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)
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."
For the record, @Symphony Regaliais a user who has been trying to change the Japanese Yasuke Wiki page and in fact has been accused of using multiple proxies and accounts to push forward his agenda of making Yasuke a samurai, which has failed:
He has constantly accused users of being “right-wing nationalists” in an attempt to belittle their contributions and inquiries to discussion. His “fluency” in Japanese is highly dubious, as it is unnatural and very Google-translate type of structure. He also continues to copy-paste others’ sentences, especially mine as an attempt to retort. 天罰れい子 (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually had to point out on numerous occasions his claims of him "speaking Japanese" despite not posting a single quote or source text in Japanese and demonstrating his case. Even ignoring that, I have had to ask, again, numerous times to explain why he believes Lockley is reliable or why this is not problematic, and every single time this request gets ignored. It is clear that he is not here to have a productive conversation on the reliability of Lockley and intends on disrupting the discussion, and I've tried my best on that, so I think the only matter for him is a topic ban. Hexenakte (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Hi, so sorry for the confusion. This is not the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard I was suggesting you take the argument to. Rather, this is the Admin Notice Board, where conduct issues are reported. Due to the various problems associated and happening on the talkpage, I thought it prudent to make a report here. Sorry for any confusion I caused you. Chrhns (talk) 11:13, 13 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 [1] and Lopez-Vera's book [2] 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 [3]. After the RfC I undid this edit [4] 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]
This is because so many people here insist on using Lockley as a credible reference for claiming Yasuke as a “samurai” (侍) in the strict sense of a noble (high-ranking) combatant swordsman with more specific requirements such as a surname. In fact there exists no reliable primary resource that Yasuke was a 侍. We have Nobunaga’s diary, Ietada’s diary, and a few Jesuit annual reports of Japan as primary sources for mentioning a person with dark skin under assumed roles like servant, slave, etc. with not a single one using 侍.
I personally do not understand why people insist on using Lockley even after he has been exposed for fabricating the Wiki page, and deleting his social media presence to cover things up. The majority of Japanese people online do not approve of him, and there is an investigation by a member of the National Diet of Japan undergoing. 天罰れい子 (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When blatantly false information about a country’s history is unjustly propagated as truth overseas, then you are going to have people who are upset and wish to bring attention to the inconsistencies and lies being spread around. In fact, this topic has been trending in Japan lately and is garnering serious scrutiny and backlash due to historical revisionism by Wikipedia (trending on X which is the main outlet for popular Japanese discourse). 天罰れい子 (talk) 04:26, 17 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
Symphony Regali used multiple accounts, and obsessively edited the page of Yasuke in Japanese Wikipedia.
He claims that ethnicity is not important in wikipedia edits, but he falsely identifies himself as Japanese in an attempt to gain an advantage in the debate. Pobble1717 (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Two points:
ErikWar19 says i am a young contributor to Wikipedia and i am not so perfectly adept to the rules in Wikipedia, and yet in 2017 they were indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry on de.wiki [5]. I doubt they are a new user, WP:BITE doesn't apply - also digging out Symphony Regalia's Tban from GENSEX (which is irrelevant here) while pretending not to know hot to post a link on a talk page is not the behaviour of a newcomer.
As already explained in my OP and also on the Yasuke talk page (here), the point at issue is not whether Yasuke was a slave/servant when he was in the service of the Portoguese Jesuits. Either out of bad faith or incompetence, ErikWar19 insists that being a slave of the Jesuits prevents Yasuke from becoming a samurai of Oda Nobunaga.
the block at this time was on the German site, was in 2017 and my sole contribution to Wikipedia was to post one comment on https://www.fr.de/politik/steckt-hinter-afd-freund-lukati-11059673.html this issue on the German site Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht, so the German Arbitration Committee, about the potential misuse of Wikipedia for activities of a party, that is suspected to be extrem right wing in Germany.
It was kinda a big thing, i think 6 of the 10 members of the Arbitration Committee retired around that time from their membership, some in clear protest. After creating my account and posting my negative opinion about this user, i was blocked for sockpuppery, as i didn't contributed to Wikipedia in any other form. So i suspect, that the block was reasonable. At these times it happend, that people created such new accounts to contribute in such a manner and i was suspected to be such a case. I didn't had an interest to contribute to Wikipedia at these time, so i only noticed the block years later and didn't appeal to it.
---
I succeeded once to post a link with a number.....but i didn't figured out, how to replace the number with a word, like "here" or "BBC" and it broke the link, so i tend to just copy paste the link directly into the text. I don't want to break the link.
well the thing is, Gitz, the article of Yasuke didn't clearly mentioned his clear slavery background and his presumed slavery-status for the Portuguese in his early live or about his service for the Portuguese. I point at this problem of this specific area of the article, explicit with the samurai status of him, as it is less secured by reliable sources.
[...] the Japanese side, mainly Oda, may had a different view on slavery compared to Yasuke's Portuguese owners and may even gave Yasuke various things to allow him to distance himself from them. But we can't talk about this interesting clash of different cultures by Yasuke's live in Japan, if we hide his clear slavery-background in the article.
---
I just want to highlight the amount of WP:OWN about this article, to guard the term samurai to such an intensity, that just to point out contradictions with other core elements of Yasuke's live on the talk page of article will lead to this stuff here.
It should be allowed to point out, that i call the reliable sources about him becoming a samurai a potential minority view in contrast to the possibility, that Nobunaga used Yasuke in the same regards Portuguese nobility used slaves as personal servants in their colonies. This would make his gifts and salary to Yasuke just attempts of Nobunaga to make his servant to an samurai or/and to free him from his slavery status. An attempt, that didn't succeeded as he was returned to the Portuguese after Nobunaga's death. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise when the sources for section B were posted on the Talk page for Yasuke I noted that they actually stated the opposite: that Yasuke was a 'African Priest' who was 'highly appreciated' and then it listed an example of Africans serving in combat at the Battle of Okitanawate. The rest of the page is about the Edo period onward, which is irrelevant to the discussion of Yasuke. That comment and where they cited these same sources is here: (here)Relm (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B states on a sidenote:
"African people are believed to have first visited Japan during the Sengoku period as servants or slaves of European ships from Portugal and Spain." And they state, that Nobunaga appreciated him, because of his strenght, looks and demeanour.
the translation as a African priest seem to be a mistranslation by the English translation.
That statement sums up the problem here. You're inserting WP:OR into your reasoning and then working backwards to try and find ways to force that viewpoint into the article. Combined with your WP:BLUDGEON method of discussion, it has become disruptive. If you don't step away from the article yourself, I expect you're going to wind up with a topic ban, if not a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite15:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serious question: what OR do you see in @ErikWar19's statement just before yours, here?黒坊主is黒 (kuro, "black") + 坊主 (bōzu, "Buddhist monk; acolyte; boy, young man").
@ErikWar19 links above to an article in Japanese posted on the National Diet Library website. The English translation provided on that same website at https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/e/entry/14/2.html translates 黒坊主 as "a black priest". I explained over here why that is a mistranslation that is using an incorrect rendering in English of the Japanese word 坊主 (bōzu). ErikWar19's comment above points out correctly that 坊主 (bōzu), as in "Buddhist monks", were a different social category than "samurai", and that the Japanese term 黒坊主 must be correctly rendered in English as "young black man" if there is to be any possibility of Yasuke being a samurai.
I don't see ErikWar19 "working backwards to try and find ways to force that viewpoint into the article", but then, I also see the source text in Japanese, I know how translation works (and doesn't), and I recognize where the English target text strays from the source.
Difficult to see anything in this section aside from a clear confirmation of the complaint at the beginning. ErikWar19 hasn't edited for a couple of days, but if they continue in this vein I would support a partial block from the page. --JBL (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support a page block, but a topic ban might be more appropriate given that the bludgeoning and incivility and such seems to be carrying over to noticeboards. CambrianCrab (talk) 23:54, 15 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.[6] 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,[7] was warned about their incivility (albeit poorly),[8] only to double down and attack the person warning them.[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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."
[12] 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".
[13] 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:Given the amount of time that SpacedFarmer has had to address concerns here, and their decision not to do so (despite being back to edit briefly a couple of days ago, I'm prepared to support the proposal now. I still have concerns that the topic ban might have been better directed at the subject matter that has surrounded their problematic conduct, rather than the process, but consensus at this point is that the TBAN be directed at deletion discussions and that's better than doing nothing. SnowRise let's rap18:29, 15 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]
Oppose as currently proposed: Most of the issues so far have pertained with sports related deletion discussions, and more specifically motorsports. I think action is warranted based on the history here, but this is too broad a sanction for me to support at this time. Let'srun (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand, I think it's entirely coincidental that the April ANI report also involved the motorsport(s) topic area and that this overall pattern of lashing out at disagreement could happen at any other XfD or merge/split discussion. On the other, the pointed comment about "modern motorsport" being "full of pussies like [me] nowadays" highlighted above by Toughpigs certainly indicates an unwillingness to contribute positively there. I'd support a topic ban from both or either area. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)23:55, 12 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]
Thank you for actually addressing the issue. You've been working constructively and I see no more copyright violations so this can probably be closed. CFA💬17:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Diff/1234016398 very closely paraphrases from [14] with large sections of text such as "but rather, for the adults who grew up" (reading vs with) "his book" appear verbatim.
Special:Diff/1233646112 copies from [16], which appears to be copyrighted (PH gov works get complicated), but even if this was due to a misunderstanding of the work's copyright status, it is a plagiarism issue. (The Wikipedia page also may have been plagiarized from [17], but the problematic material entered the article in 2016 and I will be dealing with that separately)
Special:Diff/1233649201 closely paraphrases content from [18] which is public domain, but again presents a plagiarism issue.
Oh my. I will review all these to understand my errors. I was doing my best to paraphrase, but it appears (again) that what I've done in these remain too close to the original. The last thing I want is to plagiarize. My sincere apologies. Will look into the errors pointed out and definitely be even extra careful moving forward. I appreciate your reminders, and I'm sorry if my mistakes give you extra clean-up work. Ubivxoq (talk) 04:55, 14 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" [19]
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" [20]
10:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
"adding misinformation" [21]
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" [22]
21:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
"That sea lion and their bait are really disgusting" [23]
"I hope you are paid, and well-paid. Otherwise it doesn’t worth the time and effort you’ve devoted." [24]
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[25], you bring me to ANI. [26][27]. 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? [28]
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 of, 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 ...
It does sound exhausting. That's why I'm hoping we can find a solution that works for you. The issue is what an uninvolved editor can be expected to do. If editor A accuses editor B, and B does not refute the accusations, it seems likely that uninvolved editors would conclude editor B is at fault. If you don't have the mental energy to defend yourself and provide diffs of Vacosea's bad behavior, then it seems likely that you'll be sanctioned by the community sooner or later. This is why I suggested abandoning the article you helped create, because the alternative could be a forced abandonment of all articles. Just trust that someone else will step in and defend against misinformation, even if you move to different articles.
Of course, if you CAN muster the energy to provide diffs, that could end things differently.
I see where you were coming from re "disgusting", but I would avoid characterizing other editors that way in the future; if someone called me or my behavior disgusting, I would certainly be upset! In any case, I hope we can solve this in a way that you don't have to deal with ANI again; I can imagine how stressful it'd be to get dragged here, and I rather suspect you have better things to do than come back here again. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was willing to work it out with them again at the first ANI before the personal attacks began [29]. They later crossed out comparing me to Joseph Goebbels but everything else remained as stated. To date they have not specified what they mean when accusing me of spreading misinformation or making untrue claims. Vacosea (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump's (ATG) hostility, editing to favor deletion and canvassing[edit]
I have not been successful at communicating with ATG. Today ATG sent two articles that I started to AfD. In one AfD-related situation, [[30]] 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]
WPO is the traffic cop that monitors bad driving on a site that pays precious little attention to driving skill but wants everyone hopping behind the wheel to feel happy and actualized regardless of the highway mayhem. Carrite (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanna do one too! WPO is a bar near a corporate campus where employees, ex-employees, and other interested parties socialize. There's shop talk, carpentry talk, garden talk, bears-in-trashcan talk, and more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if every discussion in that bar was transcribed, posted online, and searchable on Google. If they were, people wouldn't openly talk shit about their co-workers in that bar (or publicize names and photos of their co-worker's families and so on). Levivich (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, much of the names/photos aren't indexed by google (I don't know the actual amount, but I'm under the impression that almost all of the doxing/dox-light material isn't indexed), and if you've been watching the forum I'm sure you've seen the significant pushback against such activity. I guess we could all just read it clandestinely and have all of the same information published there by the same parties that are already not beholden to en.wiki policies?
I agree that some of the contributions cross the line, and when I see that I make a fuss. The other option of the same information being published but without any pushback or fuss doesn't seem like an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see significant pushback to this activity, almost none. I saw more people joining in as this thread and that one progressed. It was pretty ugly. But let's keep going with the whole after-work bar analogy. The public WPO forums (not to be confused with the private forums or the blog) are like an after-work bar that's livestreamed 24/7 and transcribed and the transcription is searchable on the bar's website. And on this livestream, "Billy" (not his real name) is caught calling his coworker "Joey" (not his real name) a bunch of names (none his real name). So Joey complains about it to HR, and then in the middle of the HR hearing, a bunch of regulars from the bar bust in and start calling for no punishment against fellow bar regular Billy, and instead for Joey to be fired, because it happened at the bar and that's not on company property or during company time. Any real HR would tell the bar regulars to get the f* out and what the hell are they thinking even getting involved in this?! But Wikipedia doesn't have a real HR. In fact, on Wikipedia, a bunch of the bar regulars are from HR. Levivich (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it really is a pickle. The open source discipline issue means that at any HR hearing any number of people can smash in and and cause a ruckus, but I think in this particular case the numbers don't bear out an actual effect from the bar patrons versus the other employees shouting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The real pickle is that this bar has two rooms, and only one of them is livestreamed, so maybe you could ask your friends to take the bullshit downstairs so we don't have to have any more HR hearings about it, thx. Levivich (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the actual amount, but I'm under the impression that almost all of the doxing/dox-light material isn't indexed. I was curious so I checked and the second public thread on WPO right now seems to belie that point. If, out of the half-dozen times I've opened the site, I've seen Wikipedians doxxed twice, I'm not really convinced it's as secluded as you claim.
Of course you’d say that. You participate there. This cute “WPO is just the pub where the boys go to have boys’ talk” facade is starting to crack. Dronebogus (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems to be in the spirit of this entire mishegas, I'll add thjs: Wikipediocracy is a boot, stomping on a human face -- forever. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:15, 11 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]
It's not a 'sister project', an affiliate, or any other part of the official Wikimedia ecosystem. From what little of it I've seen linked in behavioural fora here over the years, it's not even a particularly cogent place for discussing Wikipedia, let alone an actual outgrowth of the project. So I'm sorry, but most of what transpires there is not within our purview to control or moderate--including even the grossest of insults, I am afraid. So your even bringing any off-project PAs is pointless. Besides, we hardly need to look off project to find examples of Andy violating CIV.
That said, there are off-project activities which do run afoul of our policies by more directly touching this site. For example, canvassing: if he's really attempting to generate !votes by advertsiting to/coordinating with other parties to abuse process, that's a brightline violation of policy.SnowRise let's rap07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, regardless of the limitations of our reach to conduct taking place at WPO, let me add this: Personally at this juncture I am absolutely willing to support any community resolution to indef or even CBAN Andy from the project--and I'm certain I'm not the only one. Andy's unremitting hostility to contrary views, complete lack of basic decorum and inability to adhere to our most basic of behavioural norms, his refusal to exercise self-control over virtually any aspect of his behaviour during conflict, and a bevy over other basic CIR issues has made him in my eyes probably one of the most clear-cut case of a net negative for the project of any legacy editor still allowed to edit here. And unfortunately for Andy, he's going to keep creating opportunities for a ban to happen, because he is still firmly lodged in his years-long and Wikicareer-spanning marathon refusal to ever acknowledge that there is any issue in his approach to conflict here.
Let me hasten to add here that I have no personal axe to grind against Andy; I've never run into him "out in the wild" of project space and had one of the editorial/personal run-ins with him that so much of our community has. My entire experience of him that I can recall has been here at ANI. But that's still been enough for me to be familiar with a good half dozen threads concerning his behavior over recent years (which is probably about 1/5 of the total reports here) in which his naked aggression and arguably unmatched propensity for personal attacks were on full display.
Many are the editors who have joked that at least Andy's name warns people of his disposition. Hell, I probably hand-waved away some of the first reports regarding him that I saw here in that fashion. But I don't believe I agree at this point: I believe his name would have to be AndyTheBully to fully prepare anyone (and I do mean anyone, as far as I can tell) for what is in store for them if they happen to disagree with him about something he cares about.
Is this thread the most exemplary demonstration of the issues with Andy's conduct here? Nope, but it still involves violations of CIV and canvassing, at a minimum, and I for one am unwilling to countenance his drain on the community's time, patience, and good will. Enough is enough. I'll be !voting to support any ban proposal until it either succeeds or Andy makes some sort of credible acknowledgment of the issues and commitment to stop treating the people of this community as viable targets to unload on anytime he feels personally outraged. And although it's been years in the coming, I'm pretty confident which one will come first... SnowRise let's rap07:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something I really hate about the way a lot of veteran editors approach Wikipedia is the assumptive treatment of those who disagree with them as inept morons or as conniving scum, or both. Andy, from what I see, absolutely embodies this terrible attitude—but so do a lot of other editors. I’d like for this phenomenon to disappear from the wiki, but if Andy gets blocked or banned, I hope it’s acknowledged that his problem is far, far, far from unique. I believe contribution to the encyclopedic project trumps being a friendly fella, but Wikipedia is far too tolerant of bullies with high edit counts representing not-that-valuable histories of contribution. If Andy goes, I want the standard to be that people who treat others like shit are not welcome. ꧁Zanahary꧂06:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is this attitude? We don’t play on ranking. If someone’s comment is wrong, it is wrong, and their relative apparent experience does not matter. ꧁Zanahary꧂05:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to suggest that if Lightburst wants successful communication, this is a poor way to start it. [31]. 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. [32] 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]
Andy, you have no idea how unimpressive you look being unnecessarily rude on WP and then running to WPO to show all the other guys who post there every day how much of an awesome grump you’re being. The rest of us have figured out how to deal with content issues and even total ineptitude by others without sounding like the mean blonde girl in a teen movie. ꧁Zanahary꧂06:15, 12 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]
As a fellow grump I just wish Andy (and anyone else, for that matter) would stop reading and contributing to the childish Wikipediocracy and make any comments about Wikipedia at Wikipedia, where they could lead to improvements. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved editor, I am amazed at how often AndyTheGrump appears in this noticeboard, having upset multiple editors and creating a massive timesink. It seems very odd that he is repeatedly given so much leeway when other offenders are very swiftly dealt with. Orange sticker (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised I how often I've seen this name pop up here. This is something that back when I was a new editor would have absolutely probably scared me off. Even just by looking only at the recent ANI threads I'd absolutely support a longer block then the 31 hours one for incivility. Not to mention doing what seems to be Canvasing on an off-wiki drama forum. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me!13:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the first sentence of that policy, which reads "Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of hounding, when directed at another editor, violates the harassment policy"? TarnishedPathtalk13:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so do you have evidence that 1) ATG has inappropriate tried to either publicly or privately communicate with the filler of this complaint and that 2) this was following hounding? TarnishedPathtalk14:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is clearly publicly mocking them on the Wikipediocracy board. I guess you could argue it's not harassment if its done behind the victim's back, but that's both a feeble argument and a moot point, seeing as they're now aware of it. You keep mentioning 'hounding' but user:1AmNobody24 has only brought up harassment in general.
1. WP:OWH says "directed at another editor" not "with that editor", you can think that calling another editor an imbecile is not directed at them, but I disagree. 2. I didn't say anything about hounding. Nobody (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Directing words at someone means to try to communicate with them. ATG did not harass LB on Wikipediocracy by saying not nice things about him, and ATG likely didn't even realize LB was a regular Wikipediocracy reader. How would that constitute harassment? Off wiki gossiping more like it. 107.116.165.98 (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the IP above states, "directed at another editor" means precisely that the other editor is trying to be communicated with. What's happened at WPO is akin to pub talk, with no obvious intention that the OP be part of their audience. It is not actionable under WP policy. TarnishedPathtalk03:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to decide whether the appearance of the word oblivious here is intentional or inadvertent. EEng06:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think tarnished path is an imbecile. Luckily I haven't sent this to them, so I rest easy knowing it's a perfectly constructive comment. Obviously this is for demonstrative purposes and not an actual belief of mine, I don't actually know anything about the user. XeCyranium (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read WP:POINT. Obviously this is for constructive purposes and an actual belief of mine, I don't actually know anything about why you needed to say this stuff to make your point. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to see that, because I'm not a Wikipediocracy user like you. Are you outing an editor? I don't see a disclosure on their user page here. You aren't allowed to link to editors social media profiles without their permission. 107.116.165.98 (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HiTraumnovelle, I don't have an account at WPO (yet). Since many of the discussions are viewable without an account, you can simply use the search function to find out if a certain term has been used or quoted in a comment. Using that you can find specific accounts even without having one yourself. Nobody (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit - [33] - you linked to a members only view. You can't see the link even if it comes up in a search, unless you are a member. Why were you so confident this numeric id was this editor here if you couldn't see it? 107.116.165.98 (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All comments at WPO have a link to the respective editors profile. You can find a comment by using the searchand use the comment to find the profile. Finding a profile can be done without an account. Seeing the profile page can't (I also only see the login page on that link, as I don't have an account.) Nobody (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is the WPO comment of ATG that says "Lightburst is an imbecile". I get why you, who I believe is a WPO user, doesn't want that WPO comments can have consequences on wiki. But if you seriously believe that calling someone an imbecile is ok and not harassment, then we don't need to continue this as you cleary have a different idea of what civility and harassment looks like. Nobody (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An insult on another website is not "harassment" jfc. And yes, also a WPO user, so I suppose you can toss out AGF for me as well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. nableezy - 07:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that insults can be a part of harassment. But thats debatable i guess. I'm not assumg bad faith with all WPO users, I actually agree with what you wrote here. Nobody (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not evidence of WP:OWH. Other editors and myself have told you that, but you refuse to listen. Yes I've recently created an account at WPO, however that does not justify your WP:ABF. I didn't write anywhere that anything is OK. It's clearly not a WP:OWH violation though. TarnishedPathtalk08:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's many comments in this thread that call it harassment, so don't say the me having a different opinion than you and a few other editor is WP:IDHT. WP:IDHT literally says "Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with"." I hope you see the difference. I've stricked the WP:ABF sentence as I agree that it was too much. Nobody (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with everything said by User:Silver seren. IMO anyone dog whistling on WPO should be blocked for disruptive behavior, plus a three strikes and indef. WPO is disruptive and intentionally subversive of this site's norms. -- GreenC15:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy is blatantly failing at the core behavior policy of assuming good faith that frankly that alone deserves a block. Off-wiki insults are clearly hostile, period. Frankly, Andy is being an unhelpful, hostile detriment. Time to boot him. oknazevad (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods.AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate version of 1984 where there's no totalitarian government, Oceania is a liberal democracy where Winston just works for the government doing a normal job, but eventually gets fired (no torture, just a normal pink slip) solely because he goes on a message board to call his coworkers fuckwads like nine hundred times in a row jp×g🗯️16:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is sad. I was hoping that your recent incivility block would have changed you for the better, but now I see that you were actually proud of your actions. I suppose it was foolish to have such hope. Wikipedia is not some Orwellian dystopia, but chronic incivility from long time editors could fool some users into thinking it is. The last block gave Andy a chance to change, but since he either could not or would not, I strongly support an indef block to prevent further disruption. - ZLEAT\C16:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a lot for me to support an indef of a long-term user, especially one who's usually right on the content (and even here, Andy's probably right on the content). But we're past "enough is enough". — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of WPO. I don't have an account there and I will not get one but I think having a site outside Wikipedia that scrutinizes Wikipedia is a good thing. I think having Wikipedia editors there is a good thing. I also think it would be a good thing for those editors to remember that your actions follow you. Calling a Wikipedia editor names off Wikipedia when you, yourself, are a Wikipedia editor does affect the community negatively. We can't police other sites nor should we, but we can police our own community and our own actions within that community directed at fellow editors, whether on Wikipedia or off, when it comes to light. There are a million ways to express dissatisfaction with someone's edits without calling them names, whether it's considered being brutally honest or not. Sometimes it can become more about brutality than being honest. When we get there then we lose all ability to remain collegial and if that happens the message about the quality of content is lost. --ARoseWolf17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So its alright for editors to call AndyTheGrump a bully like User:SnowRose has done in this thread - which appears to be on Wikipedia? Why is no-one proposing any action for that?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because the word is perceived not to be a PA but rather an accurate description of how Andy treats countless of his fellow editors? Putting that aside, do you really not see the fairly obvious semantic and functional distinctions between the words 'bully' and 'idiot/imbecile/moron' (all of which Andy uses regularly and with abandon)? One defines a person in terms of their conduct--the choices they make and the consequences of those choices for this community. It can be used to identify and address policy violations. It is (whether you agree with it's accuracy or not) intended to perform an informative role in our analysis of what to do about the user to which it was applied. The other word is a plain insult. It exists, in every functional context that applies to this project, exclusively to abuse the person it is applied to. It speaks not to their choices, but rather their (supposed) inherent and negative qualities--specifically low intellect. It has no role to address policy violations, nor any other accepted functional role on this project consistent with policy.
There's also the fact that in my some-odd fifteen years on this project, I have used the word 'bully' exactly once, and it took exceptional circumstances and what I perceived as a profound need to get me to do it, after seeing numerous threads here presenting voluminous evidence of Andy launching PAs against others. By comparison, Andy has called people idiots or imbeciles three times this month already (even if we exclude the off-project insults) and possibly hundreds of times overall in his tenure here, and he does so for reasons as flippant as the fact that somebody disagreed with or reverted him once. Does any of that explain to you why your comparison is a false equivalence and why my term assessing Andy's behavior is permitted (in limited and appropriate circumstances) by this project's behavioural guidelines, and Andy's term assessing the intellect of other users is not? SnowRise let's rap11:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if for some reason none of that convinces you, what more do I really have to point out than this: we have a policy page titled WP:WikiBullying. Clearly it's not a PA if it's an actual defined term for describing problematic behaviour within our very policy language. Now, can you imagine a policy page called "WP:WikiImbecile"? SnowRise let's rap12:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion was rapidly spiraling, so I close the subsections that were ready for it. The remaining ones need a little more time to cook or for a consensus to emerge, so I've left those open for now. The WordsmithTalk to me20:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it here since the section was closed below. Nableezy says people will work with others after they called them an idiot and imbecile off wiki and they might, I will not. I will not work with someone that repeatedly trashes and insults me off-Wiki, on-Wiki, by emails or otherwise if I know about it. No one should be subjected to the demeaning position of accepting that behavior and quite frankly no one should be forced to, as you are suggesting, as a requirement to edit on Wikipedia. We have the civility policy to promote a collegial atmosphere of editing and when there are issues we have venues like this where all the drama (I wish there was less) and all the legitimate discussion goes to find solutions. I don't think it is a matter of growing up and accepting that not everyone is going to like you. I think we all know that and I think the answer is you better faux act collegial and work together and stop this nonsense or you don't belong on a project and in a community where civil interactions is required. --ARoseWolf20:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree people need to fake collegiality here, I do not agree that this requirement extends beyond the domains owned by the WMF. We do indeed have a civility policy, but it itself says that it applies to interactions on Wikipedia, not anywhere on the internet. nableezy - 20:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, Andy has called people idiots or morons in edit summaries three times just since the beginning of this month: Special:Diff/1232090946 (“go away and be a moron somewhere else”), Special:Diff/1232193948 (“more idiocy”), Special:Diff/1232697583 (“rv another idiot”). And our reaction? Oh, well, he was right to revert those things. He's apparently too valuable to be subject to our normal requirements for behavior. Valereee (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then bring those up? I havent said one word about Andy's behavior on-wiki, only the idea that anything off-wiki that is not actual harassment is not relevant here. nableezy - 21:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I've just brought them up...? The behavior pattern isn't exactly a secret. Andy's been benefiting from an assessment of his high level of competence vs. his high level of disruptiveness for a very long time. Valereee (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, all three of those diffs that you provide were directed at disruptive editors. The first was ATG reverting a disruptive IP that left a message on ATG's usertalk claiming that they shill for TechLead. The second was ATG providing a link to an edit by an account which has now been indeffed. The diff provided by ATG demonstrated obviously juvenile vandalism. The third diff you provide is ATG reverting more juvenile vandalism. I know that we should be maintaining civility with all editors but at the same time I don't exactly think it's a high crime to be incivil against editors who are only here to be disruptive. TarnishedPathtalk03:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all three of those diffs that you provide were directed at disruptive editors... I don't exactly think it's a high crime to be incivil against editors who are only here to be disruptive.
That’s immediately contradicted by the implication that it’s sometimes okay, though. It’s not - civility is a bright-line policy regardless of what the other editor has or hasn’t done. TheKip(contribs)06:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath, yes, and I pointed out that And our reaction? Oh, well, he was right to revert those things. And below, Were the reversions correct? Sure. But do we have to call even disruptive editors idiots and morons in the actual edit summaries? Is it really not a problem that an editor would call anyone idiots or morons three times over the course of less than a week? And when an editor has been warned and warned and warned and warned for this exact issue, given "final warnings" multiple times, and still continues to do it regularly, can we really not decide we're going to follow through? Valereee (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not policy but I think it describes this situation perfectly. One of the principles I strive for, emphasis on strive, is "One of the least enforced but most critical policies on the project is our need to remain civil at all times, no matter the provocation. If something you might say would be unacceptable at a large meeting of professionals in a conference room, then it is unacceptable here. Insults very often are an insight into the person making them, not on the target of the aspersions. Insults will never yield positive outcomes. Incivility reduces productivity, engagement, and idea generation." I have never seen an issue involving insults result in anything positive because of the insults. I know what I said above is specifically about on-Wiki interactions. But you can't expect to go on social media attacking your boss and co-workers and making hateful remarks specific to them and not expect it to cause tension on the job and, if done enough, will lead to termination. Andy's actions off-Wiki were harmful to the community. Andy knew what he was doing. He purposefully did it on a site whose stated purpose is to be critical of Wikipedia because that's where he felt he would get the most support. He also knew, because it's connected to his WP user name, that it would be seen and he knew the affect it would have. He is not a new editor and this isn't the first time he's been called out for incivility and personal attacks. He felt he could ignore civility and attack LB, whom he has had disagreements with justified or not, and garner support in doing it by putting it where he did. My hope is he heeds what editors are saying here. Only time will tell and that is one thing none of us but him can control. --ARoseWolf20:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that while WP:CIV explicitly applies only on-site, WP:PA, which is also policy, does have a subsection WP:PA#Off-wiki attacks which states that off-site behavior may be considered aggravating factors [for on-site disputes]. This does seem to agree with you that off-wiki behavior is (absent egregious violations like outing) not, by itself, sufficient to sanction an editor on-site. It also invites debate. The policy says, Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, which suggests that some degree of off-wiki behavior is indeed considered a personal attack.
I think we would all agree that a hate-filled diatribe, pseduo-psychoanalyzing an editor, demeaning them, etc. would constitute a personal attack. I think many of us would agree that if someone posted to their X account, "Man, EducatedRedneck is such a cunt", even if that account was clearly linked to a user here, a one-off and off-the-cuff statement like that isn't worth considering a personal attack, even if it would be had it been said on Wikipedia. So I suggest that there's a line somewhere, past which we consider even off-wiki behavior to run afoul of WP:PA.
I also think that, per WP:BEANS, we shouldn't try to determine where exactly the line is in advance; this invites folks to tap dance right up to the edge. Instead, it's a judgement call over whether ATG's behavior has crossed this line. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The very first line of WP:NPAisDo not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. The section on off-wiki attacks says, in full, Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks violate an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. While it certainly does create ill will among people here, being "harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship" is not a prohibition, and I do not believe Andy has violated an editor's privacy, though I do not claim to have gone through every post he has ever made at WPO. nableezy - 21:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that your interpretation of that policy is that it applies only to on-wiki behavior. I believe that, given its placement in that policy page, and using language similar to the lede of that page (Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia.) that off-site attacks are also prohibited. I hope you can see how someone might come to this interpretation.
I mention all this so we can focus the discussion on the areas where we actually disagree. I don't believe others are saying we should police what our editors do everywhere else on the internet, or that ATG has doxed anyone. I don't believe you're saying that we should disregard personal attacks. I believe the crux of the disagreement is on this policy we're discussing now, how it should be interpreted and applied, and perhaps whether we should change the policy pages to clarify (to reflect whatever consensus develops here).
