anything further to say here unless asked. — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 17:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, They generally add three types of WP:FICTREF: 1) cite video interviews that do not support the claims made 2) reference offline sources that are fabricated or just made up and 3) cite online sources but those sources do not contain the details they add. For example, you can take a look at the history of Yasmeen Tahir where my each edit summary clearly identifies the problem (timestamped from 16:24, 6 July 2024 UTC to 17:15, 6 July 2024 UTC). And there are numerous similar instances in other BLPs they have created previously and many of the BLPs are also deleted where they used WP:FICTREF. For instance, take a look at this discussion. — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 17:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on the other things that you noted, but I was thinking that adding an outright fictional reference would be be a clear cut deliberate mis-action. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JackTheSecond, Here, Pakistan Television Corporation, dated 1999 was a fabricated reference used to cite career information. Similarly, a YouTube video of the subject's interview were cited multiple times, but I couldn't verify those claims, either. Similarly, here they inserted details such as ...studied from Convent of Jesus and Mary, Lahore and completed her M.A in English..., which were not supported by the cited VOA source. Likewise, the claim that she married in 1962 and had three sons could not be verified from the provided The Nation source, among numerous other instances. And I haven't even begun to discuss the number of unreliable or poor sources they add to BLPs. Draft:Safia Khairi, Draft:Sahab Qazalbash, Draft:Durdana Rehman, Draft:Huma Mir, Qaiser Naqvi- These are all recent creations by BeauSuzanne. Please take note of the type of references they are using—mostly fabricated or unreliable sources. — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 19:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the references listed here go:
looks like an honest mistake
Not confirmable (long video in a language I don't speak)
partial support with OR spaced between
reference completely unrelated to content, probably another mistake
Overall impression is that the borderline notability along with CIR issues create a bigger problem than both individually would be. ~ Note to filer: Linking the complete drafts in this case works fine as the user in question is writing them, but they are not evidence anyone can quickly confirm and judge. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JackTheSecond, I cited these drafts because it's pretty straightforward to verify by checking the reference section of each draft. All the offline sources you see there are FABRICATED/WP:FICTREF, including Oxford University Press. — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 16:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, the source itself features the logo of "Oxford University Press" as header. There does seem to be a relation there 1; the exact author should maybe have been given as "OUP Pakistan" or "Oxford University Press Pakistan". But again, not a real issue. I grant that it looks suspect at first glance though. JackTheSecond (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure of the history between these two editors, but noting Saqib has also suggested Beau was a sock, which was not the case per the CU Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nauman335/Archive#01_May_2024. Between that and the prior report, if this doesn't gain traction suggest leaving their edits for another editor to handle as there is, unfortunately, enough other UPE to patrol StarMississippi17:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Star Mississippi, But as you can see, I wasn't the only one concerned that this editor might be socking. Also, for clarity, Beau and I don't edit in the same area. I'm a NPP focusing on Pakistan-related articles, which is how I come across their new articles. Otherwise, I don't closely follow their edits, so I'm unaware of what they're up to. — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 19:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see this complaint without mentioning that much of the dispute between these two editors has occurred in AFD discussions. Saqib has probably nominated over a dozen articles written by BeauSuzanne for deletion discussions and each discussion is full of accusations against this editor. I've never investigated the accusations because my focus has been on determining consensus within the discussion but Saqib's accusations have been going on for over a month and have seemed relentless. BeauSuzanne has not responded in kind but, as I said, I havn't looked into Saqib's accusations. But this one-sided feud has been going on for a while and it would be nice to determine if it has any basis in fact so that future AFDs can be focused on the merits of the article and not the contributor who created them. LizRead!Talk!21:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Saqib's concerns regarding the addition of WP:ORbyUser:BeauSuzanne, and it is an issue we have to resolve. I think we should educate them the last time on why this is wrong (WP:BLPPRIVACY). If they repeat these mistakes then we will have no other option but to impose a topic ban.
Expanding on Liz remarks (this can be a kind of WP:BOOMERANG), I think Saqib is a bit too harsh (not yet harassing, but some think they are harassing) and leave just too many templated messages or AfD majority of articles of a single contributor in a short span ([86], User talk:Asadwarraich, User talk:Libraa2019) or tends to accuse both new and experienced editors of WP:UPE too quickly, even when editors just cite BLPs with primary references or edit business topics ([87], User talk:Riizwaan111, User talk:Jugni, User talk:Philosophysubboy, User talk:Mkabir1988, User talk:Faresian). Here they said without any evidence: By the way, I've just identified a very old account with ~100K edits that's confirmed to be engaging in UPE.. In some cases, they continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS like User:BeauSuzanne when they have already denied the accusation, three UPE notices on Riizwaan111 ([88], [89], [90]) which is too much. They even accused a very experienced editor @Isi96: ([91]) without any evidence which was ridiculous. This kind of editing is unfortunately driving away potential productive contributors (e.g. User:Faizanalivarya etc. and many other are no longer with us). I'm not suggesting that they are doing this on purpose, but it seems to have negative effects. I just hope they don't follow User:Jytdog's path as we need their contributions.
Most of editors of Pakistani dramas are just fans and it is ridiculous to accuse each newbie as UPE. It would be great if they drop the stick and file WP:SPI cases / leave WP:UPE warnings rather cautiously (only when there are good odds). Also, they are using draftification way too often like a lot of BeauSuzanne's work is in draftspace which will be deleted after six months without any discussion which is sad. I'm sure they can mend their behavior like they have already done in WP:AFD case (after receiving a lotofcomplains). Thanks. 188.30.56.67 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP - Regarding the old account with ~100K edits I've already submitted evidence at paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org without directly accusing or even engaging with that editor on-wiki so it wasn't an accusation and I bet you can't even recognize that editor. As for the other editors you named above- whom I've warned, I believe my warnings were justified, though I can agree that sometimes I may have gone overboard, and for that, I regret it But if needed, I can provide reasoning regarding why I accused them of WP:UPE. And please allow me to clarify that I do not accuse every other newbie of being a UPE, nor do I frivolously file WP:SPI's. Most of my WP:SPIs have been found correct, and many of the editors I've warned or accused of WP:UPE were later found to be involved in either sockpuppetry or violating WP:BLPs, or at the very least, were engaging in dubious editing behaviour. And by the way, I'm sure you're the same one who's been telling other editors to watch me because I'm chasing down WP:UPEs. That being said, I'm completely open to having my edits scrutinized, and I'm willing to accept any warranted warnings. I'm open to acknowledging my mistakes. In fact, I've stopped casting WP:ASPERSIONS as suggested by some lately, and I've even slowed down on taking articles to AFD because some admins pointed out the backlog. Thank you! — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 00:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through a few hundred of their edits and it does not look like UPE to me. I worry most about UPE when most or all of their edits are about people /groups / items which are currently "in the business" and the editor has done a lot of work where such is not the case (e.g. on deceased personalities). I've only taken a superficial look at the areas where concern was expressed but my first guess is that it's mostly that BeauSuzanne needs to modify their approach. At first glance it seems like too many articles on personalities which are either edge case or miss the mark on wp:notability. Suggest evaluating each potential article subject for wp:notability before starting an article. I think that the applicable standard (in their areas of work) would be finding two independent published reliable sources each of which provides in depth coverage of the subject before starting an article and step one would be to include and start building the article from those sources. This would also help ally concerns that other editors are having with their work. Finally when verifiability concerns are raised, immediately add the details (like page numbers etc) to confirm verifiability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't looked at those specifically but after your post I did. I'd have to take a deep dive on 50-100 references to really evaluate notability on those. But my first guess is that they would fail a strict interpretation of wp:notability (substantial in depth coverage of the subject by each of multiple published independent sources) but that they would meet the defacto standard at AFD. When you said Fictref, did you mean a non-existent fake reference (if so could you provide a specific because that would be a deliberate clearly wrong act by an editor) or did you mean that they cited a real reference that didn't support the text as claimed?(which is also not right but IMO not as serious) On the "why?" question, again, my "probably not UPE" was only a guess, but there are editors who who do that type of editing who are not UPE. Of course I could be wrong, maybe there are many people or companies who would pay to have an article created on a deceased personality. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, Yes, when I say WP:FICTREF, its mean completely made-up and non-existent fake reference. BeauSuzanne is citing things that don't even exist, plus, they've also referenced real sources that don't actually back up what they're claiming in the text - which is also a pretty big deal. And I guess I've pointed out examples in this thread several times now (here, here, here, here, here etc). Thanks for looking into this. I hope I'm making myself clear now? — Saqib (talkIcontribs) 15:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a participant here, so no need to answer my request. Which was to pick one case where they put in a completely made-up and non-existent fake reference and provide a diff. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so far we've not seen such. I think that a response (or non-response) to my specific request will make it clearer either way. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Here's a bunch of stuff, it's in there somewhere" is really a non-answer to my "pick one case where they put in a completely made-up and non-existent fake reference and provide a diff." question. Which is fine but that's what it is. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 is available here, author name is the pen name of Md. Nayab Hasan 1.
A google search for ref 11 spits out 2. The pictured woman seems like the subject of the article. I am not sure what happened with the citation.
Also, I did not check what the two citations are actually sourcing; only that the first one does indeed exist, and that something about the second one seems to be at least related. JackTheSecond (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of times, UPE pages are not created to promote the subject themselves. They are created to promote other pages. For instance, the creation of an older film may be done to promote the film company, an actor who played a role, or an award it may have won (Luxe Style Awards has been a topic of focus for UPEs). Not saying that is the case here, but could be an explanation why on the surface it does not look like UPE.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, looking at the draft examples provided, it could be related to PTV which is highly promotional has a lot of FORKS that I am about to redirect. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment: BeauSuzanne was confirmed to another account back in May 2021. GeneralNotability opted warn them rather than blocking because they did not have time to dig into it more. If you look at their earliest edits, there's some questionable behavior. For example, their first edits were to two drafts Draft:Kang Rae-yeon and Draft:Wonho (singer), created by other editors (one an IP) which they then moved to mainspace. They also have a long history of recreating previously G5 deleted articles or otherwise originally created by blocked socks. There are several but a couple interesting ones is Draft:Danielle McRae/Danielle McRae (log) and Draft:Tamara Ryan/Tamara Ryan (log) because neither are about Pakistani actors, which is their focus and both were originally created by blocked sock MeemeeAi. There has also been some interesting activity on their talk page such as this note from an IP requesting BS recreate a deleted article which they confirm on the IPs talk page they completed and is one of the few talk page messages BS has ever left. Then these more recent requests from socks [92], [93]. S0091 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on edits from the last 24 hours, I absolutely believe this is part of promoting PTV. Continuous addition of unsourced information as well. Outside of the possible COI and SPI, I would say there is a CIR and NOTHERE issue. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User defends the watermarks on their talk page as follows:
You see self-promotion in my publications. This is a misconception. The author's signature on the author's product is NORMAL. They've been doing this for hundreds of years. My ancestor, Johann Georg Schreiber [...] put his signature picture with his name in the corner of the map in the same way.
Currently the user is engaged in some "discussion" about the maps on the Village Pump. Based on the user's replies there and on their talk page, they are not taking no for an answer, and treat established policies as opinions to brush aside with non sequiturs.
Ilya_Shrayber's user talk page displays similar problematic discourse reminiscent of Vectormapper's.
Not even considering the dubious usefulness of the maps — as they are completely unreadable in the infobox size to which they have been inserted, and since Wikipedia already has the Kartography plugin which does the same thing better (the user argues that Kartography is "not suitable for creating maps in vector formats suitable for use in media" nor editable unlike his maps) — they, at the very least, should be marked with {{Watermark}} where applicable and treated by the policies listed there.
Block for self promotion, which is their goal and most of their actions citing their family's history. If there is a successful unblock request, they should be limited to one account. StarMississippi16:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I have blocked the Vectormapper account as a username issue. They're welcome to use the Shrayber account, although I'd still recommend blocking based on promotion as I said above StarMississippi16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the user ID was familiar. Vectormapper opened a case request at DRN on 23 June: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_246#Tulsa, saying that User:SounderBruce didn't like their username and was deleting some of their maps. I closed the DRN case because it was not an article content issue. I said that any objection to a username should be filed at WP:UAA, and that discussion about the addition or deletion of maps, or any article content, could be at an article talk page or a WikiProject. I also cautioned against labeling a content dispute as vandalism. As the Original Poster notes, there was also controversy at Commons about their maps. I haven't reviewed their edits further, and don't have any more to add at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that they seem to have had a username change since this thread was opened, as the contribs links etc say there's no such account registered. jp×g🗯️22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, all that aside, what are they doing, besides having small watermarks on the images? Aren't people supposed to be uploading freely licensed images like maps? It seems potentially useful (AIUI, Kartographer is an external service which could conceivably go down or not be accessible, like if a page is being viewed offline). jp×g🗯️02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:2.51.87.235 continues to disruptively change style/spelling/content in quoted text and reference titles[edit]
2.51.87.235(talk·contribs·WHOIS) has been applying MOS and ENGVAR spelling/grammar changes randomly. Across a range of articles. Often applying MOS/ENGVAR changes incorrectly (applying UK spelling to US topics and vice versa). And in many cases making random style/spelling/grammar/content changes to quoted text, reference titles and other content that should not be changed.