I'm also going to plug SnowRise's point below that there would be a privacy concern to extending WP:NPA to off-site. In particular, it'd open a door for bad actors to try to dox editors by finding accounts that could be related which say mean things, and ask the editor, "Is this you?" Regardless of the answer, that editor and external account are now associated, and the bad actors are protected from reprisal because they were "just trying to enforce WP:NPA". This is what gives me pause about enforcing WP:NPA on off-site behavior, even if my interpretation of the policy is valid. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My “line” is either calling people idiots etc. or accusing them of anything resembling real-world criminality. Which seems like common sense but we’re nevertheless here. Dronebogus (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because there's no clear proposal above, I propose that AndyTheGrump be blocked for one week for incivility, with the understanding that further incivility in the future leads to an indef.
Above, some users have called for or supported an indef. They are welcome to propose their own, harsher sanction if they feel it appropriate. Conversely, if other editors feel his actions were in poor taste but do not warrant a sanction, they may wish to instead propose a not cool to express displeasure but that they do not believe it to be actionable.
I propose a one week block for these reasons:
AndyTheGrump is a prolific editor. That does not warrant special treatment, but it does mean an indef would deprive the encyclopedia of his well-acknowledge expertise. (The consensus seems to be that he is generally right on content.)
An escalating block would leave the door open for improvement. Conversely, if he does not improve, saying "he didn't improve after a 31 h and 1 week block" is more persuasive than only "he didn't improve after a 31 h block". Thus, it would also make it easier to indef in the future.
There is disagreement over to what degree ATG's comments on Wikipediocracy constitutes off-wiki harassment or canvassing. A harsh sanction has a high burden of proof. A lesser sanction may be more palatable in an ambiguous situation. This may allow users hesitant to indef to express their disapproval of his behavior.
This is a matter for the community because 1) the off-wiki nature of the alleged offenses requires interpretation of policy and 2) there is disagreement within the community on to what degree sentiments expressed off-site are disruptive within Wikipedia itself. Both of these make it less likely that an uninvolved administrator would be comfortable unilaterally issuing a sanction without the community clarifying its stance.
This thread has the potential to be far more heat than light. I'd like to have a proposal on the table so we can resolve this situation more quickly and either let ATG get back to editing or else administer a sanction to prevent disruption.
To clarify, are you opposing because you see a one week block as preventing an indef, or because you see a one week block as worse than no block? (Or some third option I didn't think of?) I realize I was not clear in my post that I view any one week block as being automatically superseded by, rather than preventing, an indef. The one week is more, "Can we agree on at least this sanction" rather than "this is the only sanction." 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 1 week block; I don't really see how this particular case should end up in an indef. The logical reasoning is sound, and what's called canvassing above reads to me more like frustration over a clear-cut case for deletion at AfD. Andy obviously cares a lot about the project, if maybe not so much about the people running it... but 3 weeks are going to sting already. ~ If he gets a 3 week ban every time he steps this egregiously over the line of civility, things are bound to change. My main question is why that hasn't been tried before. I feel like the community is trying to make up for prior inaction instead of trying to seek appropriate punishment. JackTheSecond (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Switching my vote to a procedural oppose as links to only 1 off-wiki comment have been given. One comment might be interpreted as an unguarded moment. I'd need diffs of actionable behaviour concerns since the last block to change my vote again. JackTheSecond (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 reversions of blatant vandalism, but sure. The space is to be kept clean for the rest of us sharing it. (And about whether I was aware of the situation prior (raised below): no I wasn't, so process it is.) JackTheSecond (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again ATG is in the right, that is a terrible article about a minor who is not notable (that's a separate discussion), and the response to it be nominated was uncivil, but ATG has to dial down they're responses. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support...but more than a week. A month ...plucked from the air. As ActivelyDisinterested says, ATG is obviously right in the instant case. But does he have to do it like that? As someone else has said, it's amazing how the same stuff keeps reappearing at ANI about ATG on a regular basis. They seem to have a clean block log for the last decade or more [Subsequently added correction: until the 31 hour block last month]. I suspect that's more to do with the old story of the balance between supporters and detractors here. (Supporters, as often is the situation in cases like this, are doing few favours for the editor they are supporting.) I think the bottom line is that something like a month block to grab ATG's attention is worth supporting, otherwise, he's heading for a CBAN - maybe not now but perhaps in 2 or 3 future ANI reports time. It's now got that trajectory and that would be a shame. ATG, tone it down. I'm going to put 'oppose' in the indef section. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a month, per DeCausa. Given their clean log I don't think we're at the point of an indef yet (unless there is evidence of doxxing), but it needs to be made clear to Andy that their behavior has to change. BilledMammal (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support although I know it's not happening. ATG's incivility is not new, and this block of any duration isn't going to prevent more incivility so I guess by that definition, this isn't block eligible. But WPO is a long way from a reddit or twitter discussion where the audience isn't wikipedia editors, which it is on WPO (blocked/former/active or otherwise). Andy knew what he said would get Lightburst's attention, and mission accomplished. To say it's not worthy of a block is the ultimate in unblockable nonsense because he's an editor of long standing when less tenured would be blocked for much less. @BilledMammal: he literally just came off an incivility/PA block. You may oppose but calling it a clean log is disingenuous. StarMississippi22:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I'd prefer to see a month-long block. Andy, I've defended you several times before, and I've taken some rather harsh criticism for doing so. By continuing to treat other editors in an increasingly reckless and uncivil manner, you've made your defenders look foolish. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a month, I do not think ATG should be anywhere near the project and maybe one month will give them perspective to modify their behavior. ATG should have been blocked many times for worse. The project does not need anyone who cannot follow our core policies. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, even for a month, given the long-running incivility issues. Behavior at Wikipediocracy is very much impacting what happens on Wikipedia, and shouldn't be ignored. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing sufficient diffs which support this. The OPs claim is that ATG was following them around by nominating two of their articles for deletion and this is not substantiated. The WPO stuff is not within our remit to police. Frankly I think there should be some sort of discussion about OP continuing to have the autopatrolled given the two obviously deficient articles they produced which are before AfD. TarnishedPathtalk03:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on what is being reported here. I haven't read the actual WPO thread and don't plan to read it. ATG seems to have unlearned a lesson that served him well for a decade. Some sanction is needed, between 1 and 4 weeks. An indef is not warranted at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after reading all this I'm more concerned by @Moneytrees report about Lightburst using multiple accounts to support his votes than anything here. What Andy said isn't polite, but much worse behaviour happens all the time, including from admins. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was not happy with the incivility directed at the DYK crew recently, and with this it is seeming like a pattern. Bruxton (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I’m an uninvolved user with zero stake in this. But judging from this report, I do see that many of Andy’s comments are indeed uncivil and I’m a little surprised at how he’s able to get away with it for so long. I presume there is more leeway for experienced editors because if Andy hadn’t been one, I feel like he probably would have been blocked relatively quickly. While I understand that a sockpuppet might be a bigger issue (which will probably be taken care of if lightburst is indeed outed/proven to be sock), that doesn’t excuse Andy’s behavior. I think a week at the very least is needed. He’s been doing it for a long time so it’s clear he doesn’t have any intention to stop.
But that’s just my opinion. I have no ill will towards Andy and haven’t even interacted with him. I just randomly came across this and decided to give my two cents based on what I’ve read. I hope that with time he can come to the understanding that he can’t be uncivil here if he’s not indef blocked by the end of this. He’s a prolific writer so I hope he does come to terms and change. But we’ll see. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support one-month site ban – this is unacceptable conduct. Not to the point of needing indefinite ban imo, but we can't let him keep doing this and significantly contributing to other editors' retirements because they had enough of attacks from this user. — AP 499D25(talk)09:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – since this proposal specifically references "incivility" as the reason for the block, then evidence is required in the form of diffs that a block is needed and/or required for incivility in relation to Andy's interaction with Lightburst, here, on Wikipedia. The diffs that Lightburst provided up above do not warrant a block.Isaidnoway(talk)10:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can all see the post on Wikipediocracy though, right? And we all know that it was Andy that posted it? How is this not the very definition of wikilawyering? – Joe (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 week block to 1 month block I came across this thread thanks to a non-WPO offwiki discussion. The fact that ATG is uncivil is not under question at all, just whether or not he is "productive enough" to evade sanctions. This double standard, applied by so many admins and more, is too not how Wikipedia is supposed to be. I oppose sanctions based on off-wiki conduct. But even in this thread, he has skirted the civility line enough that I support sanctions. Soni (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I read all the carry on here and I am disturbed that Andy was calling another editor "an imbecile" (regardless if it was off-wiki). It's good if Andy writes good content on Wikipedia but his behavior recently is inexcusable and he cannot continue to make comments like this. Then it might lead to an indef block. Alexeyevitch(talk)10:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the indef proposal falls through I will support literally any other sanction there is consensus to implement. My personal fallback proposal is 1 year followed by indef for next infraction. Dronebogus (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as over the top, although I understand the community's concerns for one of our founding principles. However, I also note that civil incivility is far more intrusive, far more common and frankly, far more damaging to said community. Civility is often seen as being a cement that glues it together; but, rather, passive incivility—greater concern for words rather than meaning?—is a solvent that eats away at that cement. ——Serial Number 5412912:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know what you’re on about. Andy is notoriously difficult to work with because he lashes out like this regularly, and this is openly tolerated and even defended. That is corrosive to the community. Dronebogus (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A block of any type for such a puny, off-site slight would be nothing other than punitive. Here's a radical idea: How about spending an order of magnitude less time wailing about feeble scoffs like this and, instead, spending that time constructing a well-sourced, reliable encyclopedia? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, it prevents the rest of us from having to interact with them on this site. I don't want to have to work on this website with people who harass or regularly talk shit about me or other editors in public off-wiki fora, as a general principle. I think it's an overreaction in this particular case, but in other cases -- where what people said was worse -- I think an indef from this website can be an effective preventative measure, preventing disruption to people on this site. Levivich (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as second choice to indef now that that's not happening, I guess. But I see a timed block as more punitive; no less hope that we see real change going forward. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)19:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While the indef doesn't have consensus, I still believe something needs to be done. As Valereee points out, Andy has been calling people idiots and morons this month on-site. He's been warned in the past about this behavior, he's been blocked recently for this behavior, and still hasn't made any noticeable changes in how civil he is on-site since the warning or the block. And, as I pointed out earlier, the incivility takes the air out of conversations that should be happening. You can see it here, where in some arguments calling the pattern of incivility unacceptable might as well be a defense for "making bad articles", "COI issues", "sockpuppeting and vote manipulation", and so on. He's been warned about it, there's been no acknowledgement of this issue or want to change, and it's a drain to have to fight through it. CREEDIXMO(TALK)22:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional info It's been suggested above (I guess assuming maybe people aren't aware of the ongoing issue) that I bring up that Andy has called people idiots or morons in edit summaries three times just since the beginning of this month: Special:Diff/1232090946 (“go away and be a moron somewhere else”), Special:Diff/1232193948 (“more idiocy”), Special:Diff/1232697583 (“rv another idiot”). So there it is. Were the reversions correct? Sure. Should Andy learn to adult? IMO, yes. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Purely for the fact that it will at least log the discussion and the community's continued exasperation with his behaviour. Based on the extensive record of Andy's failure to acknowledge community concerns or adjust his approach, I entertain not the slightest wisp of a hope that this will actually result in a tangible adjustment of his perspective or behaviour, and anticipate that we will be back here soon (if the pattern holds, within a couple of weeks or months at most), with another voluminous timesink of a thread and much acrimony--in which I suspect 40+% of commenting community members will still somehow fail to see that this user is WP:CIR-incompatible with the baseline level of self control expected of our contributors. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. SnowRise let's rap22:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any blocks at this point per Johnuniq, Serial Number 54129, and the adage hard cases make bad law. I am very wary about applying Wikipedia’s civility norms to people’s conversations elsewhere on the internet. If we are unwilling to police the personal attacks in this very report (“Moneytrees has no integrity” is perhaps the worst of them, but by no means the only one), then we have no business trying to police the rest of the internet. 28bytes (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per my previous support for an indefinite block. I agree that working on the project is better than doing this business; perhaps Andy will consider the feelings and needs of others in the future. Mackensen(talk)01:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uninvolved here...I've surmised that Andy has adopted the online character/persona of a bitter, resentful, crotchety old man, presumably for comedic value, but what I've seen on-Wiki and off-Wiki is "committing to the bit" a bit too much for a place like Wikipedia, drifting into WP:NOTHERE territory at times. I think a week (or a month) off would give him some valuable time to re-think his approach. With that said, he does seem to make some good points, and to poke his nose into some dark corners that merit scrutiny, so I would oppose an indef. Pecopteris (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
since the indef proposal was closed, support at least some kind of block. longer is preferable to me, but it really comes down to Andy needing to understand that he has run the community's patience very very very thin - when he inevitably gets brought to ANI again in a month or two, an indef might stick. ... sawyer * he/they * talk02:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not seeing enough evidence to warrant a sanction at this time, but the behavior of ATG could certainly be improved. Let'srun (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for at least 3 weeks or a month. I once again hope that Andy will finally learn his lesson, but I'm afraid we're only delaying the inevitable. I also recommend that any further incivility cases go straight to ArbCom. - ZLEAT\C04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK let's cut this short I'm not going to deny I said some unacceptably rude things on Wikipedia (which is clearly within the remit of this noticeboard), and off it (where the potential negative consequences of claiming to have a remit clearly haven't been thought through, in my opinion), so If people want to block me now, do so. And then, after preferably taking a few minutes to go through this thread and taking note of just how many entirely evidence-free accusations of behaviour well beyond rudeness I've been subjected to here, and perhaps reflecting on whether everyone screaming at once is really an appropriate way to deal with issues, those of you here who actually do anything useful on Wikipedia can get back to doing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support any length 1 week to 1 month, since we now have Andy's permission to hold him accountable. If this happens again, next time I'll be supporting an indef. Andy, the amount of drama you cause by your lack of patience and decorum vs. the good stuff you do is getting out of proportion. Levivich (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a lot for me to support an indef of a long-term user, especially one who's usually right on the content (and even here, Andy's probably right on the content). But we're past "enough is enough". Copied from above — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear, since the Unblockable Turn has begun. This is not an indef merely for calling Lightburst an imbecile, but for long-term intransigent incivility mixed with a healthy does of canvassing (yes, in case there's any doubt, canvassing applies to (a) partisan audiences, (b) off-wiki recruitment, and (c) non-neutral messages -- take your pick -- and Andy has both participated and been willing to be canvassed). If putting on blinders to the past with an incredulous "block over this one thing??" isn't already part of WP:UNBLOCKABLES, it should be. Even if we do look at this one thing, here's what happened: Lightburst has been harassed at WPO in the past, with users diving into a range of personally identifying information that, to the best of my knowledge, LB never disclosed on-wiki. Andy knows about this because he participated in not just that very thread but the thread where that personal information was copied over on-wiki. This is all just context. Now someone posts a link to an article Lightburst wrote and Andy was only too happy to be canvassed to nominate it for deletion. Then Andy dug into LB's contribs and found another problematic article, canvassing on WPO and overtly insulting LB in the process -- again, in a forum where Andy knows LB has been targeted in the past. When confronted on it here, Andy not only fails to display any sort of self-awareness or contrition but but continues to dig in. I would spend time, as anyone should, taking a stroll through the noticeboard archives to link to some of the copious past discussions where Andy is asked/warned/pleaded with, but I'm skeptical those opposing don't already know about all that, so I'd want to know exactly what sort of pattern would be convincing. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That thread discussing Lightburts's RL identity revealed that he had been editing articles to which it could be reasonably construed he had a conflict of interest. Obviously Lightburst felt harassed by the (off-wiki) disclosure of his personal information necessary to reveal the COI, but I don't really think it was an attempt to harass him, as he wasn't the intended audience of the conversation. Obviously, getting the balance right between properly investigating COI and trying not to harass Wikipedia editors is tricky, but I think discussing personal information of editors off-wiki is reasonable when there is the reasonable suspicion of COI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like everything on WPO is evil, but this is easily the least defensible and most stupidly excessive thing that happens there. He "felt" harassed when he got doxed on a messageboard by people who afterwards followed him around to call him nasty names and make fun of his articles indefinitely? Is this a joke? jp×g🗯️20:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a joke. I don't agree with the tone of all the comments and threads made about Lightburst by the various Wikipediocracy users, but there were legitimate COI issues that were worth discussing in an off-wiki venue, and that required discussing his personal information, which is completely impossible to address on-wiki. Were Nihonjoe or Thmazing "harassed" by the Wikipediocracy discussions exposing their real-life identities that led to them being sanctioned for COI issues that couldn't otherwise be discussed without understanding their real-life identities? Also, as recently revealed Lightburst is a sockmaster who engaged in deliberate and deceptive votestacking in dozens of discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia:That is a complete bullshit report, opened, closed, and concluded by Moneytrees based on zero evidence. I welcome any checkuser looking at my account. I have no socks and I have asked Moneytees to have the integrity to retract his half-assed accusation. And BTW, I am glad that you and I have not feuded in years. At the same time I am saddened that you are still jostling around with the WPO crowd. You are a better editor than that. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Well, officer, before I threw the bowling ball through his windshield he was double-parked across a handicapped spot and a bike lane." I mean, true, it's bad to do that, but I don't really see a connection between the two. There wasn't any other action available? What was even the connection? jp×g🗯️23:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given one of the articles that started this was about a non-notable minor and originally contained the name of they're younger sister I think it's more "Well, officer, before I threw the bowling ball through his windshield he was drunk driving down the street erratically." -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°00:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef - Over a decade of civility issues with no signs of even an attempt to improve means I cannot support anything less than an indef. This has gone on long enough. - ZLEAT\C17:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC) (moved from 1 week block proposal section)[reply]
So, if I'm against any block at all over this contretemps with Lightburst (in which I'm surely not alone), am I supposed to oppose twice? OK. Strong oppose. Bishonen | tålk18:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Unneccessary. I don't see why calling out Lightburst's incompetence (which wasn't even done on-wiki) is deserving of an indeff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that every time something like this happens, the WPOsters will show up to say stuff like this about how it's a gigantic witch hunt, but nobody (or at least nobody worth taking seriously) is saying that everyone should be put under 24/7 offsite surveillance, or people should be indeffed for having a drink with their mate and saying "that guy on wiki sure is a dick eh?", or that all WPO posters should be blocked, or that the site should be seized by INTERPOL, or that all pseudonymous WPO posters should be dramatically unmasked, or whatever other dumb strawman -- just that you shouldn't make an account with your same username on WPO and then say indef-worthy stuff to other editors there, continuously, for months/years. I feel like even a child could understand not to do this. Is it really that complicated? jp×g🗯️19:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef at this point. While the specific issue reported probably isn't enough for one, it's moreso the long track record of incivility, consistent failure to assume good faith/resorting to insults and biting, and seeming utter failure to learn from past sanctions (Seriously, quoting 1984? Using that to imply that you're being "silenced" isn't a great way to defend yourself). The WPO thread (insulting another editor, on another website entirely) is a cardinal sin, at least in my opinion. As I've stated in numerous other forums here, we cannot continue to let experienced editors perennially get a pass for policy violations solely because "their content contributions are too valuable" or "but they were correct." If ATG had <1,000 edits, an indef wouldn't even be a question here. TheKip(contribs)19:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The off-wiki comments cited as the justification for this don't merit an indef. If all folks who have ever thought me an imbecile were to be blocked, there would be only tumbleweeds remaining here. Lightburst needs a thicker skin. Deor (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a firm opinion on the section above, but an indef of AndyTheGrump would be harming the project, and an over-reaction. Andy does difficult and necessary work here. And he's not perfect. I'm not condoning the over-the-top use of "imbecile", but I do understand the frustration. I'll also note that a couple of the people anxious to see Andy punished, while not saying the word "imbecile", sure are free with the personal comments themselves. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
an indef of AndyTheGrump would be harming the project, and an over-reaction. Andy does difficult and necessary work here
There's been countless examples of "valuable" editors getting away with policy violations that newbies would be immediately indeffed for, purely because of some conception of opportunity cost that their contributions outweigh their bad behavior. The buck has to stop somewhere - the completely arbitrary class system this treatment enforces, in which users gain effective immunity from punishment if their contribution count can outrun their violations, will ultimately harm the project in the long run. TheKip(contribs)19:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm required to support an indef, rather than something else, or else I'm some kind of class warrior letting Andy "get away with" something? Ugh. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it’d be nice if you acknowledged that Andy is basically abusing his status as BMOW (big msn on wiki) to get away with literally anything. Dronebogus (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kip. The histrionic reaction to be called out for failing to work collegially and engaging in detrimental behavior shows a lack of comprehension of the problem in itself, let alone atonement for the issue. This is just obvious as an uninvolved editor seeing just what's in front of me here. oknazevad (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose complete overkill. Agree with FLoquenbeam, Andy actually does some good work here. And that some of the supporters are at least very close to making personal attacks. Yeah, no free passes, but a block won't be a free pass. @Deor:, I love your comment. Doug Wellertalk19:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read some of the other comments in the thread first, regarding the fact that he has been doing this for a very long time, was blocked for it previously, and responded to people asking him to stop calling other editors imbeciles under his same username on WPO by posting a 1984 quote about totalitarian censorship. What, of this, makes you think he's stopped doing this, or has any intention to stop? jp×g🗯️20:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So to clarify: you are asserting the stuff he said is not blockworthy, but you have also literally have not read the stuff he said, and refuse to do so, even though the site he said it on was apparently so bad as to make anything posted there presumptively hateful (but not bad enough to block people for posting it)? jp×g🗯️20:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support not because of any specifics but for violating WP:JERK for the 10 millionth time and because it would set a precedent that talking shit about editors elsewhere is not tolerated. There are always more potentially good editors, but they’ll always be driven away by the toxic culture created by ATG and his fellow unblockables, creating a vicious cycle where we can’t block people considered valuable to the project because there’s no-one else to take their place. Dronebogus (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they weren't, however they have recently been blocked for 31hr due to incivility. We're in the middle part of "Stop it, no really stop it, you can't edit again til you stop it". If we back here again in a month's time, I will agree with a stronger sanction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°23:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I also support a month-long block instead of an indef, I think the message of "Stop it, no really stop it, you can't edit again til you stop it" is only conveyed by an indef block. A time-limited block will expire whether or not Andy has stopped it. And there's realistically little reason to believe that he will. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I worried that wasn't very clear, were at no really stop it (the middle part). The you can't edit again til you stop it part is the next step if we're back here discussing the same issue next month. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°23:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By my math, it looks like we're at the end of Stop it, no really stop it, you can't edit again til you stop it. The lead-up to the 31hr block, when he came to ANI about the Andrew Tate DYK, came with a Stop it, saying if it happened again it was a block. Then the SurrealDB instance happened, which put us at no really stop it with the 31hr block. This right now is step three, we're at you can't edit again til you stop it. If that means nothing should happen, and we wait until step 4, that's different. But it looks like we're at the end of the line. CREEDIXMO(TALK)23:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as whatever happens outside of en.wp, outside of actual off-site harassment, is not something that en.wp has the jurisdiction to police. See nothing on wiki that merit an indef or even a long block. nableezy - 21:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doxxing, coordinating hounding campaigns, email spamming. Somebody said something mean about me in a public forum is not that. nableezy - 21:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst was doxxed by ATG? I won't ask you to link it, but if you can maybe email the evidence to ArbCom? If true, that would warrant a site ban in my opinion. BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen evidence provided for that specific claim. I've seen some editors opine that WPO is not a good place because doxxing occurs there, however no evidence of ATG doxxing LB. TarnishedPathtalk08:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, support indef. I think I've had enough of WPO people talking shit about us, and off-wiki harrassment should be punished the same as on-wiki harrassment. Criticism is fine, but calling us imbeciles isn't. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)21:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is us here? Is Andy, or am I, not of this body because of our participation in a forum that discusses Wikipedia (and its many faults)? nableezy - 01:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy is part of this community. That's why we are having this discussion. When you agree to edit you agree to afford other editors a certain level of respect, even when you absolutely disagree. We are to act with civility to be part of this community. That includes off-wiki. You don't stop being part of this community when you log on to another website, with your WIkipedia username by the way, and trash talk specific editors and tear then down no matter what validity the content claims have. Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege. You can shit talk off Wikipedia but to claim that when you do, it should no affect on how fellow editors interact with you here because they should just ignore you shit talking about them is just absurd. We aren't policing those websites. We are policing our community, regardless of where comments are made when it comes to light. There is nothing we can do if we can't prove it is you and you deny it but we can in this case. We have the evidence Andy trashed talked another member of his and our community. We can not tolerate that if we are to be taken serious, if we are actually here to build the encyclopedia and improve on it according to foundational principle. Andy wasn't discussing Wikipedia and it's faults, of which their are many. Andy wasn't even only discussing bad edits by Wikipedians, of which we can agree there are issues. Andy was trash talking a specific Wikipedian and fellow member of this community, degrading their intellect in a manner he knew would be found almost as if in defiance of previous blocks he has received for this very action. He shouldn't be a part of this community if he doesn't want to police his actions on or off Wiki or have his actions policed when he presents himself with his Wikipedia username on those sites where it can be linked and everyone knows it is him. --ARoseWolf14:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ReWe are to act with civility to be part of this community. That includes off-wiki.WP:CIV specifically says it governs interactions on Wikipedia. Of course people are going to look at Andy a certain way when they know what he thinks about them, but part of being a grown up is understanding that not everybody likes you, some people think you're an idiot, and you work with them anyway. I am 10000% certain that people I edit with despise me. That is a normal part of having conflicting views and ideas. I do not think requiring people to maintain a faux respect for one another outside of the four walls of Wikipedia is a reasonable thing to ask for. nableezy - 19:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Even leaving out the WPO stuff, it's pretty clear that the incivility on-wiki is a recurring problem. As I mentioned before, it sucks all the air out of the problems being brought up (the articles do seem genuinely not good! There are obvious issues with COI here!) and then issues with his incivility are treated as de facto defense of whatever issue Andy brings up. There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement that the civility is an issue, and it largely seems like Andy views the incivility as justified. He's already been blocked once, and already had major issues with civility before said block, and is still having these issues. It's clear something needs to be done to keep this from happening again. CREEDIXMO(TALK)21:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nothing actionable here in the initial complaint. Seems clear to me that Lightburst was hoping for another round of drama with ATG at ANI, and they got their wish. The article they created should have been nominated for deletion, which is in delete snow territory now, and getting pissed off about an AfD, isn't a good look for Lightburst. It also seems obvious to me the only reason LB brought up WPO was to fan the flames, which again, isn't a good look for LB.Isaidnoway(talk)21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef I'm seeing actual harm being caused here, both to the project as a whole in the time spent on the multiple debates over his behaviour and the precedent it may set in regards to acceptable levels of civility, and to individual editors who are being bullied both by ATG and his supporters. There is no amount of positive contributions that could ever outweigh this. Orange sticker (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this would be shooting the messenger and pretending the actual problems (articles which the community is producing a strong consensus to delete being created) are not problems. * Pppery *it has begun...22:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how holding Andy accountable for chronic incivility (for which he has already been shown considerable grace) is tantamount to ignoring the other issue. The article problem is being dealt with at AfD; why should that preclude us from dealing with the behavioral issue here? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indef. Though being right is not enough, is an indef really warranted because of ATG's repeated usage of the word "idiot"? I've heard worse from elementary schoolers. I'm aware NPA reads Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans. However, this implies that the severity of the attacks matters. If Andy were to call someone an idiot in every diff, I'd support. If there have only been less than a dozen occurencez this year, a block is overkill. Sincerely, Dilettante00:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef, mostly per the opposers because it's clear they won't support any accountability for Andy and Andy won't change on his own. Separation from this project is really the only option left. Being right isn't enough. Plenty of people manage to be right without being offensive, with the side benefit that those people aren't creating a distraction and making the issue about themselves, instead of whatever the real issue was. Mackensen(talk)00:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I can count on one hand the number of times I've supported an indef that amounts to a CBAN for an established editor. If anyone wants my impressions on why I think Andy represents a more than large enough cluster of issues and timesinks for this community to justify one in this case, I have a post towards the top of this thread that should more than adequately explain my impressions. I'll only add here (and I don't normally like to made broad stroke observations about my fellow community member's !votes, but I think it's necessary on this occasion) that a number of the opposes I have seen here seem to have not done very much in terms of due diligence in looking at the long term behavior here. When looking into the current issues, I opened Andy's contributions history and I couldn't even find the edit I was looking for on the very first page before stumbling across an edit summary where Andy called someone an idiot. In fact, this kind of hostility is peppered throughout the history, and those are just the edit summaries.
I mean, people, it was less than two months ago that Andy opened a thread here at ANI titled "Are the idiots who run DYK under the mistaken impression that WP:BLP doesn't apply there?", while there were already multiple threads open on the page examining his conduct. It's like he's flaunting his belief that he will never face consequences for this kind of thing. Honestly, if someone were to present me with evidence tomorrow showing that Andy's entire tenure at Wikipedia was part of a social experiment to examine just how broken our processes are for arresting the disruption of serial civility violators once they have achieved a certain level of social cache here, I honestly wouldn't be surprised. It's no wonder the WMF and the broader movement is slowly encroaching on our independence in the area of moderating abusive conduct. I don't agree with it, but you don't need to look beyond this situation to understand why some feel it is necessary.
It's not just that Andy is unrelentingly hostile in the face of the least amount of conflict; he also just never seems to have given so much as a syllable's worth of acknowledgment that there's anything in his approach that needs addressing. I'm sorry, but if you think he hasn't earned an indef at this point, you either didn't really put much effort into looking into the history of issues involving him, or you might as well just support the codification into WP:CIV of a standard that it doesn't apply to longterm contributors. Because arguably nobody has been wiping their ass with it longer and with less consequence than AndyTheGrump. Bluntly, it's an embarrassment for all of us on an equivalent level of Andy's own inability to control his temper. SnowRise let's rap03:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No diffs have been presented which would justify an indef. The OPs claim is that ATG followed them around by nominating two of their articles for deletion. That claim is not substantiated as nominating obviously deficient articles for deletion is not evidence of following someone around. At best we have some minor incivility which does not justify an indef. TarnishedPathtalk03:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per established procedure where actions off-wiki can be reported to Arbcom but are not a breach of Wikipedia policy. The diffs presented of on-wiki events do not warrant this sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we aren’t indeffing could we at least make it a little less of a slap on the wrist? Maybe a block of one year, with an indefinite block on the first offense (no matter how minor) after that? We cannot tolerate Andy racking up moderate infractions any more because he’s already racked up so many and refuses to change. My patience has personally run out, but I’d tolerate him if he can contribute without further incident. Dronebogus (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I do agree that some sort of non-small action definitely should be taken against ATG here. I feel that a one-week block is too small, but that a one-month block might be enough to turn them around. They edit everyday regularly enough that missing out on 30 days of editing would probably suck a lot. Also consider that they were blocked once previously for personal attacks last month, for 31-hrs, and the last blocks before those were more than 10 years ago, and so don't count towards my ban length decision here. From 31-hrs to 1-month seems like a good step up in length for repeat offending to me. — AP 499D25(talk)13:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't much care for taking sides in these kinds of things, but I am concerned that there is even a suggestion that an editor who, all agree, does a good job might be indefinitely banned because of comments they made off wiki about an editor who brought it here, and, per Moneytrees, has a long history of evading responsibility. This is not indef worthy. Also concerning would be the aninymous editor(s) who jumped on to this with talk of 'unblockables' to manipulate for some kind of decusive action. I don't think we should be manipulated. No indef for this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This attitude of “it’s okay for a good contributor to be abusive if their target is bad” attitude is why we’re here in the first place, and why we’ll back in a month if nothing is done. Dronebogus (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
39 comments from you and rising. If we are back in a month with something banworthy, we will deal with it then. But not for this. No, no, no. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not put up straw men. The oppose voters largely maintain that 1) off-wiki discussions are not in the purview of on-wiki behavioral norms, and 2) insufficient evidence has been presented of on-wiki incivility. Both of these are valid points, even if I'd disagree with their premises. I would suggest that your desired outcome is more likely if you find on-wiki diffs of incivility by ATG and present those. If no such diffs exist, it's time to accept that this isn't a "right vs wrong" situation, but just two groups with different interpretations of what the guidelines encompass. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - site ban for calling someone an imbecile is an overreaction. There are options to choose from between "do nothing" and "death penalty." There are options between "be perfect" and "be gone." Levivich (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the the argument for the site ban is a long-term pattern of incivility, not just this latest incident. Snow Rise sums it up best above. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, while calling somebody a gump is well worthy of a site ban and this user does so repeatedly on a daily basis, not piling on community pilings on frees up time to pursue other fresh meat. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - due to continuous pattern of OWH and insulting editors for no other reason than because he thinks he's right. The more I think about it, the more I realize that WPO is a worthless rag and waste of bandwidth. Purge this incessant drama for good by giving timeouts to both editors lasting until they can explain why they should be let back on. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quit trying to win content fights by bringing up the same nonsensical whining about what happens other places. If this was anywhere but WPO, people would be calling for heads due to doxxing. Lulfas (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Andy's on-wiki actions were nominating two subpar articles written by Lightburst to AfD and trying to bring one of those articles, on a minor, into some sort of BLP-compliance pending deletion. I'd be frustrated too. An indef for this particular incident is not warranted, in my opinion.-- Ponyobons mots15:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Andy has made it very clear over the years that he considers WP:CIVIL to not apply to himself. Any editing dispute can quickly turn into an excuse for him to insult, berate, and otherwise put down those who disagree with him. Carrying it over to WPO is just icing on the cake. I do not believe that the community must simply pretend it didn't happen because it's on another site, especially since what happend on WPO is just an extension of his behavior here. Enough is enough. His history of good editing should not allow him to ignore one of our central pillars. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite16:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the civility policy applies to everyone, and it dictates that all Wikipedia editors deserve dignity and respect from their colleagues. Publishing juvenile insults about a specific identified editor is unacceptable, and it does not magically become acceptable just because it's done on a "criticism" website. That's an absurd argument, just as absurd as arguing that recruiting editors to support your point of view isn't canvassing if you do it on Reddit. On that note Andy has also very clearly violated the sockpuppetry policy by recruiting users from WPO to support their deletion crusades. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:OWH matter or does it not? That’s what I’m wondering here. Either you can make abusive remarks off-wiki, because OWH is functionally toothless due to “not being our jurisdiction”, or you can’t, because it’s valid and enforceable. Dronebogus (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think having a plurality of edits (including trivial edits like agreements and jokes) in a very active discussion is bludgeoning— to me bludgeoning is a very narrow offense that consists of aggressively replying to every single opposing vote or statement. But everyone is clearly getting itchy in the trigger finger so I’ll back off now. Dronebogus (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been expressed multiple times - it’s one thing if it’s someone anonymously complaining on Reddit, or if their WPO account isn’t explicitly connected to their Wikipedia account. It’s something else entirely, and IMO sets a terrible precedent, if one is allowed to:
Go on a Wikipedia-focused site
Under their Wikipedia username
On an account that they expressly declare is the same person as their Wikipedia account
To repeatedly insult/belittle other editors
And does not receive any sort of sanction.
At least to me, it’s in effect letting one off on a near-technicality - the idea of “well, it’s the same person, and they’re personally attacking another editor, but because it’s not on Wikipedia itself it’s perfectly fine” seems ludicrous.
Again, this isn’t a call to police off-wiki behavior entirely - most of the time, such policing would venture into doxxing, and that’s obviously a non-starter. It just feels as if the “it wasn’t on Wikipedia” argument here is a weak/technical defense when ATG is explicit about his identity on both sites, and not to mention, is wholly unapologetic of his comments. TheKip(contribs)18:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While some support longer block, some support shorter block, there is clearly we cannot got consensus on WP:ANI since there are too many users trying to purpose different length of their block. Why not turn this hot potato to Arbcom?---Lemonaka03:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems that the community is divided on this issue and is unlikely to resolve it so it should be escalated to ArbCom. Lightoil (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil No, nearly any consensus got may annoy some users in the community, due to the complex behaviour of AndyTheGrump. While arbcom can make a whole review of all these incidents, one by one. -Lemonaka07:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was already proposed and closed. If somebody wants to make a case request, then make it. ANI consensus is not a prior or relevant requirement. Bon courage (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above two comments. It's not how it works. Community needs to do the work. There is actually no deferring to Arbcom, which is the final instance and for the final instance to activate the previous ones need to be exhausted. For an Arbcom case to begin, the community needs to have tried and failed. That's not the same as saying "we were half-way done, and were trying, and some of us thought we might be failing, so we decided to turn this hot potato over to you". No. You need to actually, palpably, fail. This section should be closed.—Alalch E.09:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d agree this is an invalid attempt to use ArbCom to deal with problems the community doesn’t want to deal with, even when it’s in their court; it’s already been discussed anyway. I don’t doubt it will eventually end up at ArbCom without a community ban, but even I think it’s too early, especially when there is a mounting consensus for some kind of block. Dronebogus (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and I would close this subsection – we've already discussed this previously below. I agree with what User:Alalch E. said, let's only go to Arbcom if this thread truly can't be closed without some form of consensus in one way or another. — AP 499D25(talk)12:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps only marginally related to the above, but per @Moneytrees:atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightburst: If this had been discovered at the time, the Lightburst account would have been indefinitely blocked. LB was engaged in votestacking at AFD and at RFA. The fact that it wasn't noticed until just now means a block would be punitive, but I don't feel like we should just act like it never happened. Frankly I'm profoundly disappointed, whatever differences LB and myself have had, I didn't expect this. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think a more in depth discussion of Lightburst's behavior is also warranted, particularly WP:IDHT. AndytheGrump's behavior has been contemptible, but that doesn't mean their underlying point isn't valid. BilledMammal (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know I literally just said blocks aren't punitive, but this is proving the point about unblockables, and how experienced editors will get less sanctions than newbies. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)23:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of a long, complicated oration about how this is a regrettable and shameful betrayal of the community's trust: "lmao". jp×g🗯️23:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't really know why this is in question at all, but I believe Moneytrees to be a thoughtful editor and a good arbitrator who is actively trying to promote the best interests of the project and the safety of its editors. And I am supposed to believe he is maliciously persecuting Lightburst??? See, this is why we need Wikipediocracy. It's not just the lèse-majesté of a credibly accused sockmaster making an accusation like that. I like a bit of lèse-majesté myself, sometimes, with a nice wine and a bit of cheese. I am sorry. I will come back when I have stopped laughing. A sitting Arbitrator is competent to make that finding. Of course he is. Lightburst really should be quiet now for the sake of his own dignity, and should get something just for being here after spending all day flouncing out, and being here to trash-talk an honest Arbitrator to boot.
Support. Seems preventative, allows that Lightburst hasn't socked in four years, but has teeth if there's recidivism. (I didn't realize WP:3X only applies if the sockmaster has already been indeffed.) EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is 100% BS, and Moneytrees has no integrity. Moneytrees used 4 year old inferences to convict me in absentia. JSS, you lost your arb flag for your participation on WPO, and now you are degrading the office of admin by taking your marching orders from WPO with this meaningless proposal. I only have one account, please check. This is my last day on the project, and you can insult and dox some other editor who wants??? to volunteer. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought there was in effect such a restriction on all of us, absent good reason, a declaration, and no double-dipping in discussions? So: duh? Yngvadottir (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is extremely poor behavior. I know Lightburst believes this SPI was done incorrectly, but assuming that this is a correct finding that's definitely something that cannot happen again. CREEDIXMO(TALK)00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sockpuppetry is sockpuppetry, and even if this happened years ago, it would still be preventative to put Lightburst on a one-account restriction per this precedent. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lightburst says they have left the project, scrambling their password on the way out, which mean there is little or no practical value in pursuing this proposal. Can we close it and move on to other things? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never would have expected this.[sarcasm] - ZLEAT\C
Support precisely because the Lightburst account has allegedly been retired. A one-account restriction will be a useful reference should they attempt to avoid further scrutiny by editing under another account. And listen, I completely believe Moneytrees. Insulting their integrity is garbage behavior. Confession time: I drafted a Wm/LB SPI report in 2020 and didn't file it because I got sidetracked by the global pandemic, then didn't bother later because the Wm account stopped editing. Same evidence plus some IP info from logged-out editing. Absolutely slam dunk obvious sockpuppet behavior. Would have saved a lot of time and hassle if I had filed in 2020, so my apologies for not doing my duty then. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can't be the only one who suspects that Lightburst may not have scrambled their password username (?). Regardless, they did violate the community's trust, and if they decide to return, they should be restricted to a single account. This obviously does not change my opinion of Andy's actions. - ZLEAT\C02:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Indignant Flamingo. you have always been so mean to me. I have not quite closed the door at the moment and I corrected the username gaffe. FTR your report would not have revealed anything about at all about socks. I encourage you to file an SPI report. Lightburst (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You know, there's no reason the Badsites Brigade can't link to Wikipedia's own masterful article on the dastardly website in question. Here, I'll do it: Wikipediocracy. Don't type it three times, though.Dan Murphy (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert that is certainly an aspersion. I have no history of evasive conduct. You are usually much more careful with your words. Lightburst (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I’m impressed with the ballsiness of someone being scrutinized for their unacceptable behavior dancing on the line of acceptability. That doesn’t mean I condone it. This is exactly why you should be blocked— this impunity, your belief that you can say whatever you want in the middle of an ANI case against you with zero consequences or even raucous support. Dronebogus (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I'd go further insofar that if they would have been indeffed back then, why aren't they now? Socking is one of the biggest betrayals of community trust and I'd think that they should go through the process of having to request having a block lifted after a period of time like anyone else who has been found to have inappropriately used a sock. TarnishedPathtalk04:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
look I am obviously angry over the MT conclusion. I never have had or plan to have a second account. I was very upset over an SPI report with like five year old inferences. Imagine DoRD already communicated with me years ago over a shared computer, and then MT comes back years later and changes the outcome. It was out of left field. Lightburst (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support at a minimum and SUpport CBAN. Blocking would indeed have been punitive as JSS has noted, but as far as I know no such restriction exists for community bans. Their comments in this thread alone, as well as the alleged password scrambling antics, indicate to me that they are no longer interested in contributing constructively, and therefore I also support a CBAN. Pinguinn🐧08:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confused Aren't we only supposed to have one account anyway unless they're WP:GOODSOCK accounts? So, is the proposal really saying Lightburst can't have a GOODSOCK account? DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on a technical basis because we aren’t supposed to have more than one account unless it’s a GOODSOCK, which LB obviously isn’t using. So this is like telling a robber they aren’t allowed to steal. Dronebogus (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Query. I realize now that I know even less about wikipolitics than I initially thought. I'll be asking a few questions (in my own userspace) once this has all been resolved. My pressing question is: what precisely is a 'one account restriction'? I was under the impression that we were permitted only one account (unless, for example, an admin testing account). *Flees from this noticeboard and scurries back to WikiProject Denmark* Svampesky (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can have multiple accounts if they’re disclosed appropriately. I think some people have like one for mobile or something; others just have them because reasons. Why we’re arguing about whether a sockpuppeteer can have such an account is beyond me. Dronebogus (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of question whether they will be back, but with LB it’s hard to tell. Add on socking and subsequent denial and we’ve got a whole new can of worms. Dronebogus (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this will be necessary regardless of whether the proposal below passes. This is because if they do appeal successfully it will automatically prevent any new litigation over new accounts. No messing. ——Serial Number 5412912:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This gram of flesh is more performative than anything else--a way to say "See, they're contrite and have suffered a sanction". A sanction for the sake of a sanction (I don't feel like we should just act like it never happen is pointless. If Lightburst decides to sock illegitimately, this measure is hardly likely to stop them. On the other hand, if Lightburst needs a LEGITSOCK in the near future, this does harm but no good. Sincerely, Dilettante15:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since a few have asked: users are normally allowed to create multiple accounts, full stop. I have three. It's when they use multiple accounts problematically (as described by the sockpuppetry policy) that they may draw sanctions, and it's not that unusual for repeat multiple account offenders to be sanctioned with a single-account restriction, if their behaviour has not already warranted banning. I don't think it's the right move here, we're talking about an incident from five years ago with no evidence that any problem has continued past that report. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Just Step Sideways et al. Two things: 1; when I made this block I wasn't intending it to derail the discussion here, I've only read like 10% of it and I'm not sure of the block's relevance to the rest of it-- I discovered Lb's sock back in the middle of May, and only have had time to block it now. I didn't think he would deny it, as I think the evidence is pretty definitive, I thought he would admit it and apologize, and an ANI section or anything further wouldn't be necessary.And as far as I know, we were on good terms before? So I'm not sure if this discussion needs to happen here?
2; does this really address the problem though? Lb is right; This was ultimately about some socking that stopped four years ago. I purposefully didn't block Lb's main because I legitimately don't think it's fair in most cases to block someone for socking that old-- no matter how "big or small" they are. As far as I know, Lb hasn't socked since October 2020. But that's the thing.
He denies the socking here in the face of overwhelming evidence. He said in this talkpage message, where he "scrambled his password" (he is still arguing with people here as I type this though), that I didn't provide any evidence. There are over a hundred diffs which implicate him in the EIA I cited. "355"-- the socking is literally in the name, but Lb denies it. He accidentally admitted the socking with the screenshot he uploaded in 2019-- and any Commons admin can confirm this-- and now he's denying it. He says above that I have "no integrity". All I did was tell the truth. There were no rebuttals to what I said, just empty attacks and aspersions. I don't actually care if someone attacks me or whatever, But that's the thing.
Lightburst is anti-accountability and has evaded several sanctions because of this. This Tban is just another notch in that. In June 2019, under his previous username, he narrowly avoided an indefinite copyvio/disruptive editing block in this giant mess of an ANI thread (compare Levivich’s comments to this discussion), and then was later blocked for copyvios and edit warring; the comments at User talk:Lightburst/Archive 6-28-19 indicate nothing has changed over the years. An indef was only avoided because WP:CCI was mostly inactive at the time. Further copyright issues were found, and I know close paraphrasing continued into at least 2022. Then, there was the socking from 2019–2020. Then, there was the six month AfD Tban in November 2021, where Lightburst "retired" for just a bit over six months after the result. It seems like this was to dodge the sanction. Then there was the 2022 COI issues; Speaking on what I've seen as a functionary, Lb was cleared for it moving forwards and it deserved to go away, but if some of it had been brought up earlier in his editing career, I believe it is likely he would have been sanctioned. Then there was the 2023 AE warning for GENSEX/BLP issue, where Lb skirted a TBan. Then there was the May 2024 ANI thread on the same subject. Then there was the early 2024 RfA Tban vote; would that have passed if thegameplaying and votestacking was known about? If this edit warring to add suppressed content at RTH's RfA had been cited? If this oppose from Spicy's RfA had been cited?
Review the discussions I have cited, little has changed over five years when it comes to the way Lightburst interacts with others. Look up "lightburst" through the archives of ANI, or any WP: space, for the last few years, and you will find plenty of other warnings, examples of evasive and uncollegial behavior, unnecessary attacks, and nonsense aspirations, directed towards editors new and old. This is happening in this very discussion right now. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR have been violated a million times over, there have been countless pointless dramas, and it is a tragedy that so much time has been sunk over someone who is only partially here in good faith, and should’ve already been blocked three or four times over. Anyone who is a regular at Wikipedia noticeboards knows this, and something is only happening now because I have the “time” and "evidence" and the "social capital" (the only time I'll ever say that phrase) to say something and be "safe" afterwards. And that's not fair for anyone else, it's against the spirit of this website. I rarely post to ANI because I hate writing at length about this kind of stuff, but that's what this kind of drama does; it wastes time, it drains people. Lb has been harassed, and there has been bad conduct from various other parties, but that does not justify the attacks and the evasiveness.
I want to give leeway to Lb, who is someone I see as a contrarian, which I think we need more of. We need editors who can say the unpopular thing, or point out the overlooked error, or the unfair policy. But there is overwhelming evidence that that is not the role Lb has ever played. I do not trust Lightburst when they say they are not coming back, so I think he should be either community banned, or topic banned from everything sans uncontroversial GA and DYK work. We need to end some of these narratives of people getting away with things again, and again, and again. It’s not cool that there’s one rule for people who know how to “play the game”, and another for those that don’t. That does not preclude anything else going on in these discussions-- please don't let this derail them, because that would go against the point I'm trying to get across right now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)09:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really that damning. It's very easy to create a new account, follow someone around and agree with them on various things, and then -- viola! -- an EIA that looks "damning." The EIA isn't Money's only evidence -- there's apparently a deleted Commons upload, for example -- but EIA's are very easy to joe job. Levivich (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I spent a while yesterday reviewing the connection between Lightburst and Wm335td, and the evidence I found (not the same as Moneytrees' evidence) makes me basically 100% sure they are the same person. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have only been editing since Sept 2018 and I guess it is clear I was not very good. We should be proud that our systems work because like everyone, I am a work in progress.
5 months after I started editing I was accused of CCI. - it never happened again
8 months after I started editing, I was blocked for edit warring a blockquote - it never happened again
3 years after I started editing the community did not like the way I operated in deletion discussions - I was TBanned for 6 mos - It never happened again
3 years after I started I was accused of a COI - a functionary decided I did not have a COI - Moneytrees disagrees wants it reopened? More about that later - anyway it never happened again
Last year I was warned about Gensex after I questioned a hook we were going to run at DYK about a trans person - I never did that again.
My RFA behavior - I will own it. I stick up for the minority voters and I also vote angular to the majority sometimes - Not really sure what else to say about it, but I vote my conscience and it irks some editors
Some of this - I am not even sure how to respond to what seems like hyperbole and aspersions evasive and uncollegial behavior, unnecessary attacks, and nonsense aspirations, directed towards editors new and old. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR have been violated a million times over...countless pointless dramas and some editorializing like skirted a TBan, and - dodge the sanction
And now a full 6 years after I started editing, I have gotten pretty good at it. But Moneytrees goes all the way back to the start. And back to a five year old closed case, where the presiding admin did not accuse me of being a sockmaster and took no action against me. On their own, Moneytrees reopens this closed case and labels me the sockmaster. Next Moneytrees connects me to a username that has guitar numbers in it; the folks at WPO are always talking about my alleged guitar collection. Do you know how many 300 series guitars there are, just in the Gibson line? The ones I can remember: 320, 330, 333, 335, 339, 340, 340, 345, 347, 355, 359, 369, 390. Then all the other guitar companies that have 300 series? And cars? And who knows what other significant numerical combinations are relevant to an individual? Also this connected account has been dormant for four years? The other evidence is that this account edited in areas where I edited. And the screenshot? I remember sending a screenshot to the admin (five years ago) to show the locked screen on a shared computer because the browser was locked.
So we have inferences and a five year old closed case that Moneytrees was compelled reopen and overturn. I am wondering why is Moneytrees is going back so far to reopen a 5 year old case about me. And then insted of just defending the sock investigation, they bring up all of these old cases where my editing and behavior was improved by the process? Why now, and why is this seemingly directly from the WPO's longstanding socking accusation against me - and with the same exact accusation? And why is Moneytrees trying to connect me to a dormant account on slim evidence. Again this is from a half a decade ago. And now moneytrees has indicated they would want to overturn the results of the COI conclusion? This exact COI claim is a long running accusation against me on WPO. So thanks to all who made me a better editor, everyday is a new opportunity to learn. Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Removal of Lightburst's autopatrolled right[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is clear that Lightburst has created two very obviously deficient articles given the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Robertson (musician) and the extremely likely result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort. Given that it's not clear to me that their articles should be marked as automatically patrolled and I think that any future articles they create should be subject to the usual NPP. They've stated on their user talk that they've scrambled their username (Not sure what that means. Do they mean password?) and left the project, however I don't think we can guarantee that they won't be back and I don't think we should leave to chance. TarnishedPathtalk04:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an overreaction. Check my contributions before making a proposal. Would you propose that I unreview the GAs that I have reviewed, or unreview the hundreds of articles I approved during new page patrols? Or maybe that I not be allowed to review and promote content to the main page as I have done almost 500 times? At this point you are being punitive. Lightburst (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that that AfD/article is fixable (at least on current evidence), but I agree with the general comment that the article was a less egregious failure. Yet it has existed for a year and the creator is now saying they don't have time to go looking for sources to show notability. After it has existed a year. It should not have been created without such sourcing by an auto patrolled user. So no, they should not keep autopatrolled. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: This Bent's article may be a close call, but as I said, I have worked with Lightburst and they are competent. If they applied for the NPP perm without the backdrop of this place it would probably be granted. Bruxton (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point that another editor is fixing it now is actually a point in favor of removing autopatrolled. Autopatrolled has no effect on the actual editor, if LB isn't really retiring it seems clear his creations benefit from being reviwed by others. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose anything else you want to bring up? Have you checked if Lightburst has ever made any spelling mistakes? Are they up to date with their taxes? Any outstanding parking tickets? Would you have ever brought this issue to ANI if they hadn't had the audacity to criticise ATG? This is a very obvious attempt at obfuscating the issue at hand, which is ATG's conduct. It should not be Lightburst's contributions that are under examination here, but the way they are being targeted by a WP:TAGTEAM organising off-wiki - and this just proves that point. Make a new thread if you are so concerned, and let the issue of ATG remain the topic here. Orange sticker (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When I posted about their NPP, I thought maybe I should check whether they were autopatrolled. Thanks are due to Carrite for improving one of the articles, but Lightburst is wholly responsible for their quality when they moved them to mainspace. Like any editor starting a new article, it was up to them to demonstrate notability and to make sure the article reflected the sources, followed BLP rules, and didn't contain embarrassing errors; or at least to catch and fixdeficiencies as soon as possible. Most editors don't have the autopatrol right, which is for the benefit of NPPers so they can skip articles by such editors if they choose to, because those editors can be trusted to almost always get it right. Lightburst has been getting it wrong, or been in too much of a hurry to mainspace their work, or something. Whatever's happened, their articles should be checked as is usual for new articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this will be necessary regardless of whether the proposal below passes. This is because if they do appeal successfully it will automatically grandfather in. No messing. ——Serial Number 5412912:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on a technical basis LB is a sockpuppeteer. He shouldn’t be coming back ever unless he sufficiently apologizes for his bad behavior so throwing a minor sanction on top of a very likely CBAN is pointless, borderline punitive. It could be part of their unblock conditions that they will lose not only autopatrol but arguably even the ability to create pages, but that’s purely hypothetical. Dronebogus (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I created the below section after Moneytrees report, because until that time I didn't think about proposing a CBAN. When I created this section what I was clear on was that there were two AFDs for shocking articles and when looking at the articles I saw purple ticks, indicating that they had been created by an autopatrolled editor. TarnishedPathtalk12:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to do this - it has no actual effect on LB, and the consensus seems quite clear - when I realized (a) Lightburst probably thinks I'm biased against him, and (b) due to my post below, everyone else probably thinks I'm biased for him. I don't think I'm involved, but it would still probably be unwise. But someone uninvolved should enact consensus here, to prune the open subthreads on this mess. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Two articles. Two obviously deficient articles that have no place in this encyclopedia, but I am far from convinced this is a long-term problem. Queen of Heartstalk17:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This merely means that articles they create will get looked at by NPP. This is the norm in Wikipedia, not some type of severe measure. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support/this doesn't actually need a vote anyway Any single admin can take a look at users' page creations and determine whehter they should have the autopatrolled right, it isn't a big deal to revoke it as it doesn't have any actual effect on the users' ability to edit or create new pages, but it does seem there is a grwoing consensus here to revoke it, so if LB should want it back in the future it would need that would need approval from the community. From what I've seen I do think his creations benefit from being reviewed by others and if it were up to me I'd revoke it. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no consensus for a community ban (WP:CBAN) at this time and it seems unlikely that even a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS will be established with additional time. Also noting that there was a perm revocation and an account restriction (sanctions imposed elsewhere in this thread). Accordingly, I am closing this proposal at the minimal time requirement (a few hours early in fact) as having failed to pass. El_C05:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would really prefer someone merging the sections. All it did for the above sections was create a false appearance of consensus against. Just make one "Sanctions on ATG" section and one "Sanctions on Lightburst" Soni (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, blocks and bans should be preventative, not punitive. The socking took place four years ago, so "warning" Lightburst with a one-account restriction should be enough, barring evidence of more recent socking. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby My comment is supporting a preventive ban, independent of the socking. There’s years of evidence of disruptive behavior which Lb has continued to engage in— the socking revelation just brought more of it out. So a ban is not punitive. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)10:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really feel like these multiple proposals to sanction Lightburst, regardless of their individual merits, are not in good faith, and seem like a blatant attempt at obfuscation and possibly also intimidation to show the consequences of criticising ATG. This entire thread has long stopped being productive and now reflects incredibly badly on the community as a whole. Orange sticker (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Orange sticker, I would have went straight with this proposal if Moneytrees had written the comment I reference above before I proposed the the removal of autopatrolled. There's no bad faith here at all. I'd presume that most editors know that when they file a report here that it could very well turn into a WP:BOOMERANG because their own actions will also be subjected to scrutiny. I'd suggest you strike your WP:ABF. TarnishedPathtalk11:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boomerangs usually come as a result of the reporter's conduct in the thread itself or the edits/articles being disputed, it seems here there's been an attempt to rake up old dirt. The timing of the SPI is very strange and the counter accusations do seem to be successfully distracting from ATG's ongoing poor conduct, so I stand by my belief this is an example of bad faith reporting. Orange sticker (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not bad faith reporting. And the counter accusations do seem to be successfully distracting from ATG's ongoing poor conduct, is simply not true as evidenced by at least a dozen comments/!votes being made today (so far), in the sections pertaining to the proposals for ATG.Isaidnoway(talk)12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Support I believe that a ban for the misconduct of socking should be implemented as we ban socking editors regularly with WP:3X which does not apply to this case. Nevertheless, we should stop turning a blind eye to Lightburst's repeated misconduct, we should not continue to put up with such behavior just because they contribute to building an encyclopedia. Lightoil (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support CBAN with WP:STANDARDOFFER after 6 months (with a preference that a CU confirms this SPI, behaviourally or directly). Moneytrees gives strong evidence and Lightburst's accountability-evasion isn't something new. I am particularly reminded of ExclusiveEditor as a counter-example, where an editor willingly disclosed socking, was not disruptive at all since, and still had multiple admins oppose any unblocks. Here we have someone who clearly should have been blocked much before for various reasons, refuses to accept their socking, and continues to prove the unblockability. You do not handle that with "Okay now pinky promise to only have one account", you treat them like you would any other user caught socking. Otherwise what's the line Lightburst needs to cross to really get blocked? Soni (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer, with standard offer after six months. What Moneytrees detailed above suggests that the editor is a net negative to the project. TarnishedPathtalk10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support LB has already been T-Banned in the last couple of years for disruption; They are the bull that has been in the arena more than twenty minutes. I'm not sure that six months will be enough, to be honest: several of these problems, including those with ARS and deletion, as well as passive-aggressive incivility (see ANIs passim), go back well before my time and are still dragging editors back here on a semi-regular basis. I do not see a CBan as incompatible with PUNITIVE: indeed, policy regarding the latter makes no mention of the former, for the very reason that it only applies to blocks. And in this particular case, I could have supported an argument for a block on the grounds that not withstanding time passed, it was still preventative. Of future socking, of course. But that's by the by. The CBan is where it's at, and Moneytrees' indictment os convincing. Sorry LB! ——Serial Number 5412912:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal relates to a ban, not a block, and neither WP:NOPUNISH nor WP:BANPOL refer to punishment or punitive at all. So arguing that a ban needs to adhere to the conditions of a block is a misinterpretation. Probably wilful? Happy days! ——Serial Number 5412916:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a valid point that it's not explicitly required by policy, but WP:PUNISH (essay) well-describes why it may be worth acting as if it does in this case. Reasonable minds may, of course, differ. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support we have a zero tolerance policy on sockpuppeting. Unlike other things it’s not something you can ever “get away with” by not doing it for x years or having good contributions. Unless Lightburst openly admits and apologizes for betraying the community’s trust they have no business here. Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't, actually. First time and/or not very disruptive sockpuppetry is frequently met with just a short block or a warning. The standard offer is also often extended to sockpuppeteers, even serial offenders, meaning that they can expect an unblock after six months without abusing multiple accounts. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m putting LB in the “should know better” category. If it was some newbie, yes I’d let an isolated socking incident slide, but not such an established user as LB Dronebogus (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken the socking happened in 2019 and 2020. Lightburst started actively editing in late 2018. – Joe (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Without abusing multiple accounts" is not the only criteria when considering an unlock request, from what I've seen, they are also expected to acknowledge that they engaged in socking. So far, LB has not done that, and instead, has insisted that the didn't sock in spite of the overwhelming evidence.Isaidnoway(talk)12:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, had LB been blocked for sockpuppetry at the time, I doubt they would be extended the standard offer unless they admitted it. I was just commenting that our policy towards sockpuppetry is quite far from "zero tolerance".
Since they weren't blocked, however, I think it's easy to understand (without defending) why they didn't subsequently own up to it: doing so would have no benefit, and carry a substantial risk of getting them blocked after the fact, as is happening now. I'm sitting on the fence here but I think it's important to be clear that what Moneytree's has proposed is banning Lightburst for a long-term pattern of uncollegial behaviour and evading accountability – not for just sockpuppetry that happened four years ago. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees report detailed more than socking. If it was socking alone, it would still be problematic, because LB has refused to acknowledge it in the face of indisputable evidence. TarnishedPathtalk12:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Denying an accusation is not disruptive at all. It literally does not disrupt anybody from editing anything. "Admit it or we ban you!" is fucking witch hunt stuff. Way over the top. Levivich (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for creating needless drama- Lightburst is always the first to run to ANI when AtG does something they feel is bad, never hesitates to call for sanctions. The attacking of Moneytrees here is also telling. They have added "retired" banners to their userpage now rather than admit any wrongdoing of their own; at this point, we should assist them in that endeavor. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)13:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with that (I also have a still-open ANI thread here), but my support comes from the totality of the situation, including the user's own placing of a "retired" banner in the face of overwhelming votestacking accusations. FWIW, I have also supported the proposal for an indef of AtG. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)13:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The editor has left the project and disabled their account but they will come back. Let's presume that. I can not not presume it because I know what it feels like. I had also left the project by locking myself out impulsively. So ... how should Lightburst return? Can someone describe a plausible scenario of their return that is also a desirable scenario? I can only imagine one such scenario: A return to editing that coincides with a return to good standing. Lb should have something to appeal to be able to return. That's a much easier path for them to return than any alternative. Banning (or blocking) Lightburst is actually leaving the door for them to return. It signals: "When you decide to return, there is a clear process for you to use". A one-account restriction for a user who has locked themselves out is not a clear process. Imagine: "Hello, I am an editor who socked and refused to admit it, and was also disruptive in other ways, and I left and locked myself out of my account, and then I got a one account restriction, so now can you please lift the one-account restriction so that I can edit again using a new account, which will be my only account as my existing account is non-functional?" Total joke. We need to recognize here that locking yourself out is disruptive in itself, as it complicates things for everyone. The only way to come back is to appeal and say that the ban is no longer necessary because what will follow are only productive contributions, and that the editor has learned how not to repeat past mistakes, including that when they are under stress in the future or under threat of sanction, they will accept what's coming for them and not lock themselves out again.—Alalch E.12:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lightburst apparently scrambled their password and walked away. Do we take them at their word for this? Who's to say they don't create another account? The CBAN isn't on the account, but the person behind it. As with others here who support the block, regardless of the fact it happened 4 years ago, its not just the socking that's the issue. it's persistent behavior that's already led to a topic ban. I'm of course not against lifting the ban if implemented in 6 months, with the understanding that their behavior MUST change in order to continue to edit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, so the sock was found in May, hasn't edited in four years and no evidence LB has socked since October 2020 per Moneytrees. What problem are we solving besides punishing Lb for raising an issue at the noticeboard? This seems a ridiculous overreaction to this whole thread. StarMississippi13:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How should Lightburst return now that they have made themselves lose access to their account? Create a new account and start editing again, just like that? —Alalch E.13:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've had conflicts with Lightburst in the past, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt, but in my opinion Lightburst continuing to deny responsibility for socking in the face of basically overwhelming evidence that they did shows that they cannot be trusted. In order to continue to be a member of this community, they actually need to acknowledge and apologise for socking. There are also long-term competence issues with editing as demonstrated elsewhere in the thread. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we can't just have a modicum of grace here. LB has (if I understand correctly, I haven't visited WO to verify, but if I'm generally right then details don't matter) been at least partially outed fairly recently. Sure, they've created 2 articles on non-notable people, but that's not why we're talking about a cban. They're a gadfly - an inclusionist gadfly - and that drives people up a wall. Socking from 4 years ago is a useful thing to latch onto, but they're really being cbanned because they're annoying. I would like to live in a world where we don't indef Andy or cban LB, we just smooth the rough edges enough so we can continue to have contributions from both. WP:ANIWP:Votes for banning seems to be set up to only use sledge hammers, even when some WD40 is what's needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This entirely. While I believe Moneytrees' comment that they only read 10%, actioning a sock now that you found in May that was long stale even then is a bad look because regardless of how it was intended it comes across as looking for dirt on a reporter. Also, Lightburst's behavior now or in May is no different to ever. It's the same reason Andy likely won't be blocked either, oddly enough. (And yes, I say that as someone who believed Andy should face a short term but not indef block). StarMississippi15:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam, The outing violations weren't so recent, it happened in late 2021, or early 2022 I believe-- I don't think that changes the situation Lb is in much, as the current mentions of their identity amount to harassment via petty taunting. But, it does provide some more context as to why AtG and Lb would dislike each other so, and I think that's worth noting. I really hate the ANI trainwrecks and pile ons too-- this is the first Cban I've ever thrown my support behind-- but I feel like I'm being irresponsible by not saying anything, when I know there's a problem, and I see evidence that the problem is continuing unabated.