This user has been creating characters articles on the site for a fair bit now, and while most of these subjects failed notability guidelines, I have given them the benefit of the doubt until now. They started at first by creating articles for Doctor Who related characters, such as Sutekh (Doctor Who) and The General (Doctor Who), among others, which had to be redirected and their edit history deleted due to plagiarism and copyright violations (Both lifted from their respective TARDIS Wiki pages). I went to their talk page and warned the user about these actions, including several copyright violations on Commons due to them uploading several copyrighted images for various reasons, including as illustration for some of these articles. This user has recently begun creating other character articles, most notably for Star Wars characters, in the form of characters such as Canderous Ordo and Tor Valum, with both having grievous copyright violations from various sources (With Ordo's hailing from [94] and Valum's hailing from [95]). I have not been monitoring this user, and have only become aware of the persistence of these actions via the recent Ordo AfD, so there may be additional copyright violations or other incidents of plagiarism I may have missed. Given I have already notified this user of the issues present with copyright and plagiarism on their talk page, they are well aware of what they are doing, and are in violation of several Wikipedia guidelines.
I am admittedly unfamiliar with reporting incidents of this severity, so I apologize if this in the wrong noticeboard, but given the consistent problems this editor has been causing due to their consistent violations, I feel inclined to report this user before these continue to cause further problems for other editors in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Melanatural seems to be a WP:SPAonAmber Anning and a lot of their editing is either mostly unsourced e.g. [96], adding sources that don't support content (like adding this source to try and support 12 All-American honours, when it doesn't mention All America anywhere [97]), and just replacing content or numbers inline which means they don't match the sources that were already in the article e.g. they made lots of edits in September 2023 which I reverted back to sourced content here. This user is only editing this page and is using own knowledge/WP:OR rather than adding proper sources, and is arguing and invalidating sourced content repeatedly. I am also suspicious of a WP:COI as almost all of their edits (80 of their 92 mainspace edits [98]) are on Amber Anning page, and this is a clear case of WP:NOTLISTENING when I've repeatedly asked them to use reliable sources rather than just change things with no sources added. I'm getting fed up of fixing unsourced content from this user, and having to go through and double check sources to verify that the changes they've made have been not what sources say. Lesser point, also multiple MOS violation including MOS:BOLD, MOS:DATE and WP:EL in body of text sometimes too. Administrator action is required to resolve this competency/not listening issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having a COI doesn't justify unsourced statements like changing numbers on the article citing sources that don't even mention that stat (like adding this source to try and support 12 All-American honours, when it doesn't mention All America anywhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because of her obvious conflict of interest and the other problems noted, I have indefinitely pageblocked Melanatural from Amber Anning. She can make edit requests on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ilaria Salis is an Italian teacher (now politician) who was arrested in Hungary after violence after a counter-demonstration against a neo-Nazi rally. This resulted in a minor diplomatic incident.
84.206.11.96 (talk·contribs) rewrote their article to suit their worldview, which I reverted for various reasons (e.g. WP:NPOV and the ones mentioned in my editsummaries), and then they asked 3 people for support and now they are editwarring to insert copyrighted content 1 & 2 & 3
Salis is accused of attempted murder for allegedly being part of a group of anti-fascists that attacked people they BELIEVED were associated with the far-right event.www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/06/10/italian-activist-ilaria-salis-to-be-released-following-her-election-as-an-mep
Nonsense, that is not what I said (or wrote). Both The Guardian article ("Italian anti-fascist goes on trial in Hungary accused of attacking neo-Nazis" and "allegedly attacking neo-Nazis") you linked to and the Politico article call them neo-nazis ("relating to an alleged attack on neo-Nazis." & "an alleged attack on neo-Nazis" & "alleged assault on neo-Nazis"). You can't use references that do not support the claim made in the article. In this edit you make it look as if those sources both support the claim made in the article, but Politico does not. And we can't just copypaste stuff, see WP:COPYVIO. Magyar Nemzet is close to Orbán, and it is not clear who owns the copyright to the video. Polygnotus (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the content you added to the article:
"Prosecutors allege that Salis travelled to Budapest specifically to carry out attacks against “unsuspecting victims identified as, or perceived as, far-right sympathisers” to deter “representatives of the far-right movement and the indictement seeks a sentence of 11 years incarceration.
With what The Guardian wrote:
Prosecutors allege that Salis travelled to Budapest specifically to carry out attacks against “unsuspecting victims identified as, or perceived as, far-right sympathisers” to deter “representatives of the far-right movement”.
That is clear and unambigious copyvio (which is just one of many problems with your edits) so stop editwarring to edit it in. Polygnotus (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a good idea, I was just trying to understand their perspective since they said User Polygnotus keeps deleting well founded and sourced FACTs, with false pretexts, for example citing one thing between "" is COPYVIO according to him/her. I've restored to the last stable version here. I'm taking a wait and see approach to see if maybe this helps the IP "get it". Other admins are free to do more if they think this situation calls for it. Courtesy ping to Moneytrees who has much more experience dealing with copyright-related matters. Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I think they've clearly demonstrated that they are NOTHERE. But I don't mind giving them rope if the next time its indef. Polygnotus (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems clean now. As Clovermoss says, the added context was presented as a quote, which is an issue from a plagirsim point of view but not necessarily a copyvio. I have no comment on anything else in this dispute. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing is fine, copyvio's are not. And adding sources that don't support the statements in the article is certainly not. And adding unsourced disputed claims to BLPs is also not. And editwarring to reintroduce copyvio is not. And using right-wing tabloids on a BLP is not. And using words like libel and libelous is also not. And being WP:NOTHERE is certainly not. We get it, you don't like her. That is fine. But we are trying to collaboratively write an encyclopedia here. Polygnotus (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clovermoss asked for more info. This IP has been posting anti-lgbt and anti-enemies of Orbán-stuff for a long time (but has also made some good edits).