@Star Mississippi I'm glad to discuss this further with you-- I want to be totally transparent with everything I say here. I came across the sock by accident in May via the Checkuser exclusive Masz, which generates user similarity scores based off of editing/speech habits. When "scan" one user, it generates a list of 20 or so accounts in order of similarity. I was investigating a completely unrelated sock farm when I saw Lb and Wm come up as high similarity scores. There was no way the person I was looking at could be Lb, but I wasn't familiar with Wm, so I ran a scan on them. Lb and their previous username still ranked high, so I out of curiosity I looked into the connection, which resulted in the SPI. The other earlier socks are visible in the CU log. I was planning on blocking the account that week, but I got busy in real life and yesterday was finally the first day where I was able to sit down and action it. I was planning on blocking a series of other socks I had been investigating at the time, although that's been derailed by this Ani a bit unfortunately... I was hesitant because of this ANI thread though. But, I decided to go forwards, for two reasons; I thought that Lb would admit to the socking and things would basically go away from there, and that I've spent too much recently worrying about the optics of situations, and making the right "political" moves. I should be more honest and upfront than just sitting on things, because that's the best way to try and change things.
I've spent these last few months reading through a lot of the Arbcom archives and learning about the site's history. One thing I'm seeing is all these same narratives recurring over and over again. The offsite drama between some critic forum and some ARS editor they don't like. Unnecessary attacks and outing over various article details. New people coming in, being contrarian for a bit, and then eventually falling in with the groups they used to criticize. I now know stuff other editors don't-- I think that makes it my responsibility to try and fix things and help where I can, if that makes sense. Context and understanding is key in what it explains
"Also, Lightburst's behavior now or in May is no different to ever. It's the same reason Andy likely won't be blocked either, oddly enough."-- That's basically my rationale for the ban. The socking is just one small part of the story. There's the three dodged indefs for copyvio, the one for COI, and the one for socking. for I won't further belabor my points-- I think people know the diffs and my position, and if people think a lesser sanction is good then reasonable minds can differ. I am unconvinced we won't be in a similar situation within the next four months, but that's how it is sometimes... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)00:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a net negative to the project. Moneytrees linked to the old CCI discussion, and I see in re-reading it that I argued then that the copyvio issues were significant enough that LB should've been shown the door at that time. If anything, LB's behavior in the years since have only made it clearer that the drama they bring to WP outweighs any value. Grandpallama (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe we are going way too far with this proposal. I am sad to see a process that sprawls out looking for ways to punish, based on old news. I am not sure who would have enough street cred to survive this process. Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as obviously punitive. Also interesting is that the blocking admin "didn't have time" to take action for months, but found it hours after this unrelated report was made. Charcoal feather (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as punitive. I don't often agree with Lightburst. My only NPA violation was against them. However, the socking (if true) is ancient history; this prevents nothing. If I were Lightburst and were CBANned, I'd be more likely to sock (block/ban evasion is one of the most common reasons for socking, after all). If, in the future, it turns out they are still socking, I'll support a ban. Sincerely, Dilettante15:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging I've seen Serial Number's point that BANPOl does not mention punishing (though I was not aware of that prior to this). However, I still maintain that using blocks or bans to punish is contrary to their purpose. Sincerely, Dilettante17:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to neutral. I’m still feeling insulted and betrayed that Lightburst refuses to acknowledge he was engaging in socking but it’s obvious to me now the socking was not bad enough to justify an indef and neither is lying about it. If people think LB is sufficiently disruptive to ban him for general conduct that’s fair but I washed my hands of that crap a long time ago. Dronebogus (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose indef per Star Mississippi and Dilettante. Considering their sock hasn’t edited in almost half a decade, it doesn’t feel like it meets the bar for “chronic and intractable” behavior. That said, I’d support a temporary block/sanction, simply because sockpuppeting is a bright-line rule and they failed to disclose they used one. TheKip(contribs)17:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Weak support, regrettably. While I greatly appreciate Lightburst's DYK and GA work, I am unconvinced that this negates his copyvio, inability to not stir up drama, and sockpuppetry. Cheers, Queen of Heartstalk17:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - sockpuppetry from five years ago would be pretty much entirely irrelevant, if not for their obstinate denial of what was confirmed by a checkuser at the time, which has included a number of over-the-top personal attacks. It's also just such a waste of time when editors bring their WPO drama here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This isn't just about the old socking (although if they'd just admitted it we probably wouldn't be here), it is about the ridiculous amount of time the community has spent trying to get this user to drive between the lines. Their own "report" above details one instance after another where they caused needless drama, saying "this exact specific thing never happened again" doesn't cut it when the user just caused a different problem the next time around. And their attitude has always been terrible. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today18:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Overkill. Even though I'd be a fairly extreme deletionist and find LB a bit much at times, I don't think any of the incidents listed above individually deserve more than a weeks block, much less cumulatively an indef. LB is a net positive, and I can understand recent - at times - erratic behaviour given the off-site scrutiny, which is bound to be very upsetting, and perhaps perplexing given they are undoubtedly acting in good faith in their volunteer time. To put it another way, I really don't want LB's countless hours working here to be capped by a ban notice on his talk page, but at the same time, if he's going to choose to create articles on the edge of notability, then he has to choose his battles and accept that he in turn doesn't have to go nuclear for all. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Star Mississippi. LB is now subject to the 1 account restriction, and the socking is stale (albeit it would have been much better if they admitted it). I think that's enough, and the full indef CBAN looks a little punitive. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree that this feels like it is a bit too much of a reaction for the moment. There is no impending danger of disruption, so I think it's best to wait and see if the stern reactions and restrictions they are receiving here has a corrective effect. Curbon7 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but @Curbon7 I think that is a good point about stern reactions. Sometimes near misses need to happen as "wake up calls"-- it doesn't necessarily mean discussions were a waste of time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)00:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: could someone familiar with the multiple accounts involved summarize or detail the vote-stacking allegations? I would like to understand if it’s just one or two cases or something more extensive. Apologies if there’s already a link and I didn’t see it; there is a lot of text to wade through here. 28bytes (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@28bytes See the overlap here; there were six rfas double voted on in my count, and around 40 or so AfDs and a few other spare discussions. There are some AfDs that one account just made a listing edit at before the other one would vote though. That editing went from late 2019 to late 2020. That all said, I don’t think the socking alone is worth a ban, it’s more the history and pattern of further issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)01:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moneytrees I am not 100% confident how SPI internal processes works, but can (another) CU confirm this behavioural similarities? Even if the Checkuser tool is not used, I assume a CU looking at the same data and saying "Yeah this is beyond the level at which we consider it confirmed" would be much stronger proof. So far it's the analysis only from you I think? Soni (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Moneytrees did a great service in laying out the timeline of the duration and extent of our community's efforts to manage Lightburst. Despite butting heads with Lightburst a few times over the years over copyvio and source/text issues, I'm sympathetic to the defense that they are improving. That's undeniably true in some ways. But from my perspective, even though the best of their edits have improved, the worst seem stuck at the same level, for reasons that appear completely entangled with their approach to participation in the community. Like Floquenbeam, I wish there were some way to just make their worst 10% of edits more like their best 10%. That would be so great for the encyclopedia! But that doesn't seem to be one of our choices. So, considering the entirety of the evidence and reasoning in Moneytrees' presentation (not simply on the evidence of the Wm/LB socking situation, which I independently spotted years ago and have no new feelings about) I support a community ban. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The actions taken by this user warrant this sanction. Socking isn't ever acceptable, no matter when it happened. The evidence by Moneytrees is quote compelling. Let'srun (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for their continued deceptive behavior. The initial complaint filed against ATG had no merit to begin with, and was a bad faith report; getting pissed off because two of their subpar articles were rightfully nominated for deletion, doesn't merit a report being filed at ANI. And the accusation of canvassing is without merit as well, and is an example of deceptive behavior. And then in their report about Moneytrees report, they mention WPO three times as if there is some grand conspiracy against them, when the on-wiki evidence is clear and convincing documenting their deceptive behavior. They need a forced break from WP, and can come back in six months via the standard offer if they so choose.Isaidnoway(talk)06:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no merit to their complaint, which is why it is deceptive behavior. The intent of the complaint was for the community to believe something that was simply not true. They cited this diff as evidence. There is clearly nothing in that diff that was actionable. And the other evidence presented was canvassing with a link to WPO, which again, was clearly not canvassing. And you were one of the first to comment on the initial complaint, saying: I really don't see this point really deserving to be at ANI and I don't think it's fair to blame Andy for the canvassing. In my view, this bad faith report was a continuation of their deceptive behavior.Isaidnoway(talk)08:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have voted to CBAN Lightburst, but wanted to address this - And then in their report about Moneytrees report, they mention WPO three times as if there is some grand conspiracy against them. There kind of is. Some WPO users have doxxed Lightburst, and multiple others, troll him or monitor every edit he does. That is as close to a "grand conspiracy" as you get.
I personally think the monitoring is pretty warranted because I consider Lightburst's edits shoddy and their attitude towards fellow editors worse. And I completely understand with people who troll him. But there definitely are people actively malicious or worse specifically against them. Moneytrees is definitely not one of them, however. Soni (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen and heard about WPO, they have doxxed editors and administrator before, and monitoring/scrutinizing any edits on WP is kinda what they do. So there is no grand conspiracy against Lightburst.Isaidnoway(talk)08:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CBAN. The removal of NPP and patrolled rights, and one account restriction, is sufficient here. IMV LB is not a net-negative. It also appears the suspected socking finished 4 years ago; furthermore I am not convinced the EIA is the total slamdunk evidence it is being accepted as, with a number of the Afds showing up purely because LB had added them to the relevant discussion list (e.g. [37], [38], [39], [40]). ResonantDistortion07:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The removal of autopatrolled seems like enough. An indef cban which requires a community appeal is always the absolute worst-case scenario for any editor. Lb had a complaint and brought it here, and the community seems to have decided for whatever reason that Lb's colleagues are free to loudly call him an imbecile while standing around what amounts to the water cooler and in his earshot. Fine. Lb should at least be allowed to complain about it without the community deciding he's the problem. The problem is that we tolerate the water cooler and those with sufficient social capital here and there even enjoy it; they know they're safe. Or are they...? Mwahahahahaha...Valereee (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lb should at least be allowed to complain about it without the community deciding he's the problem. I know you're aware of BOOMERANG—though an essay, it's common practice and hardly something to complain about given it serves a necessary function. Also, the Mwahahahahah when talking about a highly active editor's block (or the potential blocks of numerous highly active editors who frequent the cooler) seems in poor taste, whether or not you agree with their conduct. Sincerely, Dilettante17:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mwahahahaha was a joke about people assuming they're safe from being doxxed or called imbeciles. It had nothing to do with people being blocked. Sorry for the miscommunication. Valereee (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although I reject the idea that any editor should be able to raise a complaint here with immunity, I don't believe this is the right step at this time. There are problems here, and let's be honest if this was a new editor they would have likely been blocked outright. Hopefully though Lb will listen to some of the concerns expressed here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°10:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: I obviously don't love the socking, but they haven't edit on those accounts in four years. This would be a very clear bad community ban to use evidence from 4 years ago to indefinitely block someone. If you want to propose a block do so based on other behaviour or something more recent. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support a community ban on this individual given the circumstances here and their horrible treatment of other people, myself included. Net negative. Acalamari13:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this feels punitive and over the top. I feel like the results of the SPI is being used as an excuse to punish an editor for unrelated things. They haven't used a sock for 4 years, and with this much public admonishment I doubt they would start doing it again. I was under the impression blocks are intended to change behaviour - if the behaviour has long changed then what's the point? BugGhost🦗👻14:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like overkill regarding the current situation. I discounted two of the items in the time line. Regarding "Failure to admit", IMO admitting should only demanded when admitting is a necessary to fixing a problem such as with ongoing bad behavior. And "wp:COI" is written so broadly and applies that nasty-in-the-real-world term to many common and benign situations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I appreciate that the timing can't really be helped, but the message sent is this: if you make a complaint about a vested contributor, we'll dig into your past and find a stick to beat you with. WP:BOOMERANG is a useful short-hand for dealing with bad-faith reports but it's also one step away from victim-blaming, and there's plenty of that in this thread. Mackensen(talk)23:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I recognize that Lightburst has never been an unambiguous net positive, and in the past, I have criticized him very strongly. But I've been watching his talk page for a long time, and, despite things being far from perfect, I have come to believe that he is making an effort to improve, and actually has been improving. What started this were some AfD issues, the remembrance of socking long-past, and non-admission of guilt. As for the first, it's historically a problem with the account, but as I say, things overall are improving. The second is far past its sell-by date, and as Mackensen says just above me, the third smells of victim-blaming. Of course, there's also bad will towards Lightburst over his style of opposing at RfA, but if that bothers people that much, a narrow TBAN would be a better fit, and it should be evaluated separately from any boomerang here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oppose ... tired of all these proposals to ban dedicated editors who do a lot of good work. Yes, there are rare cases where I would support a ban despite the good work in main space, but this is not one of those cases. ---Sluzzelintalk00:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: first choice. Changing my vote from first choice being a short block, because of the editor's recent comment that I think it was very sloppy for Moneytrees to trash my reputation based on what appears to be slipshod checkuser work, posted despite numerous people arguing that he should have another another chance. What does it say that he cannot even refrain from re-offending until this thread closes? And I am someone inclined to give credence to the possibility of actual innocence, and who was previously taking into account that they did indeed get mocked at Wikipediocracy. SMH. Note that when I have checked statements there about this editor, they have been quite true. But putting that to the side, it would have been very possible to maintain his innocence without attacking Moneytrees, even if Moneytrees was every bit as bad as he says, which I absolutely do not believe, by the way. As I have recently said in another context, editors need to be able to believe what other editors say, and gratuitous and apparently unfounded personal attacks, while a sanction for previous personal attacks is being considered, is so far over the bright line for me that I really see no other choice but to call for the removal of this waste of time. Elinruby (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't originally going to comment here, because despite the quarrels we've had onwiki, some small part of me has a kind of begrudging respect for Lightburst. His behavior is contrarian, belligerent, and more than a little frustrating, but there's something about his consistency and advocacy that I've been impressed by in the past. But then I saw a comment he left on Tamzin's talk page, in which he basically said "I was suspicious of your close of the ADL RfC because you're Jewish, but I guess it wasn't so bad so you're fine". That is a disgusting thing to say to a Jewish editor and, had I not had prior disputes with Lightburst in other areas, I would have felt fine immediately levelling a block for it. Lightburst's comment also reminded me of his previous warning at AE for his conduct in a GENSEX/BLP case, his personal attacks against other editors and refusal to treat trans people with dignity – for everyone here saying this is just about socking, it isn't. Look at all of the evidence in Moneytrees' comment linked at the top of this section. With a heavy heart, I support. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron I really like Tamzin! I stopped there to say that after seeing her work today below. I think you misunderstood. Here was my comment on Tamzin's page,
I saw your name today so I just stopped by to drop you a note. I raised an eyebrow when I saw you helped close the ADL discussion because of the star of David on your user page. However, I could not find fault with the close. Another thing, if I had been actively editing when you stood at RFA I would have opposed based on your political stance. But now, I would not oppose a Tamzin RFA. Have a great weekend!
"I was suspicious of your close of the ADL RfC because you're Jewish" seems an unfair interpretation. The Star of David is a symbol of Israel (and many other things) not just Judaism, and I think it'd be unsurprising for someone to raise an eyebrow at someone with a Star of David on their userpage (or a Palestinian flag) closing the ADL discussion. (I did.) Nowhere does he say anything about being "suspicious," that's not what "raised an eyebrow" means. It seems to me a positive message and I'm surprised that you're interpreting it as a negative message, so much so as to support a siteban over it. Levivich (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Raised an eyebrow can mean surprise or disapproval. Either way he had no business mentioning the Star of David in the first place. And there were three admins who closed that RfC, but he only chose to "compliment" one on the panel, the one who happened to have a Star of David on their userpage? In my view, it shows a poor lack of judgement and a lack of awareness that comments like that may be interpreted as inappropriate.Isaidnoway(talk)14:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's inappropriate about saying "I thought because you have the symbol of the state of Israel on your userpage that your close of the ADL-Israel discussion would be biased, but I found it free of bias, good job"? (By the way, I think it's a cool tattoo and I understand it is not a pro-Israel statement in any way, but I can also see how some would misinterpret it as such.) That doesn't strike me as siteban-worthy. Socially awkward, yes, but that's not siteban-worthy. Levivich (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t a symbol of the state of Israel. Israel has on its flag a symbol of Judaism, but that doesn’t transform the Star of David into an Israeli symbol any more than Islamic Shahada is a Saudi symbol (shudders). nableezy - 14:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt LB is an antisemite. Everyone’s a little on edge about Israel/Palestine because of the war in Gaza, it’s understandable to be paranoid about people’s motivations in the area. This section seems unproductive and should probably be collapsed. Also, @Levivich: please make the Israeli flag smaller or just link to it; I thought the page had been vandalized. Dronebogus (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support such if all they're doing is causing conflict in the area. While we're on the topic how long should this last? I'd recommend at least 6 months. --NYC Guru (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has (Redacted) free pass eventually expired. Gets caught socking. Nothing happens. Get caught violating copyright. Nothing happens. Get caught writing about his friends and then lies about it. Nothing happens. Falsely accuses others of outing and gets an admin to oversight a change of signature. A full ban is in order but will be redundant since (Redacted) has absolutely no respect for anything but his own ego. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't figure out where in this mess of a thread is the appropriate spot to say that MoneyTrees' post is compelling that LB could or should have been blocked indefinitely for various reasons at multiple points in the past; the evident aggression and evasiveness of LB's responses seems like a good reason to make up for those oversights and impose a sanction now that will prevent the various problematic behaviors from continuing. I am ambivalent about what exactly the appropriate sanction would be. --JBL (talk) 23:51, 13 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.
Putting aside the earlier issues (discussed above) that Moneytrees brought up, Lightburst casted, during this very ANI discussion, multiple aspersions and personal attacks, most notably at Special:Diff/1233811486 and Special:Diff/1233802881. Civility norms apply to every user, and a short block could dissuade Lightburst from continuing this behavior. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC) (Edit 15:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC): The proposal originally suggested one week, I have left more flexibility around the duration based on comments below.)[reply]
Support, for at least a week and possibly longer, for all the reasons given above if the WP:CBAN doesn't get up. TarnishedPathtalk14:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)(Edit 15:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC): I've adjusted my comment as the proposer has adjusted their proposal).[reply]
Oppose those two remarks are heated but excusable in context. They weren’t at the level of name-calling or severe attacks on character. If AtG’s persistent incivility gets a 1 week block, this barely reaches the level of a warning. And do we really need any more proposed sanctions in this one thread? Dronebogus (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does Lightburst have a similar record of incivility as ATG? If so, I would support (what's good for the goose is good for the gander), though might suggest a shorter block if LB has not had one before. If LB does not have a history of PA, then I'd oppose as punitive; editors do lose their cools sometimes, but as long as 1) it's not an ongoing pattern, and 2) they step back and stop after being called on it, there's no need for a block. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby I was thinking 31 hours, if there's a pattern. As for other material, @TarnishedPath, this proposal specified NPA. We could expand the scope, but if you're referring to the socking, it's four years old, there's no evidence of further socking, and so the behavior seems to already be changed, so there's no point in a block intended to change behavior. Were there other elements to that report that I missed? EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask you, then, what behaviors in Moneytrees' report concern you that you've seen repeated? The recent links I saw were either about RfA behavior, or a resolved GENSEX dispute. What's the current disruption you think the block will help with? EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Monetrees report he stated that there had been "examples of evasive and uncollegial behavior, unnecessary attacks, and nonsense aspirations, directed towards editors new and old". If I'm to believe Moneytrees and I do, that behaviour continued into this discussion with LB's continued aspersion casting that Moneytrees "has no integrity". TarnishedPathtalk00:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of belief. The community cannot judge evidence that has not been presented. Hearseay has never been a substitute for diffs. If there's information that cannot be made public, it should be sent to ARBCOM per procedure, and ARBCOM can judge and take action as necessary. The aspersion you mention has, as discussed above, been struck. I will allow that the denial of socking could be interpreted as evasive behavior. But it is plausible that LB might be innocent, and so denials could be unvarnished truth. (E.g., joe job.) I'm also not sure what policy or guideline "being evasive" breaches. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just saw this, I will strike my angry comments. I think I got both of those - sorry. I was pretty riled up and I should know better. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understand, and I'm happy to see you acknowledge the issue. I don't think it's necessary to have this thread open for much longer since you've retracted the comments, especially given the number of ongoing threads. I'm not opposed to an uninvolved user closing it in light of this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, I appreciate you striking those comments. Are you ready to confirm that the accounts Moneytrees says are yours are in fact yours? I think a lot of people (not everyone, of course) are willing to put the sockpuppetry and vote-stacking in the rearview mirror and move on, since it was four years ago and doesn’t appear to have recurred. But we currently have a tension between what a checkuser says about these accounts and your initial response to those findings, and I think that tension needs to be resolved one way or another. 28bytes (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's reasonable to demand a confession. If LB were blocked and needed to convince the community, that'd be different. As it is, there's a possibility, however slim, that it was a joe job or misunderstanding or somesuch. If LB is being told that confession is a requirement for not being blocked, it's a Forced confession, and unlikely to yield credible information for the community. With the implemented one account restriction, I also don't see a confession (true or otherwise) changing LB's behavior. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had considered supporting this and if it comes up again at ANI I would support it. I oppose for now due to the apology and strike of the comments. --ARoseWolf20:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ARoseWolf I think that is a valid position, but possibly does not give enough weight to the fact that the comments were struck days into a mega-thread about them. If he had struck them within an hour or two I would probably agree with you. Elinruby (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Please see my oppose rationale for the CBAN above, which applies here as well. Expanding on one part of that, in terms of the NPA issues raised here, I will say again that we should steer clear of victim blaming. Getting upset over some partly unfair accusations and sounding off about it, followed later by apologizing and striking, does not justify a block. If the purpose of the proposed block is to make sure Lightburst gets the message that the community doesn't like what he said, he has demonstrably already gotten that message. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - (second choice to an indef) I actually think an indef would not be unwarranted, given the obnoxiousness of the behaviour, but I can also see how the editor may have felt a sense of impunity until now. I am however convinced that the editor is a net negative. Supporting this as the absolute minimum warranted by their remarks about Moneytrees, whose intervention I applaud, by the way, as well as the sentiments they expressed in doing so. I may cast a vote for in indef as first choice as well. Still torn between mercy and the good of the project. Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the best evidence against socking is a message spreading holiday cheers LB sent to seemingly half the community in 2021, including WM. [41] Also, this successful AfD of an article WM started. [42] (None of the 4 deleted pages started by WM were commented on by LB in the deletion discussions.) Anyway, I oppose sanctions. Though I will note that there is enough here that may look like a pattern if constructed poorly. While instances that could reasonably be construed as vote staking were a minority, the two accounts never disagreed -- even when consensus went the other way. JackTheSecond (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked very deeply into the socking, or I probably would not support the short block at all, just the indef. As to the socking, my position is that I believe Moneytrees and have not independently verified his findings because I consider that unnecessary. My position is entirely based on LB's behaviour in this thread. I initially refrained from voting because I had not myself encountered him at wikipedia. But AGF has a lot to answer for already when it comes to this user. Elinruby (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
28bytes I did not really do a deep dive into the analyzer but I did some checking after I saw your message. In the report Moneytrees said, From what I've seen, the accounts never voted differently from each other when voting togetherlink It turns out that is false because an editor pointed out that some of the AfD participation was me delsorting and then the WM account voting. Aat one time I delsorted every single AfD and I do mean all of them. And in the majority of AfDs I did not vote.
An editor found four AfDs where I sorted and did not vote Here is their link
How many more are there? You would expect a checkuser to know. But Moneytrees left me this provocative message when they dropped the report on my talk page: I guess I'll just ask; why the votestacking?link And when I protested they said If you're not Wm, how do you explain about every vote matching? So it appears they did not check links to see why links appeared on the analyzer. I do see some similar voting and editing, so I understand Moneytrees seeing two editors in the same AfDs or articles is something to look at but the Moneytrees socking and votestacking conclusions are wrong and irresponsible.
In the DoRd communication of 5 years ago, I had just started editing and I was using a shared computer because it had a 27" screen. I was never contacted by anyone from Wikipedia and was not part of any case, but I sent an email off somewhere because the computer was locked out. DoRD responded as the acting admin and I showed them a screenshot of the 27". When I told DoRD that I had a shared computer they said they could block me but they did not. They also did not warn me or even mention socking. But Moneytrees said in their report, Lb had been extensively warned for [socking]link I have never been warned for socking let alone "extensively warned". Why would Moneytrees say that? It is because of these conclusions that I have lost the trust of the community, the autopatrolled right, and I may yet be community banned or now blocked. I think it was very sloppy for Moneytrees to trash my reputation based on what appears to be slipshod checkuser work. Additionally, it shows an extreme lack of awareness, that Moneytrees sat on this report and chose to release when I was at ani about a WPO related issue.
Above Moneytrees unleashed a torrent of grievances about me. I am troubled that Moneytrees is a sitting arb who is comfortable actively campaigning for my ouster by saying I am unhinged, incompetent (Battleground and CIR have been violated a million times over) and more. It was surreal for me to read.
Finally, I emailed arbcom multiple times in May and June 2024 about WPO issues and Moneytrees is an arb so theoretically they would have received the emails. Arbcom as a whole basically ignored me. But then this checkuser report by Moneytrees landed and it uses the same five year old DoRD diff as evidence of my socking. The WPO has aslo been grinding about that same 5 year old DoRD diff for a long time so I found it curious that Moneytrees used it to put my name on a socking case. The Moneytrees report on ANI seemed to detail other WPO grievances too, like COI claims against me - claims which were already closed by General Notability. My reputation here will not recover from this but I stuck around to make sure nobody thought I was hiding. Lightburst (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Let's just move along and hat the works. This whole super super breathless dramah is stupid. (I can still call dramah "stupid", can't I???) Carrite (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the incivility, insinuations of bad faith and casting aspersion continues at Special:Diff/1234182567. The editor who was the subject of the filing has been blocked for a week for incivility, but it's all fine if LB does it because some WPO users have a beef with him? TarnishedPathtalk02:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When Lightburst says in this thread that: I think it was very sloppy for Moneytrees to trash my reputation based on what appears to be slipshod checkuser work, this is a fresh personal attack on an honest arbitrator posted since I voted for a short block thinking the editor might not have previously understood that the off-site criticism of him did in fact have a strong basis in policy, and so perhaps another chance was in order. Since he is re-offending before this thread even closes, I am changing my vote, for whatever it is worth, to first-choice indef. Perhaps he can learn something at simple or at Commons, although I am not holding my breath. Elinruby (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. And I was trying so hard to remove myself from this thread too. LB, I am not certain why you would invite me to strike your remarks. I would say that yes, sloppy, slipshod and trash my reputation are the stuff that personal attacks are made of, not to mention torrent of grievances, which I saw somewhere above, and which is definitely a personal attack when directed at a functionary who is supposed to remain neutral and as far as I can tell does a pretty good job at that. The insinuations that you improperly removed elsewhere without striking (this is all a wikipediocracy thing) are also PA-adjacent. Why would you ping me in the first place? I think you overestimate both your importance to me and the importance to other people of me switching my vote, as I had said all along I might. I have done my best to AGF here, and voted my conscience. I don't really believe that you are going to take a break from the project, since you have already failed to do so five or six times, but I don't really have anything else to say about the matter, although I am curious about this personal attack that was removed. Thank you to whoever did that, I guess. Either way, please do not ping me into this discussion again; I have all sorts of things that I should be doing other than contemplating whether you should be given an nth chance, especially since you have basically spit on the one some people here were trying to offer you. Whether you wind up at simple or Commons or are allowed to God help us continue what you are doing here, for your own good you should review WP:NPA, because your behaviour in this thread is making me wonder whether you fundamentally somehow do not understand the definition of the term. Free friendly advice: it would probably be a good idea to get some sleep at this point, and you have already been advised several times to stop talking. You are not doing yourself any favors Elinruby (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we calling every negative remark LB has made a personal attack after struggling to block AtG for a history of calling people idiots, morons, imbeciles, fuckwits, and grifters at every opportunity? Dronebogus (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - TP and Elin are two of the most active participants in the WPO thread about LB that is the subject of OP (where not just LB but DB and bunch of other editors are getting trash talked). I don't like it when people talk trash about someone off-wiki, then collude to try and get that person sanctioned on-wiki. Much of what's being called a personal attack here aren't actual personal attacks, I don't see anything recent that predates the trash talking thread on WPO, and the worst attacks are on WPO from some of the same people hypocritically calling for sanctions on-wiki for personal attacks. This whole thing is gross victim blaming and you all should be ashamed. And this is coming from the guy who raised complaints about LB socking and COI years ago before it was cool. But this episode is just embarrassing. He writes a couple deleted article and is descended upon by a clique from WPO and subject to all kinds of character assassination. "Slipshod" is a personal attack?! Give me a break. The one account restriction and pulled auto patrolled is enough. Dear WPO regulars: it's time to stop attacking Lightburst. Levivich (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe and here I thought I was just being paranoid when I reviewed my participation in the thread last night. I had commented almost not at all about this thread, actually, until I called for the Wikipediocracy thread to be moved to the private area. I did say "Again?" on reading that he had "retired". That remark came before saying it should be moved to the thread about "Wikipedians too embarrassing to discuss in public (because we don't want to throw them under the Google bus". So maybe Lightburst isn't the only one in this thread with a reading problem. Levivich is fairly smart, so I will say that *his* is probably "*not* reading. TarnishedPath can speak for himself but given it's midnight in Australia I'll point out on his behalf that be has just now broken into double digits over there and I don't recall a post about Lightburst being among them. I could be wrong though, maybe there was one or two. I can assure you that none of them "celebrated" anyone being sanctioned.Elinruby (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC) PS: My name is also not Elin; please don't call me that. El is acceptable if you don't want to type out all the syllables. Elinruby (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many times did you post in the WPO thread about LB that was started 4 days ago, which is the subject of this ANI complaint? Was it more than 10? More than 20? And how many of those posts were directly about LB?
Did you say in that thread that Andy calling LB an "imbecile" and an "idiot" was true, that truth is a defense to libel?
Somebody said they were going to take LB to Arbcom, and you said "the sooner you do it the better", didn't you?
Of course, LB isn't the only editor who you talked about in that thread, is he?
And I'm not asking about how many times you've posted in WPO threads about LB in general, including in the private forumsm, I am just asking about the one that was started a few days ago in the public forums, which is the specific subject of this OP.
Omg so it isn't that you haven't read. It's that you went looking for what you thought was dirt. What's your username over there? I will however answer before I go get coffee, although I am not going to look up exactly wording over this sort of trolling. a) pretty sure I already said it was once ("Again?") before I called for the thread to be moved. That would be twice. Assume my fast ctl-f missed something, nowhere near the yuck-fest you are insinuating. I have exclaimed several times in the past 24 hours in the members-only section, granted. b) I did not say it was true that anyone was an imbecile. I offered a journalism 101 adage. You are not going to bait me into commenting on imbecility. c) Yes, in the context of the private evidence getting through the email queue and how it would be good if the relevant parties did not have to go looking for it if and when the matter came up. As I clearly specified. d) No idea what you are talking about here. e) I took that down because it seemed stupid to have two parentheses in a row when nobody else was specifying their involvement. I stand by mine being none to just possibly minimal if we count "Again?"And of course none of what you just said is a personal attack either, right? Elinruby (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously claiming you only posted twice in that thread? You are either the #1 or #2 poster in that thread. I counted 16 posts from you over 4 days (I haven't checked today).