Orbán is Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary since 2010 and the most influential man in Hungary by far. He is similar to Silvio Berlusconi (who people are perhaps more familiar with) in that he and his friends control the media and are not afraid to attack those who disagree with them.
Ilaria Salis was accused of violently attacking neonazis (despite being a tiny woman) after a counterdemonstration of a neo-nazi rally. She was was alleged to be "antifa" (I don't have evidence to confirm or deny that), which made her a mortal enemy of Orbán and his buddies. They (he controls the judiciary and the press) threw the book at her (11 years!) and smeared her name (although it was unclear who did what because some participants in the fight were hard to identify because of masks and low quality video).
In Italy, where almost all of the press is controlled by Berlusconi's right-wing buddies[100][101] Ilaria Salis also received quite a bit of negative press. (Berlusconi died in 2023)
Orbán loved Berlusconi[102] and vice versa. The far right in Hungary and Italy have a shared vision and often collaborate.[103]
There was a minor diplomatic incident because some (left-wing) Italian people were outraged to see Salis in chains in court.[104] They made her MEP and she gained immunity from prosecution.
International newspapers (the reliable ones) are pretty neutral about Ilaria Salis but most Italian and Hungarian rightwing newspapers will say whatever to make her look bad.
The IP used 84.206.11.96 and 84.225.152.139, if you use whois you get the CIDR and then you can find the other contribs where they do some weird homophobic vandalism and attack enemies of Orbán.
Okay, I appreciate the further context, but I'm not sure what to do here and so I'll leave that to someone more experienced. I only really commented at all because I was asked to on my talk page. I'd appreciate if someone could think of a better subsection title here because it kind of bugs me to have an ANI subsection named after me when it isn't about me. Thanks. Clovermoss🍀(talk)22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hope that means we are done here. I'll keep the article watchlisted and I have made a calendar event to check if the IP has returned. Polygnotus (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: I was wondering if you had any advice on the admin angle of evaluating situations like this? When you decide to protect a page vs block IP addresses, for example. I'm trying to learn. Clovermoss🍀(talk)02:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at several diffs and the wording was over-the-top. I don't think it's worth digging up diffs now but I remember one edit saying that the subject was "condemned" for something. Unless that word comes from a court or similar, or is an attributed and WP:DUE opinion, it's clearly a WP:BLP fail. There were other examples of over-enthusiastic phrasing showing that the purpose of the IP edits was to condemn the subject, not to build an NPOV article. On a practical level, a lot of admin action comes down to what is accepted after the fact. IMHO it is not worth protecting an article in a situation like this for a short period (a week or so) because the activists are usually very happy to wait until they get another chance. My aim is to have them get bored here and return to Twitter. Re protection or block, this IP is unusually coherent and I would need to take much more time to work out if a long block was warranted. Also, many activists will readily shift IPs so protection would be more effective. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another tip is using a simple point system. If an IP shows up on a BLP to post negative information:
+10 points if the BLP subject is not male
+15 points if the BLP subject is not right-wing
+1000 points if the BLP subject is LGBT+
+1000 points if the BLP subject is not "white" or is Jewish
If the score is higher than 0 then the IP should probably be reverted and (if they repeatedly made the same edit without seeking consensus) the article should probably be protected. Polygnotus (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Polygnotus, I think CloverMoss was looking specifically for input from fellow admins with experience making these calls, and if I can be blunt for a moment, even if she wasn't, she could be forgiven for viewing the schema you recommend with a very critical eye. These situations call for a great deal more particularity of analysis and nuance of judgment than "Is the article in question a BLP for someone whom I personally would expect to be unduly criticized? If yes, then any 'negative' info added by IPs is presumptively revertible and protection is warranted." I can't even begin to express the number of ways that using that as your starting point is deeply problematic with regard to multiple of our core policies, and while you're not in the position of deciding RfPs, I would advise extreme caution in reverting IPs on that basis alone and without actual reasons based in our actual content and behavioural policies, or you could end up here at ANI in a very different capacity.
I mean that in as positive a light as it can be taken and for your benefit as a good-faith contributor: I know you're just riffing impressionistcally about where you expect the trouble spots to be, but this kind of paint-by-numbers approach does not mesh well with the actual analysis that should be guiding your decision to undo another contributor's work, and which apply equally as much to IP edits as any other. SnowRise let's rap04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was taken aback by your "point" system and hoped you were not being serious. Wikipedia gets enough unearned grief about being "woke" that your comment could be used out of context to criticize the platform. LizRead!Talk!05:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was in fact not at all clear to me: nothing in your post, textually or subtextually, suggested to me that you were being glib with these recommendations, particularly in light of your role as OP here, and the nature of your comments in the back-and-forth with the IP. It looked very much like a sincere effort at proposing a working rule-of-thumb that you thought was helpful in these circumstances.
Mind you, I'm relieved to hear that you were just exaggerating for effect, but such self-effacing hyperbole and other forms of sarcasm do not translate well to text and either need to be significantly more marked if you want others to understand you intend a "true" meaning under the facial one, or, ideally, such hyperbole is best avoided altogether in an environment like this. You may think that your suggestion was so far over the top that the joke should be obvious, but we very regularly see worse in terms of people proposing their personal idiosyncratic standards in place of policy. Please don't take it personally if I took your apparently sincere comments at face value: I was only genuinely attempting to help you avoid a pitfall if you were serious--and as politely as I could under the circumstances. SnowRise let's rap06:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the point of a scoring system where the threshold is zero, the outcome is binary, no negative values exists, and the maximum is 2025 although any score above zero is treated the same? Sure, Wikipedia is "woke", if we use the original meaning of that word (aware of systemic inequality), but so is everyone with a functioning brain. No sane person believes this planet is fair. The opposite of "woke" is "bigoted". Polygnotus (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment before the replies and enjoyed it! This might be a good time to remind people that stuff you read on the internet need not be taken seriously 110% of the time. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt right-wing people make jokes where the punchline is that we need to protect BLPs about LGBTQIA+/non-"white"/Jewish people more than other articles because right wing people are likely to lie about them or vandalise the article. Polygnotus (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I didn't say anything about "wokeness" or anything of the sort, so I'm not sure why so much of your response to me is directed towards that topic. Perhaps you accidentally misread Liz's comments and my own as one post? Because while I don't necessarily disagree with Liz's observation, it's a different point from the one I was trying to stress to you, and I assure you that I would have expressed to you the same exact concerns about your proposed approach even if you had inverted the terms of each line.
Second, all of the metrics that you list there do not preclude the possibility (nor even the likelihood) that you were speaking candidly with your suggestion. You spent half the above thread trading accusations of bias with an IP. Then you proposed a system by which an IP with the same kind of bias you imputed to this IP should be summarily reverted. That looks worrying my friend. The "joke" it looks like you are making there is not that such a system would be ludicrous, but rather that most criticism of the topics you list is expected to be bunk. Which may very well be a valid world view in some circumstances, but just does not jibe with how we determine reverts on this project.
Not only is that a perfectly valid possible interpretation of your meaning, but I submit to you that it's the much more reasonable read, especially given the context of when and where you said it, and the nature and tone of the dispute between you and the IP. The fact that you're taking such umbrage at the misunderstanding because you are so certain there is no room for alternative readings to what you said, in the context that you said it, only encourages me to reiterate that you should perhaps not lean heavily into sarcasm in such circumstances. SnowRise let's rap12:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't feel bad for chastising someone because you missed their joke? Like you don't think maybe it's just you (and Liz)? That maybe if you missed a joke, the thing to do is just say oops my bad and move on, instead of giving unsolicited (and, I promise you, unwanted, and incorrect) advice? Because all I see here is ego, lots of ego. Levivich (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user seems to be very confrontational and unable to discuss civilly. Currently they are making extraordinarily strange comments which I cannot understand and which seem contrived so as to wear down resistance rather than to make a coherent argument based on the facts. For example when it serves their purposes they contradict sources they themselves had provided. I had hoped to resolve the issue at the relevant talk page, but they are being extraordinarily difficult; at times it feels as though they are gaslighting. BRMSF (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very straightforward. I made a series of improvements to an article, including important corrections. BRMS, and their various IPs, have repeatedly reversed those changes. Despite the RFC at Talk:Thomas Niedermayer not having concluded, they chose to essentially reverse most of my changes again with a wholly misleading edit summary (the reversal of all the changes in the "Abduction" section aren't explained at all).
You are thus far the only person to object to the changes I proposed, I felt as though a consensus was emerging, one which you disagree with so strongly that you are routinely contradicting yourself. BRMSF (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page could benefit from a few more uninvolved users. The circumstances on Niedermayer's death are complex, but not as complex as all that. It seems to be impossible right now to discuss one change at a time and discussion's going on circles. I don't think there are behavior issues in play (yet), beyond the open WP:AE request, which can probably be resolved now that the IP editor has created an account. Mackensen(talk)22:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors, BRMSF and Kathleen's bike should take a small break from the article and talk page, at this point, they are just bickering back and forth with no productive discussion taking place between the two of them.Isaidnoway(talk)02:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HundenvonPenang Thank you for your message and for pointing out the issue. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my edits. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. I will take immediate steps to correct my contributions and ensure they comply with Wikipedia's standards. If there are specific changes you recommend or further actions I should take, please let me know.
I'm familiar with this IP user, having warned them in the past. Given the continued addition of copyright violations, I've blocked the IP for a year (taking in consideration the remarkable stability of the IP address). I don't want to keep them blocked for that long, but rather hoping that this will cause them to take the time to read and understand the copyright policy and COI guideline, formulate a good unblock request, and successfully appeal prior to the expiration of the block. DanCherek (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better to move back to draft-space and delete the main (RBI) or hist-merge/etc to keep them in main? I lean the former (less work, don't trust their judgement by default) but want to get others' thoughts before pushing the buttons. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to comment on the attitude and behaviour of this editor (MM) in response to a failed GA review. The editor has shown unwillingness, per WP:IDHT, to accept the reasons for failure which all relate to key policy WP:V, and in one case to WP:NOR / WP:NPOV. MM has reacted defensively, which is understandable to an extent, but in an aggressive manner. Several of his comments are not only unconstructive but also breach WP:CIVIL and amount to personal attacks.
The review failed because none of six citations used for a spot-check sample could provide verification by directly supporting the material. Please see the terms of WP:GAFAIL within WP:GACR; also WP:GAN/I#R3 which says the reviewer must perform a sample source spot-check before moving on to the main part of the review. I explained my reasons for not accepting the citations as written.
The review itself is not the point here and I only mention it to provide background. The issue is MM's aggressive behaviour which needs to be addressed. Specific examples are:
Inhis spot-check responses, MM accuses me of "feigning ignorance" and stating "dubious reasons". For some reason, his unsigned responses are in blue as if to highlight them.
In one of these, re the FN36 source, he says: The source clearly says that the "raised marble tank in the center of the garden was probably intended as a replica of the celestial tank of abundance called al-Kawthar,promised to Muhammad". Again an invalid rejection citing dubious and assumed comments.
The source author, Wayne Begley, was expressing an opinion but our article states with certainty that: The elevated marble water tank is called al Hawd al-Kawthar in reference to the "Tank of Abundance" promised to Muhammad. MM refuses to acknowledge that an opinion is not a certainty and accuses me of making "dubious and assumed comments" to support an "invalid rejection". The statement in our article is not only a WP:V failure, it is also WP:OR.
Refusing to accept the second opinion, MM's comments included: "Are you suggesting that it should be an exact WP:COPYVIO of the source?" Re FN36, he states: "Again if the article does express certainty, it is at best a minor correction here, which can be made in a jiffy and not an issue of failed verifiability as projected". Statements like those are completely out of order. He is accusing BUA of endorsing copyvio in one and then rejecting WP:V in the next.
At the GA talk page, MM answers BUA with this, in which he accuses BUA of "conveniently" failing to address his concerns, and completely ignores what BUA said about original research. In his point #2, he complains about "no comprehensive review on all the criteria", again playing the WP:IDHT card because, as per GA procedure, the citation spot-checks precede the review of the full criteria.
After I posted my answers to the points raised by MM, he responded with this personal attack which accuses me of "insecurity", "hounding", and "mudslinging". He followed that with another mudslinging accusation and claims to be the victim of a "witch hunt"!