One of those posts, in response to someone writing "It’s not uncivil if he is an idiotic imbecile, though… Making a poorly sourced BLP about a kid and naming his non-notable minor siblings in the article is idiotic, imbecilic behaviour.", you wrote, "the first and primary defense against libel is truth, just saying." And now you say, I did not say it was true that anyone was an imbecile. I offered a journalism 101 adage. "I'm just offering an adage!"
The other editor you talked about in that thread is Dronebogus.
oh good criticizing other editors is not a personal attack? because I swear it feels like it *will* be if *I* do it. I can't fathom why you are sinking so much energy into the idea that Moneytrees does in fact lack integrity, but I think I will leave you to it. I suggest you re-read, because I said a) pretty sure I already said it was once ("Again?") before I called for the thread to be moved. You are smarter than this. I also literally did not type anything about ANYBODY being idiotic. The remark about libel is true, though. I don't recall saying anything about Dronebogus except "aha'. Well, just now I said that I had clicked on one of his Commons uploads, which are being discussed, and that I was sorry I had done so. As for 16, I didn't count, but I am pretty sure that you are counting a) emojis and b) people reacting to my wtf about "deletion crusades", which, while it is in the thread because it is in *this* thread, was not about Lightburst. It *is* ridiculous though. There are no deletion crusades. If there were I would not be in them because that is not what I do. But anyway, you've now misquoted me twice, which feels deliberate, and *is* a false statement about another editor, so yanno... you do you, but I am done trying to reason with you here. Elinruby (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: The closer can separate fact from fiction. Instead of commenting ad nauseum on other editor's motives, the nature of WPO, and privacy issues (which are not germane to the proposed short block to LB for NPA) let's avoid bloating the thread and trust the closer to do their job right. The truth will out. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is further evidence, if it was needed, that participation on sites like WPO does nothing but harm inter-user trust and divide the community against itself. Dronebogus (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is further evidence, if any is needed, that Wikipedia has lost its mind over civility when merely learning in a thread that another editor is in the habit of uploading bad porn cartoons to Wikimedia Commons is interpreted and talking bad about that editor. I also doubt that this is an honest reading of the thread, but the thing is half the people in *this* thread have their fingers in their ears and are chanting BADSITE BADSITE BADSITE so this is going to get enshrined in the record, so hey, if I supposedly say derogatory things about Dronebogus, I may was well actually SAY derogatory things about Dronebogus. The world does not need more dick pics and Wikimedia Commons in particular does not need more dick pics and yes it seems someone at Wikipediocracy has made fun of your drawing skills before, and you hold a grudge about that, enough so to defend someone who has cast aspersions in front of God and everyone else at an elected Wikipedia official who is has done nothing more than his honest best to do what he was elected to do. And I will probably get sanctioned for saying that Wikipedia has lost its mind, because Wikipedia has in fact lost its mind. I should not have to risk an incivility sanction to point out that some editors in this thread are simply not telling the truth and this does not appear to be an honest error. Please never defend me at ANI, Dronebogus. You have now derailed the thread to where it is about you. It is not about you, it is about how Lightburst talks to people, and his defensive unwillingness to accept criticism until he has a gun to his head. Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to paint everyone who participates at WPO with the same brush, and I do think it sometimes is useful. But I also have to say that if you've been participating in WPO threads that disparage your colleagues, quoting those disparaging remarks in a way that doesn't show disapproval, and celebrating when one of those colleagues gets sanctioned, and then you come into a discussion here about that colleague complaining about being disparaged on WPO, you probably should at minimum be transparent about the fact you were involved. Valereee (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrator I am quite certain that you would never say such a thing without the diffs to back it up. Looking around to see who you are talking about though, because I am not, actually, invested in this at all, either here or there. I initially supported a 31-hour block for casting aspersions at Moneytrees, and didn't change my vote to indef until he cast *more* aspersions at Moneytrees. I mean, are you actually saying that it is ok to make fact-free insinuations that a sitting arbitrator just has it in for LB and is lacking in integrity because spoke up in a proceeding? Surely not. I am off to get my own reading glasses checked. How could I ever think such a thing. I am quite certain you will be happy to disabuse me of the notion that you could ever make such a fact-free assertion as that. Elinruby (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea whether you ever participated in such a discussion, quoted disparaging remarks in a way that didn't show disapproval, or celebrated a sanction. As I said, if you [did so]...you probably should at minimum be transparent. And seriously, threre's a thread for colleagues too embarrassing to discuss in public, and people recommend -- in public and by user name -- that a thread should be moved there? Jeez. Again, not wanting to paint all of WPO with the same brush, but jeez. I feel like that's being cruel and calling it kindness. Valereee (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in public now, that was the whole point. Jeez yourself. However, I accept your apology for believing Levivich. Elinruby (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, El, just saying 'Let's move this thread about Lightburst to "Wikipedians too embarrassing to discuss in public (because we don't want to throw them under the Google bus)"' is throwing them under the google bus. It's telling the world 1. he's an embarrasment and 2. we'd really like to take off the gloves and 3. If you want to read the really juicy stuff, create an account.
Sarchasm is a good word. I assumed that that was what you were trying to do, based on your emphasis on "if". I didn't enunciate the entire name of the thread, btw. But that is its title. It does strike me as a good place for a discussion of this thread though, since you now seem to be saying that respect for another editor's privacy is a bad thing. But enough of this. I really need to go get these glasses checked, because surely not. Elinruby (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying I didn't enunciate the entire name of the thread, btw but about an hour ago you wrote That remark came before saying it should be moved to the thread about "Wikipedians too embarrassing to discuss in public (because we don't want to throw them under the Google bus".
Of course respect for another editor's privacy is a good thing. But the horses have left. If there's a thread publicly disparaging someone by name, and at some point someone suggests moving that thread to a private forum, it's too late. You're in many ways making things worse by calling attention to the fact there's a thread by that name and we're moving this discussion there. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vast respect unneeded, I have no idea how Google indexing works. :D But I don't think I said anything about Google indexing, other than to quote you on the name of the private forum? My point was that when a thread has done damage, announcing it's being moved to a private area doesn't mitigate that damage and may compound it. If someone has been disparaging a colleague around the water cooler for some period of time, it's not really a kindness to announce the conversation is being adjourned to the bar to be continued in a place slightly less public. I doubt there are many of this editor's colleagues who don't know how to follow the conversation to the bar if they want. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am accepting this as a genuine question and will come back to it with an explanation and some links for your perusal. For now. since it is the name or the forum that seems to be bothering you, let me see if this helps. You are an admin. Is some of the stuff you see not embarrassing? If not, what is revdel for? The name of the forum is irrelevant since it was not spoken in the then-public thread. You do understand that the thread where I said "yes, I think we should move the thread now" is no longer public, right? In some degree because I agreed with the person saying that it needed to be moved? So there is no post saying "Lightburst is an embarrassment to Wikipedia" hanging out in the public area, as you seem to be thinking. At least not as an immediate result of my comment; the thread has since split and I am not certain which posts are in what area, but I can assure you with complete confidence that any mention of LB's name is definitely in the private area. Now I am thirsty and need coffee. I will come back later and explain how indexing works if you still want to know. Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who started this proposal (and also voted to sanction AtG earlier), I do not have any kind of connection to WPO, and honestly don't hold this site in very high esteem. Lightburst did make personal attacks by saying that Moneytrees has no integrity and that Just Step Sideways was degrading the office of admin, but these have since been struck and this thread has been spinning out way past its intended purpose. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby: Sorry, to be clear, my comment was not at all directed at you or at this proposal (which I think was a reasonable proposal to make at the time it was made), it was mostly in response to the two comments directly preceding my vote. I agree with you that the two lines you quote were personal attacks (and I also agree with you that now that they have been struck, this thread is unnecessary). Levivich (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still no strike of your patently false statement. Do you plan on either providing evidence for your WP:ASPERSIONs or striking and admitting that you've made false and misleading statements about others? TarnishedPathtalk09:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any false or misleading statements, at least not that I'm aware of, or any aspersions, as my claims are all evidenced. To your earlier post, I didn't say you were trash-taking (and I already explained at your user talk page that in this case, that's a distinction without a difference), and the evidence of you colluding is your posts here and your posts there. I don't expect you to agree with my view of things, but I'm not going to strike it just because you disagree. Levivich (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made claims without sufficiently providing evidence to substantiate those claims. That is casting WP:ASPERSIONs and making false and misleading statements. You should strike your false claims. TarnishedPathtalk11:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You freaking have. If you want to talk about Wikipediocracy at least tell the truth. TarnishedPath's comments in the thread were a) it is ridiculous to portray this conversation as canvassing and b) Bishonen said Dronebogus is bludgeoning the thread. Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a second choice to a site ban. Yes, the socking is old news, but the fact he continues to deny he was socking, while casting aspersions about Moneytrees, shows a pattern of deception that is likely to continue.Isaidnoway(talk)14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Money made a bunch of aspersion in #Moneytrees report about Lightburst, no one seems to mind that. Let's remind ourselves of what the first sentence of WP:ASPERSIONS says: On Wikipedia, casting aspersions refers to a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. So, what exactly is the repeated or severe accusation of misbehavior without evidence? Because "sloppy, slipshod and trash my reputation" are not aspersions (or personal attacks). Those accusations were backed up with evidence (in some cases, admission). Levivich (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnecessary sanction that seems more like a consolation prize for failure to get a site ban, than a constructive solution. -- GreenC05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point. This proposal was exclusively about the personal attacks made in the ANI thread (which have since been struck), but editors are now treating it as an alternative to the site ban and restating the previous discussion topics, which is neither constructive nor its intended purpose. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - re: Lightburst's response, claiming an RFA where votes do not match. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GermanJoe, it's worth noting that while LB voted neutral in GermanJoe's RFA, they said: the candidate has 66.4% of edits in the main space, and that is the only reason I am not in the oppose camp at this time. and later: Zero article creation and I still did not oppose. But I am leaning oppose.. Nearly exactly 24 hours later, WM votes oppose with the similar reasoning: I see that there has been zero content creation by the candidate and no experience in conflict areas.. Also worth noting that there were 160 Supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals - both LB and WB were on the minority "non-support" side of the vote. This isn't evidence of contradicting behaviour between LB and WM. BugGhost🦗👻09:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clearly no consensus for this. Any serious attempt at establishing this type of policy or guideline should be run through the village pump, not tacked onto an already spiraling ANI thread. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per WP:OWH, can we establish that comments made by editors in forums related to Wikipedia about editors are covered by Wikipedia's civility rules? At times, our ability to enforce this may be limited, but turning a blind eye to it isn't conducive to a productive and congenial editing environment. BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever someone proposes this, one of two things happen.
a) Someone with a WPO account shows up to say "Strong Oppose requiring everyone to send ArbCom their screen names on every forum they post on"
b) Someone with a WPO thread shows up to say "Strong Support requiring everyone to send ArbCom their screen names on every forum they post on"
I would aver that both of these are extremely dumb, and we should instead establish some dead simple bar-is-on-the-floor baseline like:
"If you use the exact same screen name on a well-known offsite as you do here, and you're posting there about people you're beefing with on here, this is functionally the same as if you were saying it to them directly"
I don't think we need to set up some kind of Inquisition -- WPO serves some purpose and is not pure evil. It would be very dumb and paranoid to demand that everyone disclose their entire Internet posting career -- but it's deranged to have people just lean their heads out the window to shout сука блядь пиздец иди нахуй, it's obviously them, no sane person could possibly doubt that it was them saying this directly to the other person, and then they say "neener neener my head wasn't in the room so it wasn't against the rules". We came up with all kinds of stupid stuff like this in second grade, and by the end of second grade I think we figured out it was silly rules-lawyering. jp×g🗯️20:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's so much having the same username but rather the user here linking that the account there is theirs. Also it doesn't matter if it's WPO or Reddit, it's still disruptive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean: WPO, Reddit, Xanga, AIM, whatever. If I make a freaking YTMND called jpxg-enwp and say "yeah, that's me" and then go off on huge rants daily about how User:xXx_sephiroth_xXx aka Billy Bob Joe is an idiot deletionist twat, I feel like it requires some serious mental cartwheels to say that I, specifically, am not breaking any rules by doing this. Like, disregarding anything else -- if someone else responds with『👍』maybe that's in poor taste but who cares -- how could me saying that in public to all and sundry not be against the rules. jp×g🗯️21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support cracking down on off-wiki misconduct and abuse. Sites like WPO may not be “pure evil”, but they’re still used by big-name users to say what they really want to say about other users without fear of repercussions, and probably worse misbehaviors like canvassing and harassment as well. Dronebogus (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just exactly what is wrong with saying what you really want to say on a site that is not affiliated with Wikipedia, and takes a bit of effort to actually find some of the threads there? If you're venting on Twitter or Bluesky, those are highly public forums, and it's easy to run across something directed at you. WPO at least makes an attempt to keep some of the discussions for members only. What's next, saying that if you want to vent, it has to be on a Facebook post set to Only Me?--SarekOfVulcan (talk)21:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re on a site about Wikipedia, using your Wikipedia username, you’re one step away from outright saying it on Wikipedia. You’re only saying it there because you know it’s hurtful and/or defamatory but still want as many people as possible, who are colleagues of the target, to hear it. Can you not see how this is inappropriate and wrong? Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my proposal is the thing I said, not this other dumb thing you have made up.
"If you use the exact same screen name on a well-known offsite as you do here, and you're posting there about people you're beefing with on here, this is functionally the same as if you were saying it to them directly"
Is it really that difficult to just have the account on the shit-talking forum be named "John Doe" or whatever? I feel like even the most minimal imaginable token gesture is being given the same amount of resistance (and indeed met with the same response) as an expansive proposal. jp×g🗯️21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like this approach, especially because it's so easy to defend against. If someone says to me, "Hey, there's this account EducatedRedneck on this other platform, talking shit about editors you interacted with. Is this you?" All I have to do is say, "No." Even if I'm lying, that promotes civility within Wikipedia by, on-site only, disavowing incivility. This firmly establishes that, at least on Wikipedia, we cannot endorse harassing messages, just as we wouldn't allow racist dog whistles on a user page.
I also disagree that this is policing other websites. It is not. It is simply saying that if a user has obviously been linked to an external account, and that behaves in an uncivil manner, Wikipedia does not want an uncivil editor. There's nothing stopping them from saying what they want elsewhere, but as with all things in life, there are consequences for actions. If I go on a racist diatribe on X, which I acknowledge as me and do not disavow, I would expect to be indefed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it seems like a case-by-case basis thing. In general, it seems like the way WPO talks about people they dislike, and the gleeful doxxing of those people, is Kiwi Farms adjacent. In this specific instance, it seems like Andy gets a lot of support on WPO for being so rude and mean, which then causes issues on-wiki when he brings that same energy here. However, I could see an instance where someone is off-site in general, complaining about specific biases on Wikipedia or criticizing a specific user's on-wiki bigotry or any number of reasonable criticisms, and having that brought up for unrelated issues or disputes on-wiki. So while it may be useful to bring up off-wiki instances you see, by that point it would just serve as further evidence of a larger on-wiki issue. CREEDIXMO(TALK)21:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone who doesn't care about the conflict above, I strongly oppose policing other people's behaviour on websites that are not part of Wikimedia. People have the right to bitch about people they don't like in venues that allow for such. If there is a coordinated effort to harass someone (as in directly contacting them; not just saying [So-and-so] is a mean poopyhead) that's a different story. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am so weary of seeing Andy's name here. AndyTheGrump, I do not understand why after all these years you haven't learned to control yourself. I guess it's because nothing ever actually happens? We value you so much that you can get away with basically anything? Are we really sure Andy is a net positive at this point? I know he does a lot of really good work, but the amount of time spent dealing with his inability to just flippin' act like he understands his colleagues need to be treated with even a tiny bit of respect is ridiculous. Andy, you don't have to actually respect people. All you have to do is pretend that you do. And Bishonen, Floq...no, it's not this. It's the ongoing neverending...I'd call them 'little straws', but from any editor who wasn't otherwise as valuable, they wouldn't be considered little straws. Valereee (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? If it’s provable that "Andy the Grump" on WPO is "Andy the Grump" on WP, then policing it should be pretty easy? Of course, when it’s not provable policing it will be impossible, but we shouldn’t turn a blind eyes to the cases we can address just because there are some cases we can’t. BilledMammal (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do get what you're saying, but I'm just wondering what's to stop one of the members of my fan club from going to another forum, setting up an account with my user name, posting a bunch of inflammatory crap, and then coming here and complaining about it? Additionally, there are times when I have gotten absolutely fed up with some people on here, but hold my tongue because that's the policy. But I wouldn't want to be brought here for venting elsewhere. Bgsu98(Talk)01:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be policed like this:
Someone sees a LiveJournal from jpxg-wiki saying "User:xXx_sephiroth_xXx aka Billy Bob Joe is an idiot deletionist twat."
I have the LiveJournal account linked on my userpage, or I have explicitly said this is me on-wiki.
Someone makes a thread called "JPxG is doxing xXx_sephiroth_xXx and calling him a deletionist twat on LiveJournal".
I am blocked for some amount of time, or at the least told very unambiguously to cut it out.
This seems very possible, and indeed easy to me. The only difference is that the block/warning would happen without eighteen thousand words of jurisdictional argle-bargle. jp×g🗯️21:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The end result of this is that people will just not link their user's elsewhere with WP. You create a dual tiered enforcement system where people who are upfront are held to a different standard than people who are not. Beyond that, WP:BADSITES is not a new idea, and it was not a good one back then and it is not a good one now. nableezy - 22:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I'd prefer "provably the same person", rather than "disclosed the connection on Wikipedia", but either way - why should we tolerate identifiable editors harassing other editors, just because they are using a different website? It isn't conducive to a productive and congenial editing environment. BilledMammal (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a "dual tiered enforcement system" to forbid shitting on the floor, while looking the other way when people shit in the toilet? They're different things!
One of them is anonymous peanut-gallery trash talk which nobody is under any obligation to take seriously, the other is a scanty fig-leaf over mafioso-larping nonsense which would get you blocked in two seconds on here if not for the fact that every time somebody does this, there's a thread on WPO about it, where everyone with an account there gets flashed the Bat-Signal to show up here and talk about it's not canvassing unless it's made with genuine hemp otherwise it's just canvas-weave cotton etc etc etc jp×g🗯️23:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is ignoring some people shitting on the floor and then demanding others who are shitting on the floor be strung up at ANI. I wasnt flashed a bat signal anywhere, I have ANI on my watchlist. Does that make my view less worthy than yours? I dont even think Ive seen a thread on WPO about this for that matter. You keep saying the same nonsense expecting that people will just accept it if you repeat it enough, but it remains nonsense. nableezy - 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to prevent 100% of murders either, yet we still arrested the guy that shot a bunch of people and was like "Yep, that was me, I shot all those people, it was awesome". Objectively speaking, this was a better choice than letting him go and saying "gee whiz there's just no way to know for sure whether anything is good or bad".
You're right though: it is probably coincidence that post count on WPO has a mysterious and unexplainable positive correlation with the uncanny tendency to incessantly notice totally unrelated procedural issues with any proposal regarding it. jp×g🗯️23:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too, subject to the WP editor explicitly acknowledging that they are the off wiki forum user in question. Because of that it may have limited application. But so what? There's no reason to tolerate it. DeCausa (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - Wikipedia should not try and take on the role of policing the internet. If off site behaviours are affecting on-site activities, then it should be dealt with privately by the appropriate channels (i.e. Arbcom or T&S) - otherwise we will just turn the Admin boards here into a reflection of the worst bits of the so called criticism sites.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, I don't see it as policing the internet. If I make it clear here on Wikipedia that it's me saying things off wiki that I wouldn't be permitted to say on wiki then I would see it as more of a loophole to get round our on wiki rules. It's just plugging that loophole. DeCausa (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we would really need to have a discussion at VPP to implement something like this, rather than an ANI thread. I don't think something like this is a good idea. People should have a broader behavioural remit for what they can say off-wiki rather than on-wiki, and that includes forthright criticism of other Wikipedia editors, unless they are engaging in a very deliberate and intentionally targeted harassment campaign like what got Icewhiz ArbCom blocked, which is not what has happened in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an outrageous notion. We cannot enforce our site policies on a different website. What's next, if someone makes a facebook post we don't like, we'll ban them for that? I don't care for the name-calling either, it is not really useful criticism to just say "so and so is dumb" or whatever, but, with certain exceptions of which I am all too aware, what is said on WPO has no relvance here. I would add that in general, the specific thread where the name-calling took place is actually one of the best ongoing threads over there, as it is usually aimed at problems with actual article content as opposed to going after spoecific users. I can tell you for certainty that its existence has resulted in real improvements to content. It's an unfortunate reality that many threads over ther wander off topic, there's even a custom emoji for tagging it. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It feels like it makes no difference at all what people are actually proposing, because nearly every time WPO is mentioned you give virtually the same response.
We cannot enforce our site policies on a different website Who said we should do that.
(What's next, if someone makes a facebook post we don't like, we'll ban them for that? Well, here's my genius plan: we won't do that because it's stupid and nobody wants to do it.
what is said on WPO has no relvance here Later in the same comment, you say that that "its existence has resulted in real improvements to content". Well, which is it -- does it have no relevance whatsoever, or is it resulting in real improvements to content?
You really think that calling people imbeciles on here is blockworthy, but if the same guy goes onto wikipediocracy.com and types the same thing, under the same username, directed at the same person, on a website read by all the same people, a one-week civility block brings us a hair's breadth away from the Fourth Reich? Come on. jp×g🗯️23:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will even go further than that, and wager that if I made a gigantic twitter thread/public facebook post/etc cussing out a bunch of people here, or registered www.[username]-is-a-dumbass.com, I would probably be blocked within an hour, regardless of policy quibbles -- there's really only one public website I know of where this wouldn't be the case. jp×g🗯️23:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot enforce our site policies on a different website Who said we should do that. Did you not read literally the first sentence in this section? ...can we establish that comments made by editors in forums related to Wikipedia about editors are covered by Wikipedia's civility rules? seems pretty clearly aimed at that. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today23:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not enforcing them on a different website, we're enforcing them on our editors. If someone wants to harass or attack other editors, then they can do so - but if they want to retain their editing privileges they shouldn't connect their harassment or attacks to their Wikipedia account. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would compare it to a teacher being sanctioned by their school for inappropriate comments made about their peers on Facebook.
Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks violate an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.
Wouldn’t this apply to that Wikipedia-related forum?
Doxxing someone over a Wikipedia-related beef is a very different animal from insulting them. If you have already compromised the privacy protections of this project with regard to a fellow editor, then there's an argument to be made that there is a net gain to enforcement of said protections by taking action against the offending editor here. However, I have mixed feelings even about that. For one, no sanction placed here is going to have the effect of restraining the individual in question from continuing the off-project disclosure--in fact, in most cases it might arguably trigger continued disclosures and harassment. But either way, it definitely is more of an edge case than acting against someone on-project over an insult made elsewhere. And all of that said, Macaddct1984, you didn't label where this comes from? Could I trouble you to provide the link. Because actually, we had community discussion about this very topic on the Village Pump about two years back (an admin had been undertaking an off-project investigation that the community felt very uncomfortable about) and as I recall, the exact idea presented here was kind of roundly rejected. (FYI, I'll also link to said discussion when I have time to find it). SnowRise let's rap01:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We're not enforcing them on a different website, we're enforcing them on our editors." In this respect, I think you're right, BM. This isn't about whether or not we can enforce our will over other websites. It's about the advisability (and frankly, feasibility) of this community following it's members off of the four corners of the project in order to monitor their comings and goings, associations, views and opinions, and actions and then judge all of that for compliance with our expectations of how they should conduct themselves. It is a bridge way too far. It violates an essential dichotomy that this project is built on. We hold eachother accountability for conduct taking place within our collective volunteer work environment. But not one inch outside it. It has nothing to do with the practical limits of our technical abilities off this project. It's about our own self-restraint and a longstanding community value not to follow our fellow editors into their off-project lives outside of any occasion other than where they expressly invite us. SnowRise let's rap02:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we're already acknowledging that off-project activity can affect on-project matters. If, say, a user goes on another website to canvass people to an AfD, they can still get blocked on Wikipedia for this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I agree that this seemingly blurs the lines a little, but I think the distinction is to be found in the fact that the results of that off-project conduct create direct impacts upon process here. Anyway, if the choice were to be between doing away with penalizing people for off-project canvassing or enabling and encouraging our community to dig into off-project PAs (for the sake of some sort of sense of uniformity), I would elect for the former. Allowing the latter is just too fraught and too at-odds with standards for the division of our on-project and off-project lives and identities that were wisely embraced by this community a long time ago and still too integral to the project's stability to muck around with in this way. SnowRise let's rap03:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing the latter is just too fraught and too at-odds with standards for the division of our on-project and off-project lives and identities that were wisely embraced by this community a long time ago and still too integral to the project's stability to muck around with in this way.
I agree, but I don't see that as applying to this case. We're only talking about cases where the editor has chosen to erase that division, and if the editor has chosen to do that then we shouldn't pretend that the two are separate - it's a legal fiction that harms our efforts to create a safe and congenial editing environment.
If they don't chose to do that - if, for example, they want to rant on Twitter about an editor under a different identity - then absent doxxing, threats, or other matters of concern to T&S there is no reason for us to care. It doesn't affect our editing environment. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's walk this out. "X is an editor in good standing who publicly attacks other editors on a third-party website. We know this and think this is fine and he should face no consequences. I also post on that website and I deplore that attacks occur, though not these attacks in particular." When we went through this cycle with #wikipedia-en-admins fifteen years ago it was fun and interesting. Now it's just boring. Mackensen(talk)00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rise in defence of the right to call a spade a spade on Wikipedia and a bloody shovel in off-site fora. Providing it is a spade, which is the test that matters given our mission is not to be a support group but to jointly produce a reference work. This brouhaha arose because Andy used the term "idiot" followed by the term "imbecile" in a sub-thread on WPO that was started by a different person. Unfortunately, the two articles highlighted in that off-wiki conversation were very poor work. One Lightburst moved to mainspace last October when it looked like this. The other was a draft when it was first highlighted off-site, and Lightburst nonetheless moved it to mainspace in this state. I would rarely be as robust in my choice of words as Andy, especially the second term, but as others have also noted, he was right about the articles. Thinking either of those was ready for mainspace was stupid, and moving the second to mainspace with the name of a non-notable minor relative in it (even if I'm the first to highlight this at this noticeboard, IMO that should be rev-deleted in case the article is kept) and with the claim that the subject won a singing prize in the approximate year of his birth, after that or a similar error had been pointed out in the WPO thread they had just read was cavalier at best. Lightburst has lost their way as an article creator (and IMO shouldn't be judging others' work at NPP). I'm sorry to say that this kind of poor work is one of the best arguments for the existence of an off-wiki criticism site. I wish it wasn't needed. I wish friends and associates had pointed out the problems with their articles to Lightburst first. (Checks self for fleas, flees AN/I for yardwork.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not.BilledMammal, I want to preface this by saying that I like you and that I know that your often ambitious suggestions on how to shake-up policy on this project since you joined come from a good place. But that said, I have to be honest with you that this is not just the worst of the major changes to longstanding policy that you've proposed, it is quite possibly the single-most ill-advised and potentially destructive to the project's core ability to function that I have ever seen proposed by anyone in my time here.
That might seem like an unnecessary preamble to my thoughts on this proposal, and I hope I have judged your character correctly in that you will understand it is for emphasis, and that you will not take the observation too personally. But I very much mean it. This community installed precisely the firewall you are proposing dismantling (with very conscious intent from its earliest days) for a bevy of reasons impacting everything from the functionality and culture of the project to the safety of its contributors. I honestly don't think that it is an exaggeration to say that without a strong conceptual divide between a person's on-project work and off-project identity (and the bulwark of privacy protections with regard to the latter) the whole endeavor of this project may never have reached a fraction of its size, in terms of user base and accomplishment.
I honestly don't have the time today to even begin to list the ways in which such a change as you propose would create knock-on effects which would drag our administrative spaces in a morass of privacy-invading drama and unmitigated, unprecedented harassment which would extract a toll on our already hurting editor retention numbers. It would eviscerate privacy protections; encourage unceasing efforts at outing; proliferate on- and off-project joe jobs (the latter of which we would lack the technical tools to properly assess); instantaneously create the single largest category of administrative overhead and headaches that the community would then have to try to manage on a daily basis, to the detriment of other vital areas already underserved; and in rare but non-trivial (in number and level of consequence) incidents, present numerous, varied, and uncontrollable risks of real world harm for our contributors. To say nothing of the fact that allowing such behavior would directly conflict with numerous existing policies, further amplifying the chaos.
And again, that's the most slap-dash, meager summary of the possible...no, pretty much certain, knock-on effects of turning the aggregate surveillance capacity of this project and it community lose on it's editorial base. And no, I don't think that is an unfair or hyperbolic description of the behavior your proposed change would unleash. No matter how tightly you imagine you are going to construct the rules for when and where members of this community are allowed to follow their fellows off-project and monitor them for "good cause", the abolishing of the strict dichotomy between our on-project and off-project conduct will absolutely enable and encourage a flood of investigation, tracking, and harassment of users.
And on a purely personal level, I have to tell you, if this change were to come to pass, for me it would probably be the straw that broke the camel's back in convincing me that this community had lost its way and abandoned both its most basic cultural values and good sense, and I would, with great reluctance, probably have to abandon the project. And I would expect that I would probably be part of a larger exodus of experienced contributors in doing so. In short: no, no, no--a million times no to this notion. This is not just your average case of the cure being far worse than the disease; it's akin to injecting someone with ebola on the grounds that it will certainly take care of their tape worm...eventually. SnowRise let's rap01:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about my proposal, which applies exclusively to people who have confirmed their offsite identities on public sites. Yeah or no on that one jp×g🗯️02:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this is what I mean by "provable". If, for example, you've disclosed your Wikipedia identity on WPO. If it requires more effort to connect the two than that then I don't think it matters for this. BilledMammal (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be significantly less worrisome to me than a standard that allows free-roaming investigations and reports here, but I still don't think that would be a good idea. At the end of the day, we would still be loosening our privacy rules to allow scrutiny of off-project conduct and opinions. And let's be honest, for many of the most tendentious parties in our community, they will quickly embrace this opportunity as encouragement to stalk their rhetorical opposition or editors who represent their longterm bugaboos. Any realistic advantage that our community could extract from permitting such snooping (and I believe it would be minimal in the aggregate, but even if it weren't my overall opinion about allowing this would remain the same) cannot possibly justify the abrogation of our privacy standards and the safety of our users--nor indeed the many headaches it would unleash on the community as a whole.
Even if a user has previously acknowledged a non-wikimedia account as belonging to them, WP:OUTING and privacy concerns with surveilling that account's activity do not disappear. And consider also the situation in which a user is asked to confirm a connection between accounts and, to protect their privacy, disavows it (which for the record, I've seen happen here); are they thereafter subject to accusations that they tried to obfuscate prohibited conduct relating to the unkind opinions they disclosed about other editors? We are not meant to have the ability to force editors into difficult choices like that which make them elect between doing the right thing under policy and endangering their privacy (and in some cases, their livelihoods, relationships, safety, or freedom).
One is not prohibited by the terms of their involvement on this project not to have unkind, unflattering, or even downright unsavory opinions about their fellow editors, nor from sharing such opinions. They are merely meant to not share those opinions in offensive terms that would rise to the level of a PA while operating in our shared communal workspace on this project. That is all that we do, should, or realistically can ask of our community members when it comes to self-moderating their behaviour or expressing their opinions in their private lives--most definitely including other online spaces.