While I may have made mistakes in the GA reviews I've done, given my relative inexperience of WP procedures, I try to be polite and to give a rationale for any points I raise. If someone in the GA panel wishes to cancel my review of Taj Mahal, I will accept that, although BUA was supportive of my reasons for failing it. But, having consulted other editors and read some of the topics brought to ANI and ARBCOM, I think the attitude and behaviour of MM needs due consideration. I'm sure the site has key policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for the best of reasons. PearlyGigs (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I thought this discussion was closed, but as this has been brought to the ANI now, the aforementioned user (user:PearlyGigs) does not seem to let go of it. I will present my view points.
I felt that the review was inadequate with respect to addressing all the GA criteria and I had voiced out the same at the appropriate notice board. Another of the co-nominators (User:The Herald) had also voiced a similar opinion. I do not see any issues with having raised the issue at the appropriate forum. While my revert would have come across as aggressive given that a lot of effort has been put on improving the article, it was not without basis.
With respect to the review, the reviewer (user:PearlyGigs) conveniently fails to mention all the points here and quotes only bits and pieces. in the first and third comments w.r.t FN 10 and FN 28, the reviewer had not asked for a clarification of sources which were not available in Google Books or accessible to the user, rather deciding that it was not sourced, which ultimately resulted in the overall failure as per the criteria mentioned. As per WP:RS and WP:CITEHOW, the citation had to be provided in the prescribed format and it need not be fully accessible in Google Books or anywhere, which was clarified by the another user (User:CMD) in the same discussion line. The reviewer was unwilling to accept the fact and ignored the same. While the onus is on the editor to provide with a reliable source, and if the older source was not accessible, this could have been done via a simple discussion or clarification. Things can more often that not be resolved with discussion.
In one of the points concerning FN 11, the reference was mentioned bluntly as "vague" and there was specific ask of particular word "commissioned" not being mentioned as such in the source provided, which was repeated again and again. A source is used as a reference and the line summarises rather what is quoted in the source. If it follows the same wording as such, it indeed becomes a COPYVIO. This was taken as a personal comment. So, when I quote a relevant policy, it becomes a personal comment and rather when the reviewer retrospectively accused of being against NPOV and OR, it seems to be all fine!
With respect to FN 36, while I completely agree that the author gives an opinion, and I certainly would have been happy to incorporate the same, given as a suggestion as it would simply entail adding the word "probably", the problem was that it was entirely mentioned as "unverified". A GA is done to incorporate/do minor corrections, this rather comes across as discounting citations as unverified (which is dubious!) rather than a simple correction, which would have in fact added value to the effort. The reviewer later accuses of being against NPOV and of OR retrospectively on the same as well.
In the aforementioned second opinion as well, there was no addressing of the points which were raised initially. Only other users clarified the same on the forum. I do not see anything wrong with having raised a clarification and mentioning as such that the second opinion did not give clarity on the issues raised.
The reviewer opened up on the notice board that he/she was open for discussion, and my opinion was that it could have been done before the review was closed. Another user (User:CMD) had also pointed out that the issues could have been sorted out by discussion. There were also multiple suggestions for the reviewer on the page that he/she could have taken a shorter/less traffic article to practice.
The issue was deemed closed as there was a suggestion to renominate the article for GA if there was no further improvements. Meanwhile, the reviewer probably felt offended that this was raised in a forum and took pains of going through my previous edits and review history. As the dispute was concerning a particular page Taj Mahal, the discussion ought to have been limited to the issues concerning the page. But the reviewer engaged in the act of pulling the history of my reviews and started commenting on the same (as evident from the discussion on the review page Talk:Taj Mahal/GA1). This was completely unwarranted and mudslinging pointing fingers saying that "hey, this is how you did it and you neither did it right!".
As the discussion was heating up, going nowhere and as another user (user:Herald) as well pointed out that it was going out of hand, the fact was accepted fact that the review was closed. I had ended the discussion on the same day as I saw no point in continuing with this further as it was not going to lead to any positive result and probably would have ended up wasting more time. This was clear in my reverts on the respective forum.
Now, as this happened nearly a week back, I can find no reason to rake up an old closed discussion unless the user concerned (user:PearlyGigs) does not want to let go of it and rake it up again, not sure to what end. Irony is that, I have been accused of not letting it go when it fact the conversation had ended a week back. It would probably save time, if the user specifies the expectation clearly as this to and fro is simply a time consuming one! Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has their own ways of going about GA reviews, even if the goals and criteria are the same. I have seen a lot of weight put on nominations that fail verification on one or two citations, with good justification, and it often leads to a quick fail. Even if such an outcome happens, it is fine to give an article some time for the editor(s) to look back and make sure they are familiar with all the material they are using before nominating again. The reviewer of the Taj Mahal good article nomination may have been new to the process, but failing the review at that point wouldn't be unprecedented if there were significant concerns (though I would hope an experienced reviewer would take a look at the result and pass their own judgment). Reconrabbit20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PearlyGigs: I understand your inexperience of WP procedures, but everything from the WP:OFWV pledge to the instructions at the top of this page should lead you to this conclusion: if you have an issue with an individual editor, try talking with them first. Assume that good-faith conflict can be resolved with polite discussion on their talkpage. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying since I was pinged here, and putting my replies in once place instead of peppering the discussion:
Magentic Manifestations responded in a less-than-appropriate manner when the nomination was failed, misrepresenting the situation, twisting both PearlyGigs' words and my own, and making personal attacks against everyone who disagreed with them. They are continuing to do all of those things here. I've seen poor reactions to failed nominations, but this is probably the worst one yet. If they were a new editor, they probably would have been banned from GAN.
PearlyGigs, bringing this here was ill-advised, and it might be a good idea to retract it and archive the discussion with Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom before it spins off and gets out of control. Bringing it up several days later makes it seem vindictive. The first thing newer editors should be told is never touch ANI if you can help it. Even if you're totally in the right, the regulars here tend to be bigoted against newer editors and automatically take the side of long-time editors. I'd say let someone else bring it here if it continues and becomes it "intractable".
Reconrabbit, just noting that I was said experienced editor, and while the review wasn't perfect, I endorsed its conclusion.
Jlwoodwa, such a discussion was attempted at WT:GAN (where Magentic Manifestations chose to have it), and they proceeded to make it clear that they were not willing to have such a polite discussion.