Any additional level of looky-louing into the lives and heads of our volunteers would have prevented this project and this community from becoming what it is today, and would quickly begin to rot it from the inside out if we began to allow it now. Anything else runs the risk of allowing the substantial capabilities of our crowd sourcing and organizational systems to be weaponized to do great potential harm to people who came here to serve our collective vision of free knowledge. Many of whom rely upon our guarantees of privacy being as ironclad as possible. Even when one of them has chosen (perhaps unwisely) to disclose information which expands the community's knowledge of their identity, we should not take that as an invitation or excuse to bring any information that such disclosure allows us to gather into the workings and public view of this project. It's not reasonable, it's not safe, and it's not healthy for us as a community. That firewall needs to stand as whole and unbroken as it ever has: pull even a few bricks out, and you're going to find that said barrier crumbles in important places a lot faster than you can possibly anticipate, I guarantee you. SnowRise let's rap05:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus:, every time WPO gets mentioned here, you try to revive some version of the old, failed WP:BADSITES proposal, when really, it's none of your business. Really, all they would have to do is turn more of it into a closed forum, and then they could malign people in perfect peace, at least until someone registered there under false pretenses. The whole "they're being mean to us over there!" thing comes under the heading of "well, you don't have to read it." Really, if you don't like it, you can ignore it. You are allowed to ignore it. And as I seem to have to say every time this comes up, they are under no obligation to play by rules that you make, no that "consensus" on WP makes. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: This goes beyond randos bitching about me or whoever on a random unrelated forum. We obviously can’t sanction that. This is users, respected users, going on an anti-Wikipedia forum under their own names to insult, dox, and stir up hatred against users they don’t like. Dronebogus (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle with BM and JPxG wrote above. "Don't talk shit about editors in public forums" is not a big ask. At least don't do it routinely. Take it to private forums if you must. Levivich (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lev. And maybe don't swim in the cesspool if you are an admin/arbiter who later adjudicates matters involving the proletariat. Much of what happens is in real time, like JSS and ATG getting marching orders and then bragging on WPO. Lightburst (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
marching orders?? is there any evidence whatsoever that anyone in those AfDs came there as a result of a Wikipediocracy thread? As someone who uses the same user name on both sites, let me clarify that the reason is simple. I yam what I yam and I said what I said. I don't think it's a good idea to police what usernames Wikipedia users may use on other fora, and a) I can't imagine a world where this would be good for editor retention b) requiring hypocrisy as a condition of membership seems like something Wikipediocracy is very unlikely to implement. I can hear Jake and Tarantino laughing from here. Some Wikipediocracy members use another screen name, and I assume they have their reasons, but if it boils down to where I can use the name Elinruby, I am sorry, but I am not on board, Wikipedia should not flatter itself on being the reason for the name, geez. If I change my username anywhere it would be at Wikipedia, and in fact I have often considered doing so. Elinruby (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to extending the civility policy in that way, for the practical reasons mentioned above as well as broader philosophical ones. That said, this is a big pivot from the common reluctance to discuss off-wiki activities at all, we do not need to move that far to be able to consider public behaviour elsewhere as part of discussions here. CMD (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while this seems like an issue that needs addressing, I think this topic is becoming to unwieldy to deal with all the various issues that are cropping up. However, I will say, when you look at this thread and the WPO page side by side you can see that this doesn't feel like your regular, organic kind of WP:BOOMERANG by Lightburst and more a case of brigading/tag teaming, doxxing and harassment that is being organised off-wiki then transferred wholesale over here. It wouldn't be fair not to look at the two together Orange sticker (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing is a shitshow, a tiny thread the issue of unhealthy WP/WPO entanglement. This is where I have a problem: people use WPO to get around inconvenient rules “for the good of the wiki”, basically treating it like a shadow-WP, and then flip around and say it’s an unrelated site that happens to discuss Wikipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too many issues with this - firstly, you can never be certain that someone with the same username on WPO actually is the WP editor. It could be a troll seeking to cause problems or get a legitimate editor banned. Secondly, clamping down on this would only drive WPO editors to edit under alternative accounts making the new rule unenforceable anyway. I'm a bit on the fence about whether I think WPO is a good thing or not. There is certainly a lot of unpleasantness there and things that constitute harassment of WP editors, but there are also many contributors who are motivated by a genuine desire to make Wikipedia a better place and to air good-faith views about what's wrong here without being bound by certain WP policies that make such criticism difficult. — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit on the fence about whether I think WPO is a good thing or not. A great editor was doxxed by WPO in April and stopped editing Wikipedia almost immediately after. For me, that was a wake up call about the dangers of websites that facilitate off-site doxing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Only on case by case basis. Only when one can determine beyond reasonable doubt that the account offwiki making the personal attack on another editor to the editor onwiki, we should then sanction the editor in question. – robertsky (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a case by case basis sounds fine. There should be a simple two-step test: “can we be reasonably sure editor X is making this comment/action” and “is comment/action clearly a personal attack or otherwise a violation of basic decency (i.e. doxxing)” Dronebogus (talk) 11:27, 11 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.
I am not at this time recommending that these disputes should go to ArbCom, but this thread now consists of at least two disputes that need to be resolved, and, if the community cannot resolve them, then ArbCom should. ArbCom is the last stop for conduct disputes that the community cannot resolve. The two distinct disputes are the alleged civility violations by AndyTheGrump, and the alleged past sockpuppetry by Lightburst. If there is rough consensus for a time-limited block for ATG, then that matter does not need to go to ArbCom. A statement has been made that Lightburst engaged in sockpuppetry four or five years ago, and Lightburst denies it. Either the community should accept the conclusion of Moneytrees that Lightburst engaged in sockpuppetry in the past (and I was taking the word of Moneytrees as trusted when I said that Lightburst had engaged in evasive conduct), or the rest of ArbCom (with Moneytrees recused) should look into the claims and counterclaims.
Can the community resolve these disputes, by acting on ATG, and by accepting the finding of Moneytrees, or does this dispute need to go to ArbCom?
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admins find socks all the time, and very often socks deny being socks. Business as usual. What's special about this case which means it needs to go to Arbcom? Bon courage (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're basically saying that unless your position is adopted this should be escalated to ArbCom. Which I suppose you are free to do, but if the consensus of users is that ATG doesnt merit a block for his comments off-site that doesnt mean that we have failed to resolve the issue. It just means that your preferred resolution isnt what others think is necessary. nableezy - 08:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think the LB situation needs to be escalated, he’s almost certainly going to be blocked anyway. I don’t know if ATG will be blocked as much as he deserves it, but I think if it ends no consensus (likely) then it should be taken to ArbCom as part of a broader case against ATG’s abusive behavior and lack of accountability. Dronebogus (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be with ArbCom now. There is a lot more that could be said about Andy's activity on WPO, but as I understand it we should not be linking to or quoting posts from there per WP:OUTING (though many editors above seem to be getting away with it, is oversight asleep or have they changed their standards?). A full and fair hearing of a matter that involves off-wiki conduct has to happen at ArbCom. – Joe (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's further private evidence related to the socking that can't be discussed here I don't really see where ArbCom would need to come in. Pinguinn🐧08:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About Lightburst, I meant that if anyone wanted to challenge the finding that Lightburst had been socking, ArbCom was the only appeal, and could hear private evidence. Since it appears that the community accepts or agrees with Moneytrees, ArbCom is not needed there. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About ATG, I meant that the case should go to ArbCom if the community was unable to decide on a sanction, as due to a deadlock between a block for a time and an indef block, not if there was a consensus with which I disagreed. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously not a serious proposal. Discussion is entirely redundant with the other subsections, and it has already been pointed out that a policy where the first line specifically says "on Wikipedia" doesn't apply to places that are not on Wikipedia. The WordsmithTalk to me19:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We have a policy, called no personal attacks, which says do not make personal attacks. Yet above we also have multiple experienced editors—admins, people with decades of combined tenure—saying that a blatant personal attack (Lightburst is an imbecile), doesn't matter: it's much ado about nothing, a contretemps, not an actual problem, call[ing] a spade a spade, acceptable as long as you do it less than twelve times a year. The recipient just needs a thicker skin. I understand acknowledging the personal attack but not thinking that a block is the right response, or worrying about the jurisdictional implications, but this isn't that. And this isn't the first time this this has happened. Can we really can still claim that "no personal attacks" is a policy this community follows? – Joe (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much support WP:NPA being actually enforced, as civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. We don't get to avoid our responsibilities to make this a healthy, collaborative environment just because we have enough edits/contributions/tenure. ArbCom itself stated that being right isn't enough (WP:BRIE), and I would prefer to see people (in general) care more about working together in respect, rather than about thinking they are exempt from civility for being on the right side of some issue. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPA is a Wikipedia policy, and Wikipedia policy does not extend outwards to all the corners of the internet. If such a thing had been said on Wikipedia then sure, thats a NPA violation. The very first sentence of WP:NPA reads Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Nobody, as far as I know, has made any such attack anywhere on Wikipedia. nableezy - 09:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, them making personal attacks is what led to this very AN/I report. It's just harder to enforce on prolific editors, because they are "unblockable", you know. New / less experienced editors would easily get an indef with this kind of conduct. And also, "unblockable" doesn't happen to just editors making attacks, but also those engaging in edit wars and other policy violations too. Deprecate NPA policy? No way. — AP 499D25(talk)09:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there should be NPA-free days, on religious holidays for example. I don't think NPA, even if was rigorously enforced, can make this a healthy, collaborative environment. You need healthy, collaborative people to do that. It seems more like a "You know, we're living in a society" reminder that works most of the time. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The blatant personal attack here was done offwiki. If it was onwiki, I have no doubts that there would be admins pulling the trigger on the block button. The question should be if the said policy should be extended to what was said offwiki in an open setting if it is well established that the account/person offwiki making that statement is the same person behind the account onwiki. – robertsky (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since my collapse of this thread was reverted: This is an unfunny modest proposal and should be collapsed by an uninvolved editor because it’s clearly not helping this already bad situationDronebogus (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's neither a proposal or a joke, Dronebogus, as everyone who read past the title and isn't terminally literal-minded seems to have understood. Discussion of our repeated failure to enforce WP:NPA is highly relevant to this discussion, where we are failing to enforce WP:NPA. – Joe (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as a failure to enforce NPA. I see the community enforcing NPA here by taking the NPAs very seriously; there a number of proposals made to deal with the NPA, up to and including a site ban, which has received non-trivial amounts of support. If all the proposals fail, then perhaps, but it's too soon to tell. Levivich (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some members of the community are, at least. My argument is really directed at those denying that the PA is a problem at all, the most egregious example of which would be telling Lightburst to grow a thicker skin. In a functional conduct process, those arguments would be discarded in assessing consensus because they blatantly contradict an existing policy (i.e. WP:NPA). That's not how I've observed ANI working. – Joe (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s become bluntly obvious at this point that one can gain immunity from sanction so long as their contribution count can outrun their violations, so unfortunately yes.
As has been raised above, the constant badgering of “well it wasn’t on Wikipedia so we can’t judge it” is almost hilariously technical/nitpicky when the insult was made on a related site, under their own username, on an account declared to be run by the same person - it’s barely a step away from saying it on here. TheKip(contribs)14:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's leagues away and the distinction is no mere "technical nitpick" but rather a cognizant, calculated, and robustly discussed and validated principle embraced by this community from its earliest days. WP:CIV and WP:PA were never meant to be guarantees that you would be treated with respect by your fellow editors off of this site, such that one can flaunt vitally important privacy and outing considerations, which have often serious real world implications and do not disappear for us merely because someone has decided to disclose ownership of a non-wikimedia account. Which is why prohibitions against such behaviour were woven into our policies, including as express limitations of NPA and other behavioural policies, also from the very start and also in a very knowing and considered fashion.
WP:CIV, WP:PA, and related principles were never meant to reach beyond the four corners of this project. They exist to keep our communal work environment relatively sanitized and free from acrimony and abusive behaviour. They do not, never have, and never should guarantee to you that no one, anywhere is being uncivil towards you for your work here. Bluntly (and I don't relish saying it, but it's the simple truth) if one cannot countenance the idea that someone (sometime and somewhere and possibly in full view of the internet) is going to speak harshly, disparagingly, or even offensively about their contributions or their character, then that concerned person simply should not contribute to Wikipedia. Because they simply are not prepared to assume the risk to have to weather a very likely (if not certain) consequence of contributing to this open, public project.
And we cannot shift our policies on privacy and outing enough to accommodate anything approaching the kind of shield that would be necessarily to grant such protection from all such behaviour. And it's more than just the fact that we don't have the resources and tools to police off-site interactions (though that's true, even if you just imagine addressing such conduct in discussions here, and with sanctions here). Rather the more fundamental reason that such off-project oversight is nonviable is that it would necessarily require abrogating policies and protections which serve to prevent much more serious forms of potential harm than rhetorical personal attacks. We simply cannot do that just to make everyone who chooses to participate here secure in the notion that their fellow editors will always treat them with respect, off-project. It's not feasible, and the effort to even try to do so would profoundly damage our privacy protections and our community culture in a litany of ways.
And I say all of this as someone who, as I was just telling a new friend, believes CIV to be one of our most necessary and well-advised community principles, and who is more than satisfied that there is a need to support an indef for Andy based on his on-project incivility alone. SnowRise let's rap16:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nearly all anonymously edit from the IP range 102.88.0.0/16 are disruptive since July of this year. I've reverted some of them, however, there's still some IP editing constructively from them.
Is it possible to block such a large range? Or is there any sysop who are familiar with range block can block a subgroup of them? -Lemonaka09:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62's tone/comments in the thread aren't great in responses either, but based on my interactions with them this seems more isolated than Jweiss11's behavior. As an example, Jweiss11 recently labeled a couple editors who nominated college football-related pages "obstructionists" at nomination pages:
FWIW, Jweiss can be abrasive, and we have a history of some heated disagreements. I do wish he could be less abrasive, but he is a fantastic contributor. He rubs me the wrong way at times, but I am not asking for any intervention here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors, particularly inexperienced ones, see those types of comments and learn that that is how editors talk to each other. Schazjmd(talk)21:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I enjoy being belittled. It does bug me (the stress kept me up til 3 a.m. this morning). I just don't want to stir things up again here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty charitable of you Cb162, and while I substantially agree with the sentiments of Schazjmd and Dronebogus in responding to your restraint, I still think you are to be credited for it. We could use more editors who adopted a "this is less than ideal for me, but I'm still going to focus on the positives that I see in my rhetorical opposition and not seize an opportunity to try to go to the mat to penalize them" sort of attitude. Of course, it's also possible that you just recognize that Jweiss11's conduct speaks for itself and that by not piling on, you only enhance your own position by comparison. But frankly even if that reasoning was a part of your mental calculus, I would still appreciate your tact here. Don't change (is my advice, not withstanding the reasonable concerns of Schazjmd above): these traits you are exhibiting are the kinds of psychological reserves that help anchor this project amongst the buffets from more tempestuous behaviour.
Edit: And yes, I do see at least two people here have noted that you can give as good as you get in these discussions, so I'm not suggesting you are a paragon of restraint. But even the occasional decision of an editor to not go for the throat or come out at the bell throwing rhetorical haymakers is refreshing, especially in this space. SnowRise let's rap20:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could use more editors who adopted a "this is less than ideal for me, but I'm still going to focus on the positives that I see in my rhetorical opposition and not seize an opportunity to try to go to the mat to penalize them" sort of attitude.
Just FYI, this is called adversarial collaboration, which I recently tried to do with Jweiss11, but failed to accomplish. What I noticed during that discussion is that Jweiss11 is somewhat inflexible and uncharitable to his opponents, which makes it unlikely to succeed. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, if anyone else cares, most of the interaction between Viriditas and I has occurred in political sidebars on user talk pages and the like, initiated by Viriditas. V, I think I've been rather patient and forthcoming with you. If you want to have successful conversations with people, I would recommend not accusing the other person of "gish gallop" when they offer three concise examples to support a thesis that you asked them to explain. It's also not recommended to claim that someone refused to discuss a topic when the evidence of them discussing that subject appears six inches up the page. In the future, I think it would best if you limited your discussions with me only to matters directly related to the development of content on Wikipedia. If you want to have more political sidebar convos, feel free to email me. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that was your takeaway from our interactions, but an accusation about an argument (gish gallop) isn't an accusation about you. I think I get that we both see the world in vastly different ways, and your suggestion to keep politics offf-wiki is understandable. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eagles247, this is Kafka-esque nonsense and it's beneath you. The thing with the AFD is completely contrived as I followed the the advice of Liz in creating the merged article, so as to bring coherence to my vote. And it's a move we've done before in the past with analogous college football season articles. The difference between and merge and redirect was entirely academic, and some editors may have been confused by technical details, but no one involved had a problem with the ultimate merge effort. The exchange with Cbl62, was unfortunate, but when people advance falsehoods, I know of no other reasonable course of action other than to plainly dispel them. At this point, with that episode, I'm with Cbl, and I'm ready move past that. I'm currently working on putting all those templates into use. See my edits today at Texas Eastern Conference. That effort was delayed in recent days by the Newspapers.com outage at the Wikipedia Library, but I just signed up for the free trial to temporarily get back access. You've appeared at times to have a hostile, bad-faith attitude with respect to a lot of WP:CFB efforts which is puzzling considering your excellent contributions in the past in that topic area. I can point to your disparaging opening of that TFD with "The college football WikiProject will argue that these templates is necessary for some sort of category hierarchy...", and your spurious accusation of canvassing here after you failed to notify me of a TfD for templates that I had created. Yes, at the TFD, you were applying standards bluntly in a way that did not best serve the advancement of the project. That's in large part why the TfD ended in a keep. This looks like retaliation for losing that TfD. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you emailed me, please note that Wikipedia:Emailing users advises Wikipedia is designed to work based upon public dialog, so communication between users is often better if it's in public and I will keep my conversations with you on-wiki. Eagles24/7(C)21:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jweiss, I don't care if God himself comes down and says that you were correct in this argument. That doesn't change the fact that if you keep wantonly belittling the intelligence of other editors, the community will eventually decide that the value of your contributions is outweighed by the risk of you chasing away editors, each of whom will potentially have contributions just as valuable as yours. You can't handwave legitimate criticism of your actions by describing it as "Kafkaesque". And I'll add that Eagles is entirely correct that a WikiProject doesn't get any sort of special say over anything in its scope, including templates. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thebiguglyalien, I don't think anyone involved here is stupid. Can you explain why Wikipedia:Competence is required exists if it can't be cited when apt? Attempting to wade through another editor's falsehoods and misunderstanding should not be conflated with belittling their intelligence. Smart people make big errors all the time. This is a critique of their editing behavior. Yes, the stuff above about AfDs and related merges is Kafakesque. 1) I vote merge in two AfDs 2) Two other experienced editors suggest that my merge vote wont count if I don't execute the merges myself, so the merge has a target. 3) So I execute the merges. 4) Eagles247 described this sequence as some sort of unilateral action on my part in contravention of the warnings from other editors. Pretty clear that's a Kafka-trap. It's a distortion, a dishonest statement, which is far worse than a harsh criticism. Dishonesty will also chase away editors. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why Wikipedia:Competence is required exists if it can't be cited when apt?: The essay itself advises:
Calling someone incompetent is a personal attack and is not helpful ... Telling people their work displays incompetence often does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them less receptive to instruction.
Bagumba, that didn't answer my question. If citing it is always bad, even when apt, why does it exist? Is it there just for two editors to apply to a third editor in secret? Seem like its just a land mine planted on wiki for no good reason. I've seen it thrown around many times, including at me in the past, but this was the first and will be last time I ever cite it, other than perhaps, to advocate for its deletion. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jweiss, I can appreciate that a string of pointy comments taken out of context is not necessarily the full context here, but I'm going to add my voice to what I hope you can recognize as an emerging consensus here, and a soft warning you should heed: there is definitely something of through-line of hostility and intimidation running through those comments. You're correct that you aren't technically falling fully into PA territory with most of it, by avoiding outright ad hominems, but you're still dancing not on but in fact over the line of incivility, imo. It's probably a safe bet that you won't face a sanction for the above this time, but this is not what we'd call a collegial response to conflict, by any stretch of the imagination. Please try to moderate your tone. A bit of this can be tolerated, but even slightly padded insults can quickly add up to something the community will view as a problem in need of redress. SnowRise let's rap20:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both Jweiss11 and Cbl62 are fantastic editors that are needed and among Wikipedia's best. I think both of them could be a bit more civil in noting their disagreements, but I don't think the WT:CFB discussion is something that rises to the level of needing ANI discussion. As for !voting "merge" at two AFDs and then creating the articles to which it was suggested merging, I see no issue with that at all. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the editors who is name dropped in the initial report, I generally agree with others that Jweiss11 is a great editor on the areas they work in, specifically with college football. As the original nom on the merged articles, I don't really see the issue there, other than perhaps it would've been better to first create the target merge article first before voting, or making it more clear they were volunteering to write it rather than going with WP:JUSTAVOTE. I do think Jweiss11 suffers a bit from WP:AGF at times though, as when proposed with a possible discussion with a disagreement in CfD, there was an odd insistence that it should only be discussed in the College Football WikiProject, which I am honestly still a bit perplexed by. I don't know if a sanction is needed here, but something needs to change. Let'srun (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let'srun, I never insisted that CFD issues only be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. Obviously nominations have to happen at CfD and issues with categories can be discussed in a bunch of other places like Wikipedia talk:Categorization or talk pages for various articles and categories, or user talk pages. The problem was that earlier this year you were making repeated CfD nominations of the same form, most of which were failing, with the same terse justification that the "Category lacks members". And when asked if you were working off some guideline or rule of thumb for a minimum population for a category, you refused to specify. I was not the only editor making such requests. You were unwilling to engage in meaningful conversation about this issue here. This conversation did not have to happen right there, but there was no good reason it couldn't have. It should have happened somewhere. I would have been fine with another venue. Unfortunately, you were unwilling to collaborate, and this was disrespectful of a number of other editors' time and effort. That sort of behavior is what led to the ANI report regarding you; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1157#Months of WP:HOUNDING by User:Let'srun. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response here, and apologize if you thought I was unwilling to collaborate; rather I was and continue to be open to figuring out a solution to the issue, but we just look at things in different ways and believe in good faith that a certain way of doing things is best. I still believe WikiProjects are not appropriate places to discuss policy on any level, and this continued insistence does concern me still with language which may be construed as incivil, even if it isn't intended to be. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The account Mehedihasanbicp is the fourth and currently active account of a SPA devoted to autobiographies of MH Mehedi Hasan. User:Mhmehedibicp is the oldest account, which originally created Draft:Mh Mehedi Hasan. After that was speedied G11, User:Mhmehedihasan81 and User:Mehedihasanbicp, both of whom have been spamming the same thing at their user pages, recreated the spammy draft. SPA User:Bicpteam also spammed the same bio at their user page. "BICP" is apparently short for "Bangladesh Islamic Cyber Protector", as noted in the infobox. There's been no actual block evasion yet, but the latest account User:Mehedihasanbicp has continued to post the same spammy bio at their user talk after multiple U5 deletions [49], and hasn't responded to a post about sockpuppetry at their user talk. If this belongs at an SPI, I'll take it there. Wikishovel (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel: My personal preference would be a formal SPI. That said, putting myself in the shoes of the article draft creator: "there's this amazing website called Wikipedia I've seen all my life, and it also allows you to make a webpage about yourself!" I think the time has come to take a less gentle approach here. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the entire extent of their contributions going back to January 2024, where I stopped checking. Definitely NOTHERE. Folly Mox (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JDiala(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)[50]this is just a rationalization to avoid including anything which could give the appearance of criticism of Ukraine/NATO. It wouldn't be "too much" for the article, you could fit in his position and counters to it within one or two sentences. The POV pushing in this topic area is remarkable.
[51]This is not serious or good faith conduct, it seems like you're just looking for a pretext to rid the encyclopedia of this properly-sourced and widely-discussed allegation.
[52]The only POV pushing happening here is your usage of exceedingly tendentious reasoning to dismiss anything remotely critical of Ukraine on this and related articles.
Vexatious complaint. I don't think a judgement call, based on sound reasoned evidence which I provided in these discussions, that a pattern of editing behaviour constitutes POV pushing is necessarily a PA. It's also worth noting that Manyareasexpert made the same allegation against me here merely because they took issue with me referring to an NYT piece as a "report" rather than an "article"; that's what my third comment is in reply to. JDiala (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my comment was regarding your contribution, and I'm ready to adopt another approach, if it would be suggested to how to point out that referring to an article as a "report" is not OK and may be considered POV pushing. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. The content is more or less fine as of now, but this thread is a call for protection against other editor's false accusations and the continuing use of them as a lever in a discussion. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's add some necesary nuance to that. Certainly there are contexts where "report" is in some way acceptable, but typically it would need to be accompanied by a qualifier, as in the your "news/newspaper report", ideally with other marking language. There are situations where using "report" in and of itself, without proper attribution, could give the impression of an agency or institutional body as a primary source. SnowRise let's rap03:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm much more concerned by JDiala's misrepresentation of our OR policy to insert their own original research about whether something constitutes a "war crime". That's a more serious issue by far than these relatively minor civility infractions. Though I do find some irony in the fact that JDiala added Also per WP:PA, editors should "comment on content, not contributors." to their userpage just a few days before this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to second that request. Mind you, I'm more inclined to trust than to doubt that there is an issue here if TBUA is trying to highlight something, just based on my previous experience with them. But I've already read the majority of the last few threads on the page and am not immediately seeing the "war crimes" matter touched upon just yet. Perhaps it is appearing more int he edit for the article itself rather than the TP discussions, but either way, Thebiguglyalien, could you do those of us trying to follow up on your concerns a solid and provide some more specificity, with some link or diffs, or a description of where to look? SnowRise let's rap03:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns come from the underlying arguments that are clearest in these comments: Special:Diff/1233668716, Special:Diff/1233953912, Special:Diff/1234125938, Special:Diff/1234165526. To my eyes, this is an editor claiming that they have the right to decide what the sources "actually" mean based on their own definitions and interpretations, trying to invent connections so that the source's statement becomes due in the article. They're dismissing any comments about the discrepancy as "pedantry" and "technicalities", essentially beating down the discussion until they can get their own OR interpretation through. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, good (albeit obvious, as it turns out) call. JDiala, with regard to your comments on this editorial issue in general, but focusing on...
"I think you are also confused as to what the standards for inclusion here are. There does not need to be a verbatim assertion "Ukraine has committed a war crime" to warrant inclusion. Demonstrably documenting criminal acts like the murder of unarmed captives and emphasizing that such conduct is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, for instance, is enough to warrant inclusion.
...in particular, I'm afraid that it's actually you who is very confused about the standard for inclusion of such statements. If you want yo say that "Ukraine committed the war crime of A" then you very much need a source that says "Ukraine committed the war crime of A"--if not verbatim then at least directly, precisely, and expressly. If you want to instead justify inclusion of that particular statement on the basis of the reasoning that "Source X says that Ukraine did 1, 2, and 3 in this and that manner, and as we all know, 1, 2, 3 would justify war crime A in this situation (according to the definition found in Source Y, and/or my own assertion)", then you are unambiguously arguing either from WP:SYNTHESIS (if you tried to link the facts asserted in Sources X and Y to reach a novel conclusion about how to label what Ukraine did, without that label being applied directly to Ukraine's conduct in either source) or just plain old vanilla WP:Original research (if you omitted the step of mentioning Source Y and are arguing from your own perspective that the label of a war crime "obviously" applies to what source X says Ukraine did.
To reiterate and be crystal clear: no such highly controversial and sure to be challenged label may be used, unless you have WP:DUEWP:WEIGHT to support that label in terms of it being expressly used by RS. That would be true even in a garden variety article, let alone a a highly disputed CTOP areas such as this. It's really important that we leave this discussion being certain that you understand that distinction, because this is kind of editing-in-contentious-topics 101. SnowRise let's rap05:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien:@Snow Rise: I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. This is perhaps an understandable misunderstanding if you have not been keeping careful track of the discussions on that page over the past few days (and just had a cursory glance) — but it is a misunderstanding nonetheless. At no point, at all, did I suggest stating any claim a source did not make. Thus, for instance, a claim like "Amnesty International said that Ukraine committed war crimes because..." is something I did not propose or suggest. I have no objection to stating plainly precisely what the AI report stated, namely that it views Ukrainian conduct as an IHL violation, rather than any stronger claim. Rather, the debate on the talk page was essentially this: given that the article title is about "war crimes", does any source we cite have to verbatim use the term "war crime" to even be included the article? Thus, for instance, if I have a reliable source Y that says "country X murdered a hundred a civilians in this massacre, a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions", but said source Y nowhere uses the verbatim term "war crime", are we allowed to use source Y in an article titled "war crimes by X"? I argued yes because "Geneva Conventions" is sufficiently closely related to the topic of "war crimes" that inclusion would be worthwhile. I am not arguing that we can state "source Y said X committed a war crime" (that would be OR); I am merely arguing the far weaker position that source Y is worth including in the article at all, in a manner in concert with the OR policy (something like "source Y said X violated the Geneva Conventions"). Manyareasexpert objected to this and argued the opposite side, claiming that such sources should not be included at all. Briefly, the discussion had to do with standards for the inclusion of a source in a given article, not how we represent the source in our writing. Thus, it wasn't really an OR thing.
Now, it's certainly possible that my position on this matter is incorrect. If someone thinks so, please do feel free to explain why. However, even if I am incorrect, I do not think this is an "editing-in-contentious-topics 101" issue — because many of the sources the article already cites do not use the term "war crime." So, clearly, if this is something I'm misunderstanding, this misunderstanding is shared by many other editors who edited this article. JDiala (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as to that, we are in much more of a grey area. It's certainly true that there is no outright prohibition on using a source that fails to have terms that precisely align with the articles title, be it COMMONNAME or not. But that said, there is going to be a very onerous WP:DUE WEIGHT analysis about whether such a source is going to be an appropriate fit to the subject matter of the article in question. That may or may not be the actual basis for those who have pushed back against inclusion on that article, whether they have accurately expressed it in those terms or not. I will take a further look at the talk page discussions as soon as I can and give my impressions. SnowRise let's rap07:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've now read the entire talk page, and have a much better idea of how things got to where they are now. Addressing Diala, I can see how you slowly lost your patience here, and that your efforts start from an understandable place and that you maintained a fairly focused and content-oriented approach for the majority of the discussion, and that the speculation on your opposition's motives is mostly something that seeped in as you went along, apparently out frustration. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that there are a couple of places therein where you had to deal with rhetorical strategies which (I think unintentionally) took the discussion around in circles.
Mind you, none of that should be taken as validating your tendency later in the two threads to imply bias as motivation to the other parties you were disputing the issues with; if anything, my primary advice here is to reiterate what I said below about how poorly that will serve you and eventually get you into trouble. At the same time, though, having seen the entirety of this discussion, I am more convinced than ever that no action is warranted against you for anything that has transpired on either talk page so far.
Regarding the content issue (without getting to into the weeds, as this is not the place to resolve such questions): my personal take is somewhere between your own and that of the consensus position (if we can call it that, seeing as the bulk of the dispute is between you and two other editors, with one additional comment in support of each side from a fourth and fifth editor respectively). The extent to which 'violations of international humanitarian law' fold into or qualify as 'war crimes' is very much an open question in the sources either side may rely upon, and reflects broader issues in international law and human rights standards owing to the fact that both are substantially the product of customary law, rather than more express and binding standards. The resulting wiggle room has long made these kinds of questions moving targets in the area of diplomacy, international public image, and realpolitik. It is therefore no surprise to me that, even among editors doing their best to abide by the information they find in RS, there are some wildly varying positions as to the editorial consequences of the standards and how we frame (or in this case, where place coverage of) certain events.
So I am not lodging a position as to who is being more reasonable in their a priori content positions here, other than to say that neither position is unreasonable. I'd lean ever-so-slightly towards some degree of coverage of the military asset emplacement inside civilian facilities issue, based on the sourcing presented so far, but the problem is that you are outnumbered here and likely to remain that way: you could RfC the matter, but given what I have seen about how the content area has been regarded on-project, I suspect that this will not do very much to change the ratio of support very much. If nothing else, you may want to hold off on pushing the dispute over the lead. That may just be a bridge too far for the interested editors there right now.
The unfortunate, dark, unavoidable truth is that, insofar as we are talking about war here, in time there will be no shortage of violations of humanitarian norms by both sides that anybody other than the most devoutly aligned will be unable to recognize. No matter how much more principled and defensible the starting positions of a given side over the other, it is inevitable that the great disease of our species will corrupt and drive abuses. There has never been a war of any serious duration in the history of mankind that did not result in the people on all sides eventually committing acts that the very thought of which would have turned their stomachs at the outset. I doubt this will be the exception. I can appreciate the perspective that we shouldn't necessarily drag our feet in coverage where we feel that this has already begun to happen, but I doubt you can get consensus to do that on this issue, on the basis of the one Amnesty International source which, the other two editors are correct in noting is not even substantially discussing this issue as much as Russian abuses. I think you have enough of an uphill task in just keeping the issue in the article at all, let alone trying to leverage it into the lead.