Hi, Jlwoodwa. I can see where you're coming from but Thebiguglyalien (BUA) is correct that MM chose to start the discussion at WT:GAN. Both there and in the review, MM was not prepared to be polite, or to discuss things in a reasonable way, or to listen to others. That being the case, I did not see the point of taking the IDHT/CIVIL issues to his talk page. My understanding is that ANI is here for editors to lodge complaints about unacceptable behaviour, so I decided to come here. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. ANI is known for its occasional tempest in a teapot, but this is like a matryoshka doll equivalent of nesting teapot issues (each somehow smaller than the last) being blown way out of proportion. Alright, in order:
Honestly, there were some issues with the GAN review. I can see how one or two of the elements of PG's responses might have come off as lackadaisical or ignorant of key sourcing policies, and it's vaguely understandable that they could contribute to a sense of annoyance that the full review was cut short on such criteria.
But none of that excuses Magentic Manfistations' failure of perspective and the somewhat aggressive responses to both reviewers. There is WP:NORUSH for passing the GAN until good faith reviews suggest the content is well above the necessary threshold. And even if the article was in the proper state and the reviews were completely botched, the implications are beyond inconsequential in the long run. I don't know if this is a case of being too attached to the article (and the work they've done on it) itself, or taking the prospect of a GA as a status symbol a little too seriously, but anyone who wants to work an article through those badges needs to have a thicker skin for set backs than what was on display there. If you want that little bragging right, you have to deal with the sometimes onerous process that comes with the effort at quality control.
At the same time, it's not like MM was hurling blatant vitriol and invective. I'm dubious about the suggestion that anything they said qualifies as a PA, or was even outright disruptive. It was merely a little hostile, and at most on the outer periphery of WP:Battleground. This issue of bouncing back and forth between multiple spaces and then ultimately arriving here is a complete overreaction, bordering on abuse of process and certainly qualifying as a waste of community time. For that matter, the act of going through MM's past GA reviews (in the context of the active review) looking for issues was inappropriate and unhelpful to the process (to say the least) and not a good look for Pearly Gigs.
Both the OP and MM would do well to listen to the advice TBUA has been giving them. Regardless, let's close this before it gets any closer to getting someone in trouble for literally no gain to themselves or the project. At most, there should be trouts for the two main parties here. SnowRise let's rap02:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Rise, I agree with everything TBUA has said above. Can I just point out to you that I did not "go through MMs past reviews". The big picture in review terms is the current GAN backlog drive. It was obvious that MM would not accept due process as outlined at WP:GACR and WP:GAI, so I checked his ongoing review in the drive to see if he was following due process there, and he was not. While the purpose of the drive is to reduce a backlog, due process must be followed. Raising that point in the GA review discussion might not have been wise in WP terms but it would be quite appropriate in the real world. Anyway, I will take on board what you say as another learning point, so I am grateful to you for that. PearlyGigs (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a IP user using the IP range of 132.234.228.0/23. I was updating the time zone of the above page as the time in Kazakhstan was changed to UTC+5 on 1 March 2024. TylerBurden (talk·contribs) initially reverted my edits claiming that there were no source. I went to their talk page to talk about this. I said that there was source in the article time in Kazakhstan which can prove my change. They replied that I need to add it. I undid the revert citing the article on the edit comment as there are already a source in that article. However, they reverted again and post the {{uw-unsourced2}} on the user talk page of the IPs. Based on the fact that there are already source in the aricle time in Kazakhstan, I don’t think that the revert should be done based on only the fact that the article was citied. I currently will not revert it to prevent an edit war. 132.234.228.40 (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP and welcome to the Teahouse ANI. Each article here has its own sourcing requirement. If you want to add information that is already in another article, you may take the source provided there and copy it over - make sure you follow wp:cww while you're at it and give credit to the article you're copying from. Happy editing! JackTheSecond (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how this is helpful. A cursory Google shows that Tyler is reverting uncontentious fact. Reversions are not to be performed without cause. I have restored the contested edit. Is there anything more that needs to be discussed here, Tyler? ~Swarm~{sting}03:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not notified Tyler that there is an open ANI discussion. You are required to notify him as the warning on the top of the page says. Why have you not notified him? MinorRefiner (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying you will take someone to ANI isn't adequate. You need to inform them that there is actually a discussion. I could say I'm going to sue you, but that is meaningless unless I serve you legal notice. MinorRefiner (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone restored this so I'll just say: They didn't say they were going to take someone to ANI, they said that they already did, that's notice (though I do think the template is better, specially in a separate section). The part about making a legal threat being meaningless made me consider your response trolling to the point I removed it - but if there's others that don't think so, I'll defer to them, and I apologize. – 2804:F14:8081:3201:EC18:543E:106A:298E (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A failure in assuming good faith on my part, which again, I apologize - I just couldn't read it in any other way than as you saying that if you yourself told them you'd sue them (in Wikipedia, as that's the only means of communication you have with them) that that is meaningless unless you actually sued them; and right after mischaracterizing what they said as future tense (it was past tense), as one of your first edits to Wikipedia no less.
I have not been successful at communicating with ATG. Today ATG sent two articles that I started to AfD. In one AfD-related situation, [[106]] ATG has been edit warring the article to favor deletion, even threatening me with ANI if I add that this guitar player has been sponsored by PRS Guitars. I have tried to discuss with ATG but they just go about refactoring the article to favor deletion - tagging, erasing, and reverting - just now, ATG stubbed the article.