In the meantime, you have to avoid tipping over that line of disagreeing with the reasoning of your rhetorical opponents and into expressly implying bias on their part. I'll briefly comment on that below presently, as it is more germane to your most recent post there, but suffice it to say that, having seen the entire discussion and your comments in context, I see the cause of your frustration and I feel the complaint was both premature and a little one-sided (though perhaps for the best in the longrun). But you still can't continue in that direction: the issues complained of here are weak tea so far, but they will lead you increasingly into the wrong approach for resolving these matters with the best possible results you can get for your preferred outcome on the content, given the resistance. to some of your positions. SnowRise let's rap16:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that I am outnumbered in the current discussion, but note that the inclusion of allegations that the UAF is violating IHL by operating near civilian areas (both from Amnesty International and the OHCHR) has been a longstanding issue of dispute since 2022, having resulted in several major discussions and even RfCs. Many editors do agree with me that it is worth including. There was past consensus in an RfC that it is worth including.
In light of this history, I don't think the current (comparatively small) discussion should be sufficient to undo this past consensus. It should only be undone based on the result of a new RfC. Given that Manyareasexpert is the one wishing to undo the past consensus, I also think it should be his responsibility to both start and advertise this new RfC. JDiala (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait on further discussion of some of the forking editorial issues being raised immediately above to lodge a perspective on that, but having reviewed the behavioural complaint here and looked at the thread in which it arose, I'm of two minds as those complaints. On the one hand, JDiala, there are definitely places where you are inviting needless distraction from the issues by implying failures of perspective or issues of bias in your rhetorical opposition, where they really aren't helpful to your core point. Do remember, this is a WP:CTOP area, so the cause for (and expectation of) civility and respectful discourse are heightened. I appreciate that when you feel that other editors are being influenced by subtextual factors, the line between making a valid argument about perspective and implying outright bias can feel a little thin. But I'm going to add my voice to others here that you are tripping over that line with comments like "let's be honest, this is just a rationalization to avoid including anything which could give the appearance of criticism of Ukraine/NATO."
And "This is not serious or good faith conduct, it seems like you're just looking for a pretext to rid the encyclopedia of this properly-sourced and widely-discussed allegation." is, if anything, even more of an issue." Please try to remember, not just to avoid kerfuffles like this, but for the sake of enhancing the potential viability of your own arguments, that this kind of implication of active shilling/protectionism for what you perceive to be the cultural leanings and biases of other editors is not in any way helpful.
All of that said, the worst JDiala has said in this regard is, at least to this point, still comes in a bit under the threshold that would require community oversight and response, let alone sanction. Collectively, every comment brought to bear against JDiala in this thread so far does not really amount to the equivalent of even one proper WP:PA. Do their comments walk right up to the line of the wrong side of AGF with regarding to the outlooks and biases of their opposition, and even take a solid step over? Yeah, they more or less do. But on the whole, what is being reported here is pretty typical, low-level implication of lack of perspective that one is bound to see here and there in these circumstances. As I said before, not a winning formula for JDiala, and the quicker they realizes that, the better--because not only are they hurting their own efforts, but eventually sticking to and doubling down on such comments will pass a point of proper violation of expected behavioural standards. But at the moment, there is nothing I would classify as outright WP:disruption--though arguably they are treading near tendentiousness or even WP:battleground behaviour. In short, go carefully, JDiala. SnowRise let's rap03:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback and for not recommending further punishment. I am going to do my utmost to be careful with civility issues. I have already been sanctioned in the past, and I do not want to deal with allegations like this anymore. I do wish there was a way to honestly discuss patterns of POV pushing—which few editors would deny is a serious problem in many topic areas—without entering into WP:PAorWP:ASPERSIONS territory. JDiala (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that you are behind the eight ball as far as such complaints are concerned: there's always going to be POV issues coming from every angle on a topic like this, but you also happen to be coming from a weak position if you try to make the argument about supposed POV. Besides which, in terms of both principle and rhetorical effectiveness, it's just best avoided as a tactic in most all editorial disputes. Focus rather on what you regard as the weak editorial arguments which you perceive to be the result of biases, not the POV you suspect is fueling them.
And try to remember three things: 1) people are rarely fully aware of their biases or often inclined to immediately recognize them when pointed out, 2) the very act of identifying them typically relies on arguments which are susceptible to counter-accusations of bias, and 3) it's entirely possible to reach the wrong conclusion (including the wrong editorial conclusion on this project) without it being the result of bias so much as just flawed reasoning.
An approach that eschews attempting to look behind the curtain by speculating on the motivations of your fellow editors during talk page discussions dodges these issues and makes your resulting editorial arguments leaner, better able to withstand scrutiny, and less likely to harden your opposition's perspective or drive others into their camps. It will also, as you just identified yourself, go a long way towards avoiding accusations of aspersions, PAs, WP:TEND, and battleground mentality. It's not always the most intuitive strategy, but if you make it the your preferred, second-nature here, I promise you it will serve you well within our project's dynamics.
More to the point, if you don't adopt that approach, you'll likely be back here again, and the complaints may not be perceived as much as a tempest in a teapot as I have somewhat framed them in this case. Both because perspectives vary on such things and because the longer editors embrace a strategy of carping on the perceived motivations of their opponents, the more frustrated (and entrenched) all parties tend to become, and less credit is given and the more discussion diverges into the personal aspects of the dispute. In short, such habits tend to become self-reinforcing. All that said, I saw a lot of forbearance from you in those discussions, so I would tend to believe that you do not lean towards personalizing disputes as a matter of course. Just don't let yourself get pulled into that gravity well in these exceptional cases either. Hopefully everyone agrees that's the most that needs to be said here at present. SnowRise let's rap16:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to stand against another wave of personal attacks against you there but decided to not to get involved as it was happening on editor's talk page. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was the right instinct in the circumstances, MAE. As to the rest here...good grief the overreactions on top of overreactions here.. So, first off, My Very Best Wishes, I can't imagine what helpful outcome you expected would result from visiting the talk page of an editor you are currently in dispute with and piggy-backing on top of a productive discussion that an un-involved editor was having with them (that was resulting in useful concessions and constructive dialogue) in order to tell them that they had policy wrong, essentially extending the existing dispute between you into a third space, where it definitely did not need to be, and creating circumstances where a meeting of the minds was pushed even further away. In my opinion, that choice shows very poor situational awareness and underscores just how much this dispute is not being driven by unilateral issues with JDiala alone.
Further, having now followed up on the entirety of the dispute to this point, I'm inclined to agree with JD on at least one point: you seem to keep confusing the nature of their objection to your position on a core issue. You keep attempting to educate them on the specifics of what WP:BRD and WP:EW actually entail, but they aren't disagreeing with you in principle on what those policies say. Rather, their position is that the status quo and consensus version of the article is the ones that they support, and therefor it is the edits which set aside that version which first invoked the BRD cycle. Now I'm by no means endorsing every aspect of JD's position here (neither on the editorial nor the behavioural issues), but I have seen you talk past this point of his on the article talk page and his talk page a few times, and honestly, in his place I'd be a little frustrated by that at this juncture too. Now, you may very well disagree with which version of the article is the status quo or consensus version. But you need to at least start discussing how to resolve the disagreement in terms where you two stand a chance of coming to an understanding.
Or better yet, you could both stop the cycle of arguing who was the one to start the edit warring and just let that portion of the dispute die, since it is serving no useful function in resolving the core editorial issue. I'll AGF that you had the very best of intentions in trying to have that discussion again on his talk page, but if nothing else, you have enough years on this project that you should have been able to anticipate just how well that was going to go over.
Now, JDiala...frustrations or no, you have got to lay off the trigger a little when it comes to how you frame the intentions of others. You made all these professions about doing better in that respect above, and to Kip on your talk page, but the very first time your response was tested thereafter, you lost all perspective and immediately went into overreactive, ABF mode. It's one thing to try to point out that you don't feel your points are being addressed in a fair and constructive way, but you can't keep lacing such responses with comments like "This cannot be seen as good-faith conduct.", which have no purpose in resolving the editorial (or for that matter, behavioural) issues and can only serve to raise the heat of the discussion. And please do not interpret my tepid support for you in some aspects of the discussion here as carte blanche to assume you know which actions by which editors constitute issues, as you did in your response to MVBW on your talk page. You may find yourself going out on a limb believing someone has your back farther than they actually do.
All around, I think you all need to take a pause for the cause here, because, whatever the result of this thread, any of you taking this level of combativeness back into this particular CTOP is likely to result in an AE block at some juncture. RfC this, if necessary, or use another dispute resolution process. This back-biting is accomplishing nothing except to waste your time and that of the community members responding here. Bluntly, none of you has done anything that I think could get any of you community sanctioned here at ANI (and I'm sorry My very best wishes and ManyAreasExpert, but that very much includes JDiala's assessment of your editorial approaches, hyperbolic though they have been in places). But you're all sitting on top of a ticking timebomb in terms of potential AE sanctions. Take that advice for what it's worth, because this is likely to be my last contribution in this thread. You have a content dispute here that could be easily resolved through out content processes. So do that. Or continue with the constant cycle of overreactions to eachother's positions and edit warring where each of you points the finger at the other side as the inceptor, and see where all that gets you. SnowRise let's rap07:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Original research after warning for user Silence of Lambs[edit]
As the one who caught and removed the OR in question, I would respectfully disagree, at least with the diagnosis. Since my initial worries about tendentious editing, Silence of Lambs now strikes me instead as someone who clearly wants to build an encyclopedia, but hasn't got a good grasp of content policies—for what are ultimately borderline disruptive results, unfortunately. Remsense诉03:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your OR warning on the editor's talk page also came shortly after being warned about this [reverted] edit to Succession of states involving even more blatant OR and section blanking without any edit summary attached. Is this a WP:CIR issue? - Amigao (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sequence seemed to me like one cut-and-paste job from Succession of statestoTwo Chinas, only after which I posted on their page. I obviously share concerns about competence in any case, though I still feel I should personally be patient with them. Unno. Remsense诉03:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the NOTHERE, but I keep running across this editor. They've been here 5 years now and I'm concerned about competence at this point. They just made this edit where in a list of countries they link South Africa not to its country article, but to the Apartheid article. This is commonplace for their edits and I do get strong WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS from this editor. Those kind of minor under the radar edits are pretty common from them, especially linking countries to other things to make a point. I'm not convinced of their sincerity or competence. Canterbury Tailtalk12:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are simply a net negative for our readers. Here they simply blank the sources so our readers can't do any research or confirm the content. Moxy🍁 14:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Since this ANI has commenced, we are still seeing the same old pattern of disruptive behavior (e.g., adding unsourced OR text with no WP:ES whatsoever). After months of warnings on the user's talk page and a temporary block, it is stretching credulity whether the user is truly WP:HERE. - Amigao (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same user made edits on 15 July (here and here) in which citations were used that clearly did not back up the added text. This is worse than simply adding unsourced text since it could be an attempt to obfuscate WP:RS. - Amigao (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also support an indef for lack of competence, faking references, POV editing, soapboxing, refusal to listen or communicate, trying to right great wrongs and present the world as it isn't. Take your pick. Canterbury Tailtalk14:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning in this direction myself, though I'd like to give the user a little longer to respond here before actually deploying the nuclear option. Edits like the South African one which CT has raised above cannot be accurately described as anything but express vandalism, even if done for for "principled" (that is to say, ideological/RGW) reasons, as opposed to pure trolling. Five years is a long time here to still not show such a basic comportment with WP:HERE purposes, especially considering they don't seem to be an infrequent contributor. Ideally they comment here in the next few days, have a dialogue with the community about what is and is not acceptable conduct here and commit to making necessary changes or, failing that, I say move forward with the indef plan until they do undertake such communication and assurances. SnowRise let's rap02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but there isn't a policy rationale for doing that. I guess you could invoke common sense, but that doesn't usually go over too well on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just be that voice in the wilderness as usual urging that we not have articles on things that are still in the headlines. EEng23:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It makes me queasy when an article is based on livestreams from news sources, which by their very nature are not subject to normal fact checking. Dumuzid (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the very far past, people used to mass protect titles and redirect the news event to a small blurb in a larger, stable article. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be proposed as policy. No articles can be created on something where the only sources that discuss it are from the past 24 hours. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does get proposed from time to time but never goes anywhere. I proposed something like that at the talk page of WP:NOT last year (see here) but that didn't go anywhere. Many WP editors are pretty addicted to being there first with an unfolding story. As someone wrote in that thread it's "a feature of the wiki model, and legislating against it is bad". DeCausa (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, unfortunately people seem quick to forget that this is an encyclopaedia and what core policies are when it comes to breaking news. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this wouldn't go great, as some events (such as major disasters or the begginings of large wars) probably are deserving of articles even if they are very recent. Gaismagorm (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a topic "deserves" has nothing to do with it. The question is whether we encyclopedia editors are in the right position to give readers information on something like this so soon as it happens. Answer: No, our processes and structures are poorly equipped for that, and huge amounts of editor time are spent fighting vandalism and churning sources changing minute by minute. If people want to know breaking news, turn on the TV or tune in to a reputable online source. We can write a really good article at the distance of a week or a month. That's what we're here for. EEng17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah okay, I see. It's less about wether it's notable, but rather about wether wikipedia can provide reliable and accurate information on the event Gaismagorm (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the Thomas Matthew Crooks article is just a content fork of the assassination article with the rest of the article being political point scoring by mentioning as many mundane and useless details as they can about his life like the shirt he wore or that a class mate called him 'slightly right-leaning'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is already an open move request. Probably 6 more requests and a few more bold moves will be done in the next 24 hours. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an embarrassment. For a time, we stated in Wikivoice that the attempted assassin was a transgender, left-wing, antifa agitator attempting a Biden coup who was shot and died because he add low testosterone levels and ate too much soy. We are now saying, unquestioned, that it was an assassination attempt, Trump was shot, and various other details before an investigation has had time to start. The assassination attempt article should not exist until we have some idea of what is going on and all Trump articles should be protected. We are an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't keep up with unsourced, unverified additions, constant ECs because of the volume of additions and am probably up to 7RR by now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah never mind I see the issue. Yes the redirect should have the same protection as the template given how templates with redirects work. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I definitely saw that for a bit before, was wondering how it was done. I didn't know it was possible to make a wiki page that somehow overlays everything! Including all the buttons and menus! — AP 499D25(talk)07:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve seen it before, back in the day when I joined we used to have our main page hijacked occasionally with pornographic or other shock related material. Because the pages are protected, it had to have come from an unlocked door as it were, and that usually means unprotected templates or other such oversight in the article space. Unfortunately, because I have reservations about logging into the iPad to use admin tools, I elected to bring it here instead. Thankfully the good folks on this board got to it quickly. 2600:1011:B134:6C0C:AD8C:359A:F0B1:5945 (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Need help restoring a thread on the talk page[edit]
The discussion is less than a day old, and is referred to from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism#Please look at Tukdam and Talk:Tukdam where I have requested help from other editors. I cannot do it myself, as Skyerise reverted my restoration and explicitly prohibited me from communicating with her, see User talk:Skyerise#Please unarchive the still relevant discussion. Please enforce WP:TALK ("Refactoring and archiving are still appropriate, but should be done with courtesy and reversed on protest" and explain to Skyerise that her comment "as a member of Wikiproject Buddhism, I am entitled to maintain this talk page" [57] as a justification for hiding the discussion is incorrect.
For the record, I don't mind to avoid any discussions with Skyerise in the future, as her language towards me included passages with truly unexpected and unprovoked WP:personal attacks like "You don't seem to be getting it" [58]),"Why not do something more useful" [59] (to put this into context, at the time of writing, about 2/3 of the readable text outside of a very large quote was actually added by me), "Don't need "friends" like that",[60] "I won't be taken to task by a Russian"[61] (go guess...), "You, sir are an <fill in the blank>"[62], "bullying which seems to come naturally to you"[63]. Personally, I am very thick-skinned, so these verbal attacks do not concern me, but for the sake of other editors, perhaps, a lesson in WP:civility might be useful, too, especially in the light of apparent success of the Skyerise's tactics in the past "At least one other editor who has approached me like this is under such a ban"[64].
It seems that the problem started with me deleting the links to works of non-notable filmmaker Donagh Coleman (two links out of five in the "External links" section). Now that I have bowed out, the current version of the article includes four mentions of this person. It would be nice to review this situation with respect to WP:DUE.
Needless to say, I have absolutely no connections to the topic of the article (and persons mentioned), the only reason I was involved was my participation in the WP:NPP. I have explicitly declared the absence of WP:COI during the discussions with Skyerise, this did not help and did not elicit counter-assurances as I have hoped. The article is quite important (I have patrolled it immediately) and very visible with hundreds of visits per day.
I think WP:BRD anticipates the discussion part lasting more than a day and including other editors. It also typically includes a positive declaration by the reverting editor as to why their existing version is a good one. WP:BRD-NOT specifically says to not do things like this: You don't seem to be getting it. I don't have to justify them to you. Rather, if you want to remove them, you must find a consensus of other editors to support the removal (without canvassing them).. Really, you can't take that line and then also archive it after a day, and then ban the person from your talk page with the words that discussion was done. As the only other participant, I've closed it. Is there some external aggravating factor not in evidence? Otherwise, I agree that Skyerise needs to back off a bit. Mackensen(talk)01:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for that comment. However, I'd also like to point out this cryptic comment, which I can't understand in the context of the conversation and which therefore appears to me to be a derogatory remark about my gender. This comment is the reason I've asked the editor very plainly to stop communicating with me. I don't intend to communicate with them any further either. Skyerise (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: I believe it's from the Latin Iuppiter iratus ergo nefas and was used by both Chekhov and Dostoevsky and it's nothing to do with your gender. He's using a classical allusion to state that you're not making an argument to defend your position. The Russian Wikipedia has an article on the expression: ru:Юпитер, ты сердишься. It's your choice whether to engage with any editor, but it would be unfortunate if you refused to do based on a misunderstood allusion (one that admittedly is not well known in English). Mackensen(talk)02:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too highbrow for me. I wasn't fencing: from my perspective there was nothing to defend. No, I didn't explicitly say that all the reasons not to remove the links could be found by actually taking the time to read them. A documentary on the subject featuring the 14th Dalai Lama, along with some of the scientific researchers exploring the topic, by an award-winning filmmaker and an essay the filmmaker wrote describing their interactions with Lamas and researchers for a screening at The Rubin are obvious keepers, and yet the OP says unless the film were made by James Cameron, it wouldn't satisfy him. I don't understand that. Is it a joke? Is it a provocation? Is he trolling me? Is it a cultural thing? It seems to me to be a completely ridiculous thing to say and does not show any indication they want anything but to be right. Skyerise (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to take one part of your comment, he didn't say that the OP says unless the film were made by James Cameron, it wouldn't satisfy them. This is what he did say: I do not happen to know Beri Sonam Wangchuk or Donagh Coleman (and did not know their names before, this total lack of name recognition actually triggered my actions, I would not had questioned a movie made by James Cameron on the list). The OP is saying it wasn't obvious to him, whereas a film by James Cameron (a name he recognizes as that of an eminent filmmaker) would be. You've interpreted that to mean the film has to be made by someone as prominent as Cameron. I don't read it that way. Mackensen(talk)03:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did he Google? They didn't even have to. The presence of the Dalai Lama in the film is above the fold, the details on Donagh Coleman are at the bottom of his essay, and the Beri Sonam Wangchuk video was posted to the YouTube channel of Radio Free Asia Tibetan. Now, the fact that the guy's a monk is clear from his garb, though the fact that his qualifications as a subject-matter expert are written in Tibetan, I could understand someone missing that. OP implies that the looked at the pages before they yanked the links. So I would like someone to ask them to reply here to the question, "Did you read and look closely at the pages before deleting the links?" Skyerise (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's more of a content question than a conduct issue, and probably better addressed on the article talk page than here. The archived discussion was going in circles. Would it be better to start a new discussion there than to restore the old one? Mackensen(talk)03:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason why I should remake the same arguments in a new thread. There is nothing wrong with an old one, it just need new eyes to evaluate the arguments already made. And what will stop the new thread from being hidden just as well, with Skyerise pushing for a ban on interaction due to this suggested attempt to edit the page she forbade me to touch? Викидим (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was an actual argument in that thread? Could someone please check as I really can't remember an argument being made, just a complaint that 'I don't know who these people are'. Is that an argument? Skyerise (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my argument very explicit: the links IMHO did not pass the WP:LINKSTOAVOID (aka ELNO) criteria #1:[65] the link must point to "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" (boldface is mine). It was very surprising, for example, to see two out of five (!) links to point to the work of a single (!) filmmaker with "less relevant degrees" (as acknowledged by Skyerise). Now there might be something unique and valuable recorded by an uneducated person, but surely these special circumstances should be explained. Alas, I still do not see any arguments justifying selection of these particular two pages out of thousands on the Web (the fact that Dalai Lama endorsed the research can be found in any serious publication on tukdam). Same goes for the third item that I had tried to remove, a recording in some Tibetic language. This Wikipedia is in English, after all, and there must be gazillions of recordings on Youtube in English on the subject, why choose this one? Викидим (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I archived the thread because the two of us were the only participants and I wish for this editor to stop communicating with me. He badgered me repeatedly to provide information about external links which infomation was clearly present on the linked pages themselves. They went forum shopping first to WikiProject Buddhism and now here in their pursuit to find someone who will agree with them about removing these two external links which clearly belong on the article. Even though he has left the links on the article (which incidently didn't exist until I created it), he has refused to acknowledge that he might be wrong about the links being inappropriate. I don't want to continue the conversation that I archived, and pointed out that they can start a new thread from a new perspective that includes the information that I provided at the WikiProject Buddhism thread. But no, he'd rather continue what I perceive as harassment than simply repost his comment for a new audience that will not include me. I request that they be put under an interaction ban, since they've insisted on bringing the matter here. Skyerise (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They went forum shopping - Skyerise explicitly had asked me to bring more eyes to the discussion [66], and I obliged by posting on the project talk page. Her blaming me for "forum shopping" by doing what she asked me to do shows unbelievable forgetfulness. Incidentally, my pronouns are "he/his", as clearly stated at the very top of User:Викидим.
the two of us were the only participants - Once the editors are invited, it is customary to wait for them for a long time (weeks), not few hours. In any case, per WP:TALK archiving of a thread should be reversed if another editor opposes. If one editor does not want to participate, that's her right, but it does not include a right to silence her opponent.
infomation was clearly present on the linked pages themselves - The factual information about the background of filmmaker was not present on the page during the discussion, when it was provided by Skyerise on the project page and I have added Donagh Coleman's qualifications (IMHO clearly showing total lack of expertise on the topic) to the article[67], they were immediately deleted by Skyerise with the reasoning that the filmmaker has "less relevant degrees" (exactly my point!)[68].
Lol! I don't make arguments in edit summaries. My edit summary in no way said that the filmmaker didn't have relevant degrees: they actually do have multiple relevant degrees. I meant that a description of the content of the film was more relevant than the list of degrees of the filmmaker for the gloss we provide for the reader. The filmmaker holds degrees in philosophy, psychology, music, and media technologies from Trinity College Dublin, as well as a master’s in Asian studies from UC Berkeley, and was at the time completing a PhD in medical anthropology. Pretty highly educated for a filmmaker - but my point was that the reader needs to know about the interviewees of the documentary, with the "star" of the documentary being the Dalai Lama, who the OP had already acknowledged is an SME on the the topic. And when I say that the information was all available on the linked pages, I don't mean Wikipedia pages, but rather the target pages of the links. That the Dalai Lama is featured in the film is clearly visible on the linked IMDb page without even scrolling, the qualifications of the filmmaker are at the bottom of the page at the Rubin's website, and the fact that the film is about the scientific research project at the University of Wisconsin instigated by the Dalai Lama is fairly high on the linked page. So I have to ask again and insist on an honest answer: Did the OP actually click on the links and read the content of the pages themselves before deciding they aren't relevant in their opinion? Because they clearly are relevant and constitute a "unique resource" and the OP has no valid argument at all! Skyerise (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that I started the article, I wasn't finished expanding it, and while the OP has been wasting time focusing almost solely on trying to remove the obviously relevant links, I've been expanding the article by 2.5x its original content, from 9,000 to 23,000+ bytes. Does anybody else think that maybe he could find something more productive to do? Skyerise (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that we're all here at WP:ANI is that you closed down a discussion on the article talk page within a day, and then accused Викидим of harassment when he went to your talk page to see what's up. Now we're discussing the article's content at WP:ANI. It's really not meant to work that way. Once an article's in the article namespace it's fair game for other folks to work on it and it's not "yours" anymore. What Wikipedia editors choose to work on is one of life's mysteries. There are multiple examples in this thread of you not understanding what Викидим said to you. Hopefully he's cured of classical allusions for the time being. If Викидим opens a new thread on the article talk page, which you've said above you think he should do (Absolutely. That's what I've suggested several times now), will you engage? Mackensen(talk)12:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: Am I required to? I've already said everything I need to say about the links; the OP's point is that he wants other editors to respond. I have no problem with him opening a new thread and waiting for other editors to respond. I will not respond to a new thread on this topic. I will respond if he opens a thread on a different topic, unless the consensus here is that I shouldn't. Hopefully that is satisfactory. Skyerise (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not required to do anything, but you're the most active editor on the article and any discussion there would benefit from your input. Mackensen(talk)12:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Adachi1939 has been posting uncivil and provocative messages on user talk pages, including deliberate subtle personal attacks against other users. Their conduct reflects the exact same behavior that they have been blocked for in the past.
Adachi1939 was blocked twice in the past for edit warring on the Battle of Sihang Warehouse article, and similarly resorted to personal attacks in discussions shortly after the expiration of their block here. It seems that they've been toeing a line to avoid getting in trouble for edit warring again, and instead engage in bad-faith "discussion" via flaming as they did around the time they were blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:115F:4000:D057:FF50:DDFC:F13C (talk)
I was alerted to this user by User:Wahreit both for the Sihang Warehouse article and Battle of Shanghai. From what I can see, Adachi1939 was engaged in edit warring then and now in badly sourced articles using mostly primary sources in either Japanese or Chinese. It's hard to confirm what is correct or not as practically all the sources are not in English, but their behavior does not inspire confidence. I noted that in one instance, Adachi introduced original research at Sihang Warehouse and possibly another case at Battle of Shanghai. I was not aware of the combative and provocative language used by Adachi at the time. They also selectively tag content with citation needed but only for content that they consider wrong rather than the whole portion that is unsourced [72]. Qiushufang (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose most of my issues fall under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As honored as I am for it to be suggested I have brought any original research to the table, all I have done is provide a few publicly available Japanese language sources that were authored and declassified long before I was even born. A good chunk of the English sources for the Second Sino-Japanese War are objectively wrong, but as you've said using sources that the average reader cannot verify due to language barriers does not inspire confidence. Time will prove me right, but as it stands there is not sufficient literature in English alone to satisfactorily tell the Battle of Shanghai and/or Sihang Warehouse.
In regards to my interactions with @Wahreit, I first became aware of their existence when on 23 April 2024 they re-added verifiably incorrect information to the Sihang Warehouse article such as asserting the IJA 3rd Division was involved. I promptly corrected these errors and tagged them in the talk page on why they were wrong. They responded by ignoring me and instead complaining on @Qiushufang's talk page about me, stating "there seems to be some entrenched agendas surrounding the content, especially the adachi guy." Is this not the pot calling the kettle black? Rather than perhaps take a moment to read my carefully written translation of the IJA 3rd Division's movements during the battle and consult other sources and reevaluate their opinion, they accused me of having an entrenched agenda despite them being the one that cannot accept their assumed Japanese Order of Battle is not correct. In addition, on 20:53, 7 May 2024 Wahreit added a Sihang Warehouse subsection to the Battle of Shanghai page which greatly conflicted with what was already established on the main Defense of Sihang Warehouse page. They once again asserted the IJA 3rd Division was involved when it was not. It would not be unreasonable at this point to assume @Wahreit is in fact the one operating with an agenda to push the false narrative of an entire IJA Division being involved. Did I once accuse them of acting in bad faith? No. I have simply pointed out they are using bad sources and need to consult different more reliable ones or try reading the ones I have provided. Yesterday I playfully proposed a fun challenge for them to look into more sources to prove their point. Instead they took offense to it. Perhaps it is because they cannot find a solid source to make their point, just Robinson's garbage pop history book which alleges the IJA's 3rd Division involvement without any citations that reliably back it up.
I'm aware I probably come off as a jerk, but I hope those reading can at least get a bit of an idea of where I'm coming from. Adachi1939 (talk) 08:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything here that warrants further sanctions. Adachi1939, I think you would do best to stick to discussing what is strictly relevant to article content, and, everyone, such discussion should go on the article talk page, not user talk pages. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi phil. was tagged so i figured i'd add my perspective. the reason @Qiushufang, @2600:1700:115F:4000:D057:FF50:DDFC:F13C and I are concerned is not a dispute over the content as @Adachi1939 claims, but issues surrounding his disruptive editing and habit of resorting to personal attacks during disagreements. over the past two years, he has reverted the contributions of multiple editors under the claim of fighting "chinese propaganda" and "historical revisionism," including users fixing simple mechanics and grammar, whilst accusing others of being illiterate, spreading propaganda and being uneducated. this is a surface level summary, there's a lot more than this. all in all, out of concern for other prospective editors and respect for wikipedia's guidelines and community, some moderation would be appreciated on the defense of sihang warehouse page, which would prove very helpful judging by its page history and talk page. is there any way you could help with this? thanks. Wahreit (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP address has made nothing but racist statements (especially antisemitic ones) since its first edit in May. They seem to edit sporadically but I'd like somebody to take a look at this. Thanks. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 07:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Sneaking in a comment inside the close.) Man, you're in a hurry, Johnuniq. I wanted to respond and ask if anybody has an opinion on the duration. If this was an account, I'd indef it in the blink of an eye, but with an IP, even six months might be meaningless, since the individual can probably jump to another. Bishonen | tålk09:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
You know you can revert me at any time. If you want to remove the close and our comments, please do so. FYI, after checking some contribs, I was going to block the IP for six months but you did one month first. Then I saw this wasn't closed so I thought you must have independently seen the IP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the past year or so, there has been an IP removing sections from articles with the summary "No citations." or "Fixed." (see Special:Contributions/64.189.18.0/24) Despite being warned multiple times on their talk page, such as here and here, they have continued without responding to any of the messages. Could an admin do something about this? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point that is tried to be suggested to you is that you evaluate a "citation needed" tag as to demarcate dubious content too easily. I found readily available sourced for some of it, and generally the project progresses from finding appropriate sources in such cases. JackTheSecond (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I once came across a 12+ year old citation needed tag. I removed all the content and the next day the content was added back and was appropriately sourced. Sometimes people need a bit of motivation. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the tag is so people can add citations later. It says "citation needed", not "dubious"—we have {{dubious}} for that. If what you have been doing was a good idea, we wouldn't bother with tagging anything in the first place. Remsense诉19:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the nature of the content. If an editor believes it isn't possible to verify the content, or that it's outright wrong, then they could remove the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through several of his removals and all seem fine. In fact IP even added a citation here: [73] So I'm not sure why you are reporting a user for removing unsourced content, which is something he is allowed and even encouraged to do. I would say if anyone's conduct is inappropriate it'd be some of the people who reverted genuine edits with incorrect edit summaries using automated tools, but I don't think anyone here needs administrative action. Actually I just noticed IP removing unsourced BLP statements. I'd say this makes him a better editor than most registered users. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indian film-related articles vandalizer strikes again[edit]
After someone blocked the ip sock of Halud Foressa after reporting to ANI, they starts their destructive edits and OR via another ip 223.185.134.69. I reported the new ip to AIV see here but due to stale bot removed it and no one took any action. Like last time it needs to be blocked immediately because many warnings are given to them and they are not listening see this. Mehedi Abedin13:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At discussion Talk:Steven van de Velde#RfC regarding the inclusion of the "convicted child sex offender" in first sentence I replied to User:Zaereth with this comment (over a few edits; that is what was visible by the time of replies). Before Zaereth could reply, User:Notwally did so for them here, including a literal insult directed at me, as well accusation of bad faith over my reply. It must be noted that the resulting discussion with Zaereth was civil if not friendly: they took my reply in good faith and we had a positive discussion. I do not know why Notwally, who I have never interacted with before, decided to jump the gun and jump down my throat.
I then replied to another user, User:Pincrete, again in good faith - to the point I even left a small note at the end to indicate so, after having had Notwally assume bad of me, here. And inexplicably, Notwally decided to reply to this - also before Pincrete even had a chance - and this time, here, they misrepresented what I said, again insinuated bad faith, and acted like I was showing a negative pattern of behaviour. For two replies, both engaging in discussion.
It must be noted that earlier in the thread there were multiple users who engaged with nearly every single comment, likewise furthering discussion, and that Notwally did not take to accusing bad faith of them. And, the discussion with Pincrete was also pleasant, nothing for Notwally to worry about.