Atalk page discussion with ATG did occur but it did not find resolution. I also see now that this topic was canvassed at WPO and that seems to be a recurring problem. Because I am involved with the "Did You Know" section, I was aware of the ATG/DYK discussions of last month; I observed that when ATG thinks they are right they can be very hostile. I think ATG referred to us all as "idiots". So I guess I am here to say that this all feels lousy for this editor. I understand that articles get deleted, and editors can disagree: today is making me wish for serenity now! Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did he say anything that wasn't civil? If so, do you have a diff? If you want a third opinion for a content dispute, this is not the correct venue. 107.116.165.98 (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A one-off likely identity-evading IP doesn't get to police a veteran editor on what is or isn't a proper venue. The target is a well-known uncivil editor and frequent flier to this board, which is the proper venue. Zaathras (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of Andy's previous behavior, this appears to indeed be a mostly content-related dispute. Both users have made comments that might not be the most elegant (Andy talking about removing your blatantly promotional crap from articles and Lightburst saying You need to get a grip), but nothing really breaching the barrier of civility either. I wouldn't say removing primary-sourced claims of awards really counts as "editing to favor deletion" rather than standard cleanup, and I really don't see this point really deserving to be at ANI. The WPO issue might be a little bit more concerning, but Andy doesn't appear to have been the one to bring it up (as far as I can see, he was only replying to another user by the name of Phantom), so I don't think it's fair to blame Andy for the canvassing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are treating WPO as a sister project, ATG said, "Lightburst is an imbecile." "The imbecility continues." and here is the canvassing..."Bent's Camp Resort Another masterpiece by Lightburst" (he promptly sent it to AfD) and more canvassing by ATG "I've started an AfD on Robertson. As noted above". Lightburst (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your two delete !votes on the AfDs discussed here - unfortunately coming here gets that kind of !voting. It is tongue-in-cheek calling it a sister project. Last month an admin linked to them like a sister project and I complained to anyone who would listen. Nobody cared, and the link is still there, so what do you call a project like that? I can start a WPO account, call people names, dox them, canvass others, and then link to them here to show off my work. Seems like a sister project to me. Lightburst (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's front page makes it clear that its purpose is to be critical of what goes on here. When someone says that something is a sister project, to me that says the aims of both projects are mutually beneficial. TarnishedPathtalk06:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to suggest that if Lightburst wants successful communication, this is a poor way to start it. [107]. As for the rest, I stand by what I have done in regard to the two articles. Neither is on a notable topic. Both were appallingly badly sourced. Both cited blatantly promotional sources in order to concoct 'notability'. And the Robertson biography in particular raised WP:BLP concerns, given that its subject matter is a fourteen-year-old boy who has done nothing beyond winning a couple of junior busking competitions. Lightburst is apparently under the misapprehension that articles subject to deletion discussions can't be edited to remove questionable material: this is entirely untrue, as anyone remotely familiar with Wikipedia policy should be aware. More so when the content has BLP issues, is improperly sourced, or is completely, utterly, and impossibly wrong. [108] I have no idea what motivated Lightburst to cobble together these two muddle-headed stubs, but whatever it was, it appears to have been done without even a minimal regard for encyclopaedic practice. If that sort of behaviour attracts external commentary, nobody should be surprised... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) An identity-evading IP and a five day old account with only two edits, including the above reply? Call me Captain Obvious, but something strange is going on here. - ZLEAT\C04:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"muddle-headed stubs" yikes - that language is the problem. I have written many articles including GAs, rarely ever stubs. The article in question was moved to main just hours ago so it was in progress. I have the NPP perm, I review and promote articles for DYK - I do not consider myself a poor editor. There are ways to work together and my point is that this way feels sickening. It seems like some of the drama is for this audience at WPO. I have not been reading there lately, but I checked today to see why ATG would AfD two of the articles I started in one day, and it became clear. For my part I do not even post to ARS because of previous canvassing claims. But canvassing and posting uncivil remarks on WPO is ok? Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If claiming that someone born in 2010 "won the Junior Coca-Cola Battle of the Young Stars" the same year isn't muddle-headed, I don't know what is. And I'm still trying to figure out why you thought that Bigfoot allegedly being spotted somewhere in the same county merited inclusion in an article on a 12-cabin lakeside resort. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was an error, and you punished this simple math error by erasing the award entirely and then you immediately went to WPO to let them know that I was an imbecile. I had just moved the article to main and missed an error, it happens. Collegiality advises that another editor would catch the mistake and correct it. I am a reasonable person and I respond to reasonable people. I erased the other concern on my own. But "gotcha you imbecile!" does not engender collegiality. Lightburst (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to believe that you cannot add value to the project. When you think you are right you blast away without regard for other editors. For some reason your aspersions and gleeful-takedowns are tolerated. I spent the majority of my day trying to respond to your AfDs, your many comments, your accusations and your erasures. I only came here because you threatened me with it so you could keep your preferred version of the article. I will take a break now. Lightburst (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, did Andy go to WPO to further push harassment of Wikipedia editors, as he's done in the past? Can you link that thread, Lightburst? It's good to have his harassment activities be out in the open. SilverserenC06:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you added it to the original post. Good to know. I doubt much will be done. The other members of WPO who are editors here will likely defend Andy's ongoing harassment activities. They usually do. SilverserenC06:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, is this you? Andy, you have a long term history of harassing and insulting editors, along with organizing said harassment on WPO and being involved in purposeful outing of Wikipedia editors. The diffs for that are the dozens of prior ANI threads about your actions. Your history is well known by anyone who has been on Wikipedia for any meaningful length of time. SilverserenC06:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No to both. Anyways, I'm off to bed (it's 2 in the morning here). I doubt anything will come from this thread anyways. Apologies, Lightburst, but there's no negative activity Andy could do that would realistic result in any detrimental outcome (though the 31 hour block a couple weeks ago was one bright moment). Ultimately, though, nothing will be done. Many, many past ANI threads have shown that. SilverserenC06:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there do seem to be issues with the Noah Robertson article in general, as it looks like some of the articles suggested to me in the Newcomer Tasks, Andy's response of "I'm not going to stop removing your blatantly promotional crap from articles" and the backpatting on WPO seems like a bad combination. It looks like Andy sees something arguably/blatantly wrong and then blows up while being encouraged to do so elsewhere. While sometimes his points are correct, for example the SurrealDB issue last month, other times it's way more arguable, like coming to ANI over seeing a quote from Andrew Tate in the DYK box the month before. Civility is usually a concern when he is relevant in ANI discussions, and Andy takes the suggestion to be more civil as a support of whatever issue he's bringing up, like when someone pointed out that obviously saying "fuck off, you crooked little grifter" would lead to a block. If he's right, the incivility issues are sucking the air out of conversations about the other issues at hand. If he's wrong, he blew up at someone for no good reason. This is definitely a problem, and it seems like a pattern that's been building up for awhile. I'm not sure what the solution is since the 31 hour block hasn't changed much. CREEDIXMO(TALK)06:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The assumption that D.S. Lioness will cease her vandalism is fundamentally flawed. Her disruptive editing and vandalism have now extended to other pages, such as the Alexis Papahelas article, where she removed cited content just a few hours after discussions began to address concerns about her contributions. This mirrors her previous behaviour on the Afroditi Latinopoulou page and is unlikely to stop there. This serves as a warning to anyone who believes the situation might improve or that her actions are confined to the Afroditi Latinopoulou page. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