At this point I was annoyed (understandably so I would say). So I did two things: I asked them to leave me alone. And, since another user had decided to join in on Notwally's comments about me and both users had the same SPI notice, I alluded to them being investigated as socks. I have already acknowledged this was unwise - and evidently it was, because if Notwally had some inexplicable grudge against me already, now they are just making blatant PA's every time I comment at that talkpage, and lying about my involvement.
I ask for someone to summarise an argument instead of link to somewhere else, and get this. I engage in a different discussion about phrasing, and get this. (Edit: They've made it clear in that last one what their bad faith assumptions about me are. You'd assume that the very pleasant, productive discussions I've actually had with the people I actually engaged with, would show to Notwally that their bad faith assumptions are incorrect. And still, they continued.)
I have to AGF, and assume that Notwally sees the situation very differently than I, and no doubt they will have some justification for going after me. But I bring this here because even assuming Notwally thinks they are doing right, I cannot reconcile one major thing: if you are doing what you think is right, and someone has asked you to leave them alone, you would not continuing prodding at them.
At this point, they have made multiple comments after I asked to be left alone that only exist to insinuate bad faith on my part. They are not contributing to discussion on that talkpage anywhere, only commenting to cast aspersions about me. I believe this is unjustified, continued harassment, and trying to make that talkpage so hostile towards me that I don't contribute. That's unacceptable. I gave them a warning about this on their talkpage and got this edit summary. Well, if I can't tell them to leave me alone, let's see if an IBAN can be implemented. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Kingsif should be able to repeatedly imply that other editors are trying to benefit child predators, nor that they should be able to make baseless sockpuppetry accusations. Rather than a boomerang, it would be nice if Kingsif would just stop. – notwally (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been doing that, though. You made that assumption from my very first comment - meanwhile the user I was replying to took it in good faith and we had a productive discussion. Since then, no matter what the actual content of my comments and discussions, you have continued making it. I am trying to see where you've been coming from. Given the nature of the subject, if you have it in your mind that someone has an agenda, you can use the context to paint anything in a certain light. But it's not the case - asking for expansion rather than links to other pages, asking for explanation of rationale because I agreed with a premise but didn't reach the same conclusion - I've already explained my motives.
And look, you don't have to believe me. But as I said, my main issue is that I have asked you to leave me alone. If you were only acting to do what you thought was best, I believe you would have honoured that, regardless of what you think of me. Not only have you not done so, you've gone out of your way for it.
If you really think my contributions to discussion are so bad, I encourage you to participate in those discussions yourself. Not to harass me with bad faith accusations. Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When two other editors also took issue with your responses, you immediately and repeatedly accused one of them of being a sockpuppet [74][75][76] (including falsely claiming that a SPI was ongoing when it had been closed and deleted 4 days prior as a "meritless filing" [77]), while also immediately doubling down on your demands of editors who chose to not vote "yes" in the RfC [78]. You can try to put whatever spin you want on things, or you could just stop. – notwally (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for accuracy's sake, it was only one other user who took issue, Nemov. Presumably, the other user you refer to is Kcmastrpc - who did not take issue with my edits, but suggested that if there's a user accusing me of things, I should probably make fewer replies. You can see our discussion at their talkpage. Kingsif (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it was unwise to bring that up. I couldn't see the result of the SPI. FWIW, I was writing it at the time you made this comment, but I've now apologised for that [79].
My replies are not targeted at people who did not !vote yes - if you actually read my !vote, you'd note how I opened by saying I thought I would vote !no, so your premise is entirely faulty. It's also continuing your bad faith assumption that I took issue with a certain side (untrue - that the !votes where I asked for expansion were predominantly from one side is coincidence), and that the issue was so serious I would accuse people of supporting crimes (also untrue - my comments discuss content).
I'd like you to address the issue that I brought to ANI, instead of continuing to make bad faith accusations against me. I asked you to leave me alone. Not only did you continue harassing me, you went out of your way to do so. If you felt like my editing was so bad, there are options to resolve this that aren't apparently watching a page to wait for me to comment and then writing personal attacks in response. Are you going to leave me alone, or will this need to be enforced? Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a candidate for WP:BOOMERANG. This editor is bludgeoning the discussion and making unfounded accusations. After accusing myself and notwally of being socks, Kingsif also templated my TALK with an unwarrented harassments notice[80]. Kingsif started this entire episode by accusing notwally of WP:BLUDGEONING a discussion. If there was anyone bludgeoning that discussion it's Kingsif as I pointed out, as well as Kcmastrpc. So far Kingsif has accused editors of being socks, bludgeoning, and harassments. These accusations lack merit and aren't in good faith. This ANI is another example that Kingsif completely lacks self awareness in regards to this content dispute. Since Kingsif brought this issue here to be resolved, my recommendation is Kingsif is restricted from further comment on that article. Nemov (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to believe you are heavily misguided when you falsely claim I started this. Notwally deciding to not AGF of the first comment they ever saw from me, then thinking their bad faith assumptions warranted stalking my comments to attack me, is what started it. That is when I did not accuse Notwally of bludgeoning the discussion, but of exhibiting bludgeoning behaviour towards my comments, something which cannot be disputed - insistently replying to everything I, and only I, wrote, with attacking language is exactly that.
If we're addressing the SPI mention fully, let's do it. I did not accuse you of being socks: Notwally themself has handily provided three diffs above dealing with that. In the first two, I mention the SPI case, without making my own accusations. In the second, I only refer to it for explanation why I mentioned it the first time, and also use the phrase ganging up, a clear indication that I believe there are multiple users. As for the third diff Notwally provided, I don't know why they have, as it contains no mention of socks and has the phrase the pair of them, another clear indication I believed I was dealing with two different people. I acknowledged, I believe at your talkpage, a while ago, that mentioning it was unwise. Clearly, because it doesn't do anything to calm a situation. So why did I? See it from my experience, a user is harassing you and then another user who has not been involved joins in, and when you go to ask them to leave you alone you see that they've both been cited in an SPI. It was unwise, but you can see why in the heat of the moment I made the snarky aside (indicated by small-text template) comment Aren't you that guy's WP:SOCK? Just like I can see why that comment would leave a bad taste in your mouth, but does not mean you can ignore the hostile behaviour that led me to make it.
You can also see in that second diff from Notwally that I repeated my request to be left alone, showing that I clearly felt this had not been heeded. Are you surprised that shortly after, I left you a harassment notice at your talkpage? Those notices are not accusations, the language in them is incredibly congenial; they are genuine requests for the recipient to be careful how much they are "commenting on contributors" so other users feel able to edit without feeling needlessly attacked, as I did.
I am trying to see your edits in good faith, and so I must assume you see it all with a different view. I invite you to see it from mine. At the time you got involved, I had critically asked about one argument, to which Notwally had responded rudely, and then agreed with but wanted to discuss the finer details of another, to which Notwally had responded even ruder. Bearing in mind that neither user I spoke to was Notwally, and neither user had any issue with my comments. Then you arrived and accused me of bludgeoning – for two on-topic comments. I would say that your accusation towards me of bludgeoning was (and, here, is) unwarranted.
Was I the image of grace in replying to you both? I don't think I was that bad at all. Not super friendly, but who would be: because if you want to be critical of how I responded to being comment-stalked and insulted by Notwally, you have to acknowledge what led to those responses, and I am the injured party.
Again, rather than insulting my self-awareness as you did in I believe your second ever reply to me, I encourage you to have some awareness of your own, about Notwally's provocation and how yourself jumping in mid-thread to make accusations only added fuel to the fire. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since they've reappeared, I would also like to request an IBAN on Nemov, who I had assumed had dropped their stick with me, but who I also asked to leave me alone before and they continued. While Nemov's accusations of me in this thread are tamer than Notwally's serious false accusations, Nemov's are still likewise untrue. I believe Nemov is making them in good faith based on their experience from when they got involved in the original discussion, but since their involvement in that original discussion was just to pile-on comments harassing me, and they mocked me asking them to stop, I also feel that them leaving me alone may need to be formally enforced. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wall of text aside, several editors have approached you about the problems with your edits and you're still assuming everyone else is the problem. That is a lack of self-awareness. I look forward to an admin addressing this and have nothing else to add. Nemov (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actual response below, but even this comment is more of a misrepresentation that could be a PA: several editors have approached you about the problems with your edits Sorry, but one guy (Notwally) not AGF and insulting me for commenting on an argument, then another guy (Nemov) saying I'm bludgeoning for making two replies, is not that. None of the users I was actually responding to had any problems. you're still assuming everyone else is the problem I'm just asking to be left alone. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely by now you know I like to fully discuss things? ;) Ok, TL;DR, your multiple accusations against me, while I AGF that they are based on your experience, are wide of the mark and do not acknowledge that Notwally "started it" and was provocational in even their very first reply to me. That I did not make the sock/bludgeoning accusations you say I did, and that I am not wrong when I describe that I felt harassed. That the harassment began before I made any comment on Notwally (or Nemov), and my comments to them were generally variations on "you're misrepresenting me" and "leave me alone". That if you want to be critical of how I responded to being comment-stalked and insulted by Notwally, you have to acknowledge what led to those responses, and I am the injured party.
Since I already wrote you that my mention of the SPI was unwise, I clearly acknowledged where I had not helped proceedings. But you joining in with commenting on a contributor, and then not seeming to recognise even now that this is something that made it worse and directly led to me asking you to not harass me, could be termed a lack of self-awareness.
And FWIW, as noted above, Kcmasterpc did not have issue with my edits, you can see the link to their talkpage where I believe they said they didn't even read the comments, they just saw that there was heat happening and advised me to take a breather.Kingsif (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To an admin (I put this here to not append my opening statement): while I have felt the need to defend myself against Notwally and Nemov's continued false accusations (which in Notwally's case come from an instant and unyielding presumption of bad faith against me, but I AGF of both in making them), it must be said that (most of*) their accusations are immaterial, whether they believe them or not. Why? Because I engaged in discussion with various users at that talkpage and none of those users had any problems with either my comment content (Notwally's problem) or my discussion etiquette (Nemov's problem). So whatever the pair think of my replies to those users, my comments evidently were not doing any harm. So I do not believe it is the place for uninvolved users to effectively speak over the involved users who have no problems (especially after the point of being asked not to). The comments from Notwally (and, to a lesser extent, Nemov) were in this way also actually disruptive to the discussion: without their comments, there would be no off-topic threads there, myself and the users I engaged with would have been able to just have our productive discussions. There would also not have been the threads that got heated between myself, Notwally and Nemov. That's why I said most of their accusations are immaterial. *Because while I do not think they can fairly have a go at me for perceived problems that involved users did not have, how I responded to them is something they can. Besides the diffs presented here, I have not revisited those threads, but my recollection is that I did not give as much as I got, snarky aside about an SPI (which I have since apologised for) notwithstanding. Still, I've asked for IBANs on both those users; I'd take it going both ways. Kingsif (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, you are bludgeoning this discussion and responding to every comment that is made with long explanations about how you are the victim. It's no wonder that other editors have stayed away from participating in this complaint. You have had more than your say (times 10) so I think you can refrain from any more commenting unless a question is directed at you. Continuing to repeat your case doesn't help sway others to your point of view, it just makes other editors not want to read through all of your commentary. Additionally, this is ANI and you know that you can't determine what editors choose to focus on and your own conduct is under as much of a microscope as editors you've brought a complaint against. At ANI, brevity is your friend and I wouldn't be surprised if this gets archived with no action taken. But I could be wrong. LizRead!Talk!04:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a kindness to all involved I am closing this before blocks start raining down, which otherwise seems inevitable given the trajectory of this thread. Let's all avoid name-calling going forward, OK? 28bytes (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user whined on my talk page about his proceedings on Commons and is now reporting me here for commenting unsympathetically there on them, or I might never have noticed them. The Streisand effect applies. Please ping me if there are questions. Elinruby (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: You have made some 65 edits to the ATG-LB thread on this noticeboard in the past 5 days; Elinruby you have made about 25. Now that bludgeoning has spread to other places and sister projects and is generating ANI reports of its own. Maybe give each other and this board a wide berth for a while voluntarily, before it needs to be imposed? Abecedare (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sure, next time dozens of falsehoods are told about me I not be so naive as to protest. I will understand that this is simply because I am A Bad Person. I will also accept it as the nature of Wikipedia to denounce people like me who think that editors should not make stuff up and accept that some editors are allowed to say whatever they want about whomever they want, including, and this bears emphasis, not just I, who am unworthy of any civility or respect, but also elected project officials in the performance of their duties. And yes, as the IP below says, this is a report to ANI about a thread at ANI that was open at the time the report was made. Elinruby (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We probably need a swift WP:BOOMERANG to get this behavior to end. It would clearly prevent more disruptive battleground reports. Everyone can see what ER said above, on this page. 12.75.41.85 (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word from the admins commenting here were to try to deescalate this situation, not stir things up again, especially with diff-free rants. We understand you two don't get along but often trips to noticeboards make situations like this worse, not better, for both parties. LizRead!Talk!06:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz I have zero history with Dronebogus [81] except that Levivich falsely claims that I disparaged him. I invite anyone to look for themselves. I *would* offer screenshots proving what a falsehood that is, except that the thread is now private as I suggested, so screenshots would violate the terms of use over there. It seems that someone else over at Wikipediocracy once, a couple of years ago, made fun of his porn stash at Wikimedia Commons and told him that he can't draw, but that has nothing to do with me and saying "Aha, that is why" in response to finding that out does not amount to talking smack except to the extent that it gives a nod, as Abecedare just did, to his 65 posts in defense of Lightburst's ridiculous claims of canvassing. Elinruby (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: I think you are trolling actually. A number of reasons suggest themselves. Firstly, this is not a contentious discussion; you made an accusation against another editor and no one has so far agreed with you. In fact, you have been advisedtolet it go and take a step back by two administrators (and a third, if you want to consider your own talk page). The fact that you try and muddy the waters by citing policies you have not read (accusing me of involvement per a discussion on an independent sister project) and vague handwaves which still convey, nonetheless, a suggestion of an aspersion (if you actually feel you have been harassed you need to present diffs; you have not done so). The latter charge—involving off-wiki coordination and socking is particularly egregious and should either be withdrawn or you file at ARBCOM. But you will not, of course, because you can't. You do not have the facts to back up your aspersions.
I propose a boomerang for Dronebogus who, having been told not to make accusations unless backed by diffs, has continued to do so, and despite being advised to step away from the drama has, in fact, insisted on adding further fuel to it by reopening this discussion unnecessarily. Hence, since they insist on keeping the discussion open, they should now be made aware that it will not be kept open just until Elinruby is sanctioned, but that, when one is in a position to be sanctioned, one should be grateful for the opportunity to walk away. ——Serial Number 5412910:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, why are you so determined to close this so quickly? Why can you not just let it close organically? Especially when you’re already entangled with with whole fiasco? Dronebogus (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(uninvolved non-admin comment): While I believe that elinruby's conduct does not rise to the level of harassment, I believe that it was unwise of them to comment on the commons:ANI (link 3). Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m more concerned about their incivility— for example attacking LB (diff 4) their general tone, casting aspersions left and right (see diffs 1, 2 and 6), bludgeoning every possible discussion involving me (7) Dronebogus (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about a pattern here. @Elinruby, no real activity on the Commons project space, follows Dronebogus there, and then manages to catch a block for two days after accusing Dronebogus of uploading "kiddie porn" (a serious accusation) and then refusing to back down after a warning from an administrator there. Meanwhile, @Serial Number 54129, you aren't active on Commons much either, and the only other time you were involved in a user conduct issue there was three years ago to defend Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways, and now you're there again. That thread from three years ago makes for familiar reading. I imagine Commons would appreciate it if we didn't import more drama there. Mackensen(talk)11:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, but it works both ways (or even in 3 different directions between EN, Commons and WPO); Dronebogus's bludgeoning of the AndytheGrump thread above (60+ comments) trying get him blocked or banned, was purely provoked by the fact that AtG was involved in the WPO thread about Dronebogus's unsavoury Commons uploads. Black Kite (talk)11:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was provoked by the fact that AtG has a long history of being an absolute jerk. I didn’t even know about the WPO thread when the thread here started. And in any case I’ve completely stopped replying for at least a day. Dronebogus (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone a "jerk" whilst bludgeoning a thread trying to get that person blocked for incivility seems like a pretty novel approach, IMO. Black Kite (talk)12:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Jerk” is really laughably tame when we currently have accusations of “kiddie porn” being thrown around, not to mention AtG’s history of calling people fuckwits, imbeciles, and “crooked little grifters”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: (edit conflict) Well, Dronebogus seems perfectly capable of attracting all the attention, and creating sufficient drama, on his home wiki, without me worrying about his Commons stash. But I thank you for pointing out how little I involve myself in Commons drama... twice in three years? Not bad compared to the WP:BLUDGEONing highlighted by several of your colleagues. As far as the chronology goes, it's likely that Elinruby wouldn't have gone to Commons at all had DB not already mentioned it on their talk, 20 minutes earlier. You know the rules: if someone makes their way unaided and unencouraged to another editor's posts, that's a sure sign of edit-stalking. But when it gets mentioned (emotively, too:『all the crap I’m dealing with on Commons』is hardly synonymous with "it's hardly worth looking in at") on one's own page? No case. Regardless of what occurred subsequently on Commons to ER, I don't think it was the getting there from here that was at all problematic. ——Serial Number 5412912:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dronebogus has a history of bludgeoning and will probably catch a block before the day is out. That's not really news and that's not the pattern that worries me here. Mackensen(talk)12:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
They have been causing several incidents in various pages over an extended period of time and I have been collecting evidence. Unfortunately good-faith-users arguing with them do not always realize they are dealing with this bad actor (who has used an infinite amount of socks and violated all wiki rules) and have even been threatened by him to be reported, which is profoundly unjust by him.
I can also provide a list of many of the pages he usually vandalises and of his IPs, if needed (this is stuff several admins already know about). Barjimoa (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller I’m being accused of being a sockpuppet to accounts I never heard of before. Is there a way to clarify that I’m indeed not a sockpuppet to the accounts this user is accusing me of? And to the user who made this post, I can assure you I’m not the sockpuppet to those accounts, not to mention I never even edited half of the articles you have referenced, feel free to peruse my editing history to confirm. (Discopleasant (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
If admins need some of the known IP ranges of Venezia Friuliano/James Oredan to make a check I can provide them. These IPs have been marked or partially rangeblocked multiple times and include 31.221.128., 37.29.151.29, 46.6.189.143, and 80.102.210.145 (plus I am reporting here 92:191.197.200 cause it's evidently Dreom). The problem is that he likely has others. For my part I reported this account because it shares with Venezia/James:
-2)edits on a page edited by Venezia multiple times (culture of Italy) and ideas that match with Venezia;
-3)the talking point of wp:peacock on this Italian-related issue, which is common to many socks of James/Venezia;
It's certainly true he has not edited other themes that are in the interest of Venezia/James (genetics, portugal, Britain) but Venezia/James often diversifies his edits to make it less obvious. Barjimoa (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi everyone. A couple days ago I left a warning on Abbahabansn's talk page after reverting their WP:GENDER violation here, and just received a lovely reply in which the named editor tells me to "shoot yourself you fucking queer". Administrator attention would be very much appreciated.
I notice you haven't provided the user with any information. You haven't used edit summaries, just edit warred with them (incidentally breaking Wp:3RR on multiple occasions), no attempt has been made to talk to them on either the article talk pages or their own talk pages (other than just to throw a templated warning.) Their edits don't appear to be deliberately disruptive and they just need to be informed as to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You should
A) use edit summaries
B) not edit war or break 3RR
C) reach out to them on their talk page to inform them why their edits are being reverted
Note I warned the OP about the 3RR on their talk page as well as here, but they removed the warning and continued their edit warring. So I've blocked them for 24 hours. Canterbury Tailtalk15:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also now gone to Djimon3d's talk page and informed them as to why their edits are being reverted, and given them information on edit warring and 3RR, so lets see what happens. Canterbury Tailtalk16:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to get some extra eyes on this since I am feeling like something fishy is going on. I had believed CurlyHeadCel might be a sock but an SPI would be inappropriate for a single account. At the very least, I felt that they were trying to troll us and waste our time. I linked the discussion below that sparked this issue as well the commons contributions for them:
TBH, I'd consider a username block for them, as well as Trooncel whom they've apparently been interacting with per their talk page -- ("Troon (slur)" being an anti-trans slur, portmanteau'd with incel). ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!23:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool it with the smugness. Could've at least been nice enough to tell them what an SPI is instead of just immediately blocking them. OzzyOlly (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I think the IP poster was confused for the poster that this thread is about. Their two comments in this thread were to say the poster was ‘not here’ and linked the associated page, and the second one was to tell curry to read the link. They said “bruh” in their reply but their editing histories are dissimilar. Kingdom0aerith1 (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with this editor is almost certainly a sock puppet for the banned editor CanadianHistorian(MMA & History). There is an on-going sock puppet investigation requested here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CanadianHistorian(MMA & History), but the issue here is that even if this editor is not a sock puppet, there are some serious conflict-of-interest problems. This editor only edits the Rock Machine Motorcycle Club article, and in this post here [84] admits to being a Rock Machine member along with being their "historian". That is clearly is a massive conflict of interest problem. Moreover, the combative tone of this post and attacks on other editors with "personal issues" suggests that this editor has a battlefield mentality and a general inability to work constructively with other editors. And there is this claim that "police" sources are not reliable, see here [85]. I am going to phrase this as delicately as I can. This editor claims to be a Rock Machine member, and as far I can tell, this person has not committed any crimes. That is not the issue. However, the police and the overwhelming majority of RS such as newspapers and books say that the Rock Machine is a criminal organization that merely poses as a motorcycle club. The Rock Machine claims to be a motorcycle club that just happens to have some members that commit crimes. Can someone who is the "historian" of the Rock Machine really approach this question in a manner that is neutral and factual? Finally, the claims of RockGotti1813 that his membership of the Rock Machine makes him better qualified to write about this subject fails the verifiable requirements. Whatever he may know about the Rock Machine cannot be verified by other editors, something that this editor apparently does not care about. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor with a long history of disruptive editing, culminating with making a userbox that says "this user is transphobic". Can directly be considered disruptive as per WP:HID and WP:NQP (yes they're essays rather than strict policy, but directly stating "i am transphobic" is pretty clear-cut.)
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that my Userbox wasn't allowed. I thought it was ok because it was just for me to express my opinion on my own user page. If you think it was offensive just ask me to remove it. Zakary2012 (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If just removing it was sufficient we wouldn't be here: it's the capstone on your pattern of behavior: how can you justify both this and absurdities like
−
Daniel Michael Andrews (born 6 July 1972) is an Australian former politician who served as the 48th premier of Victoria from 2014 to 2023.
+
Daniel Michael Andrews (born 6 July 1972) is an Australian former dictator who served as the 48th premier of Victoria from 2014 to 2023.
I do acknowledge that what I did on the Daniel Andrews page was plain wrong and unjustified. But with the edit warring on Australia about the Royal anthem, at the time I didn't know about the rules of edit warring and am extremely disappointed in myself for my behaviour Zakary2012 (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the removal of reliably sourced material from Transphobia earlier today seemingly just because you didn't like what it said? If you think we care about your (or anyone's) perspective on the matter more than reliable sources, you're deeply mistaken. Remsense诉07:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just felt that a statement like that which was basing something on skin colour was racist and not the Wikipedia way. And anyway that has nothing to do with this discussion Zakary2012 (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outright transphobia goes well beyond just "your opinion". What would even be the point of such a userbox? To just make sure any trans people stopping by your page would know you didn't like them? It doesn't make any sense. GraziePrego (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bragging you are transphobic would probably get you immediately blocked. Just like stating that you are sexist, a racist or anti-Semite. Why would you want to advertise this? Only an editor wanting to be indefinitely blocked. LizRead!Talk!07:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An indefinite block is 100% appropriate, as this editor has now engaged in 1. bragging about transphobia, 2. disruptive editing, 3. edit warring, and 4. vandalism. GraziePrego (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I didn't know what transphobic actually meant. I thought it meant you were against gender transition not that you hated trans people. Now that I know the definition I greatly regret my decision. I think I do deserve a punishment but something more like a week-long block Zakary2012 (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(While even if this is the case, the editor has not covered themselves in glory, I think it's worth at least mentioning that their username seems to plausibly communicate that they are in a stage of their life where one can make a ton of mistakes without malice while learning very quickly about the world.) Remsense诉07:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to discreetly point out to the other editors that I'm more inclined to take your apologies as genuine due to the possibility that you're a teenager and so these being mistakes that you will learn from makes more sense. Remsense诉07:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the excuse that "you didn't know" very hard to believe. You have been welcomed and given links to look at several times, and been specifically asked to educate yourself about things like contentious topics and copyright. I've asked you to provide edit summaries which you still generally don't do. And you dont get to nominate how long a block might be.Nickm57 (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was still new to Wikipedia at the time and it wasn't until someone mentioned it in a talk page that I realised it was a thing and that it was against Wikipedia rules Zakary2012 (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: I've blocked the user indefinitely per WP:HID. Not only they are open about their transphobia, their bias has clearly affected their edits, as can be seen here. Any admin dealing with an unblock request should strongly consider a TBAN on gender and sexuality. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈13:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwqwer has been editing on multiple Pakistani assembly pages by changing one party to another due to a recent political case, this is completely fine, but another user informed him on Talk:National Assembly of Pakistan to not update the seats yet due to political reasons of making sure that the party has been changed. His response? He just told the editor to shut up and used the f-word. Titan2456 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Titan2456it appears you've failed to warn the user in question of this discussion, which I've done on their talk page.
They are not here to contribute constructively. I've come across them on various articles, where they repeatedly change content without citing sources. I left warnings on their talk page and attempted to engage with them on the article talk page. If Titan hadn't reported them, I would have. I support an indefinite block not because they used offensive language against me, but because their disruptive behavior is causing chaos across various articles. We cannot continue like this; we have more productive ways to spend our time. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked. Regardless of the "shut the fuck up", you only have to look at their contribution history and how significant amounts of their edits going back years have been reverted by multiple editors. Black Kite (talk)18:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do notice they are actively editing in the area of the email, no conclusive diffs found yet. Just asking for some eyes on this as it may affect Wikipedia content.--Commander Keane (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was taken aback by the claim in the email that "a letter from Steve Altemus to us at the Wikipedia Editors Guild stating Steve's belief in this fact, would be enough to qualify as having been published under our rules, so then we could publish it in Wikipedia". Whoever wrote that has a dangerously distorted view of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Schazjmd(talk)23:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far, all of us are what I would call "long time editors of Wikipedia." Lighthumormonger registered an account just a little over a year ago. Grandpallama (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated personal attacks by IP 47.69.67.250 (as well as by potential sock IPs)[edit]
The IP 47.69.67.250 has made several personal attacks targeting myself, making the following claims, continuing after I warned them that personal attacks violate Wikipedia policy (Warning Difs: [87] and [88])
"Once more, you try to fool me and others with deviating from the main problems." (Dif: [89])
"So you are now dictating others which sources to use by inventing FAQs that nicely serve your private ideas of editing?" (Dif: [90])
The IP has similar behavior (and a similar address) to the following IPs. Additionally, at multiple times, the IP mentions their prior behavior, which was conducted by one of the other IPs.
These potential socks have made the following comments:
"The "a user" who did this draft is Redacted II again, who arguably posted the first anonymous post as well" (Dif: [94]. 47.69.69.199)
"Obviously, you think you own this article and don't want to cooperate in any way. Not WP style." (Dif: [95] 47.64.131.12)
"You always try to take others for fool just to cover that you lack real arguments" (Dif: [96] 47.69.68.190)
"Don't always try to fool people" (Dif: [97] 47.69.68.190)
"This is no doubt once more one a dubious action to push opinions" (Dif [98] 47.69.68.190)
Mentions of prior comments made by a different IP:
This is an extensive history of personal attacks, all by similar IP addresses with a very similar "style".
If this belongs in a different section (like the sock puppetry section, though that isn't the main issue IMO, then please move it) Redacted II (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any of those diffs as personal attacks. The IP's style of discussion is not collaborative, but that's not the same thing. Also, I don't see this as socking. The IPs obviously belong to the same person, but there's no policy against using different IPs unless it's to gain an advantage in some scenario, like a vote or edit-warring. Is there any evidence of that?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have denied using multiple IPs (Dif: [101]) (though, that isn't the issue: it is claiming I am attempting to "fool them" and "ignoring their argument" (invariably as a response to me responding to their arguments).
IMO, making those claims repeatedly in the face of evidence, as well as threatening to report a user for giving them warnings, are personal attacks in violation of Wikipedia's policies. After all, we are all supposed to Assume Good Faith, and not claim that the editor they are arguing with is attempting to "mislead editors". Redacted II (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They deny using several IPs at the same time; that would be an entirely different behavior from having their IP address change from time to time, which is what has actually taken place. The fact that they continue discussions and refer to the earlier addresses as their own is evidence against deceptive behavior. --JBL (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my issue with them isn't that they've used multiple IPs (though their denial, at least to me, seems like an attempt to make others believe that they are not all the same person).
And I disagree. Even though you think they don't qualify, that doesn't mean that everyone else will share that opinion. Wait a few days before dismissing this as "a waste of time".
And for why those comments violate WP:PA, here is a quote from WP:PA.
The IP's comments may be frustrating and annoying, but as Bbb23 has told you, they don't rise to the level of personal attacks. I don't see anything actionable here. Sometimes we just don't get along with someone else on WP, and the only thing to do is roll your eyes, shrug off the comments, and move on. Grandpallama (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see these as personal attacks. You know you've been attacked when the comments require revision deletion. Years ago, an editor once told me that I embodied all of the worst things about Wikipedia and you just need to shrug comments like that off and keep editing. If we blocked everyone who stated another editor was pushing a point of view or lacked a real argument, admins would be spending all of their time blocking editors. This is the internet and often people are less than polite. LizRead!Talk!04:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just found I "got a message" and thought I should comment.
First, of course every few days my provider gives me a slighly new IP. That is completely normal and I cannot change that. I never used that to appear as several persons.
Second, I never have deliberately attacked him, I just told him not to fool me over and over again by deviating from the main problem and repeating inappropriate arguments, which I saw as intentional attemps to silent me. When I learned that he might have misunderstood the word "fool", I tried even to explain this in the discussion ("you might know that "to fool" also means "to mislead", and in this and only in this meaning I used it"). So where to complain? Furthermore, English in my 2nd language, thus I apologize if I not always get the right wording, but that hardly can be punished.
I admit that I got more and more annoyed that he just put my arguments down and acted as if he owned the article, and he clearly also provoked me. Btw, he was the first to threaten to "report" me, and he accused me and others even here to be sockpuppets.
Having said that, and hoping I understand the way WP works, I would like to add that I have the feeling that even this discussion is one more attempt to deviate from the main problem, which is he is constantly using wrong references, making "original research" and . For anyone interested in details, look at the discussion. Parts of the article have been hidden now by "Redraiderengineer", "Temporarily removed vehicles for updated citation per WP:CHALLENGE on talk page.". As Redraiderengineer is much more familiar with WP vocabulary, methods and tools, please have a look on his elaborations about the flawed citations and referenced. I was accused of "nor working on the article": Despite from experience that IP-made changes get often deleted without even explanation, I just don't know enough about WP to insert multiple references into tables or similar. I just wanted to help making this article better by pointing to these problems on the talk page, but Redacted II put repeatedly everything down despite clear arguments that were supported by others as well. I think this is extremely important because Starship test flights are very high in public perceptions these times, and the article still has many issues, mainly stating facts that only derive from "original research". Thanks to all. 47.69.67.250 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has a very lengthy history of adding unsourced content (1, 2) and ignoring MOS guidelines – ENGVAR in particular (1). They are still non-communicative and still failing to use edit summaries. I've reported them previously for their editing (see here). They were blocked for a week back in December, and I'm not sure what to suggest here moving forward. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There had been persistent vandalism 1234832059 (vandalising existing redirect) 1233687282 (obvious vandalism removal including removing reliable source citation without explaination & with extraordinary claim WP:EXTRAORDINARY) 1232854799 (earlier same extraordinary claim WP:EXTRAORDINARY about North Korea) 1230012264 (obvious vandalism inconsistent with the rest of the article) 1232652151 (unsourced edit without sync/update to already existing citation)
Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by EvergreenFir (talk · contribs). jlwoodwa (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Indeffed with TPA removed. Black Kite (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: I've blocked the user indefinitely per WP:HID. Not only they are open about their transphobia, their bias has clearly affected their edits, as can be seen here. Any admin dealing with an unblock request should strongly consider a TBAN on gender and sexuality. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 13:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
