Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1165 - Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the opportunity to explain my edits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

into various articles about the early Christian church,

I focus on the fourth-century Arian Controversy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

He has persisted in his edits despite multiple warnings;

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

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

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

and will have to be reviewed.

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

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

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

I am reporting inappropriate conduct made by User:Starigniter. In a recent discussion [1], they called me a "pathetic liar" and a "hypocrite" and snark remarks like I have never open a "dictionary in my entire lifetime". They also afterwards, claim I am using a "bad dictionary" despite I used Oxford. So not only do I have to put up reading their long line of derogatory remarks [2], but they are unable to accept being wrong without a large amount of verbal defensiveness. Example is when they argue that tiebreakers must always involve additional gameplay, and that dictionary supports them. I explained the dictionaries are a limited reference source that merely gave examples of common tiebreakers but doesn't actually specify anywhere they must absolutely require extra gametime to settle a tie, and gave them Oxford dictionary definition [3] that defines it more comprehensively, as well as real world examples of tiebreakers, such as FIFA football and USAGA golf, that don't involve additional gameplay in their tiebreakers, but they will dismiss FIFA football as being a silly game, and accuse Oxford dictionary as a bad dictionary while simultaneously calling me a liar and a hypocrite. Why must I argue against that reasoning/personal attacks? I already gave them a warning, yet they repeated it again[4] and I see no chance of them changing on their own in the future. Evibeforpoli (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I share asilvering's concerns about the OP's approach, notably with these comments [5] [6] [7] that it seems like they're more interested in winning disputes or being proven right rather than in working out what's best for our articles. However I don't think it's at a level that requires administrative attention especially considering the OP is likely a little heated given the personal attacks. I've personally spoken to the OP about my concerns, and asilvering has as well. Any other editor, or an admin is welcome to speak to them if they will it useful, but hopefully the message will get through to that they need to change the way the approach disputes here and focus on what's best for our articles and not on "winning". I would add that frankly, I don't feel the OP's responses to Starigniter were that bad. Maybe they could have been more civil at times, but especially considering the personal attacks if it has stopped there frankly I would have no concerns. For me it's only the way they responded to the 3O that really causes concern. So AFAIS Starigniter really has no cause for blaming the OP in any way, not that there is any justification for the personal attacks. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears there is ongoing discussion on article talk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Cant see the problem...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fails to engage in consensus building

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

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

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

Weyer said in their edit summary: removing section for now -- see talk. Given that there was nothing on talk to justify the removal, you could have just reverted it and started a talk discussion. You still can revert it per STATUSQUO—just don't edit war if you get reverted.AN/I is for chronic and intractable behavior. This is a slow boiling content dispute, not a pattern of disruptive editing. Let the RfC play out (you can also neutrally advertise it at relevant WikIProjects (see WP:APPNOTE) and consider what other editors have to say. I've already pointed to some NPOV problems for you to work on. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  BTW the editor does or did know they have a user page on commons [10] and was able to find a talk page to sort of ask for help [11] Nil Einne (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

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

• I have blocked the editor with a permalink to come and read this discussion. Black Kite (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Blocked for a week to start. Izno (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't someone have linked them to the WP:REFDESK or something? jp×g🗯️ 18:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No, because REFDESK ate the last doughnut. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

DelusionalThomaz515610 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It does not seem likely that this user will stop removing all mention of Vietnam from discussions of East Asia or the Sinosphere, which is not very nice of them. Remsense诉 20:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This user returns every few months to revert a dozen articles to their preferred version, removing Vietnam but also intervening edits by other editors,(e.g. [12]) and ignoring attempts to communicate.[13][14] Kanguole 23:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm just about to Wikipedia:PBPOL Deranged Thomas from those articles they have have shown an disruptive interest in. For those following along here, in the various historical states and kingdoms in what is now Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea and so on, Classical Chinese was the shared language of scholars, sort of analogous to Latin in Mediaeval Europe. Case on point: the "nam" in "Gangnam Style" is the same "nam" in Vietnam - please see Wikt:南--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, "OK, I'm just about to Wikipedia:PBPOL Deranged Thomas..." would appear to be pretty much synonymous with "OK, I'm going to precipitate unnecessary WP:DRAMA".: Change of plan. I'm just about to ask DelusionalThomaz515610 about this about this. And if that there isn't a satisfactory outcome there, seek more opinions, discuss it further, and so on.--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not Cambodia, I think (used Khmer written with an Indic script), but the rest, yes. If past behaviour is any guide, DerangedThomaz is now gone until he returns in a couple of months to repeat. Kanguole 23:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Unarchived, as he's circled back around for this month and done the exact same thing again. Could someone please help me out with this? If you need a single revision to clue you in, this one will do. Communication has not helped here. They blatantly remove all discussion of Vietnam or Vietnamese from articles centered in the Sinosphere / East Asia, including removing all the sourcing in each case that discusses Vietnam just like the other relevant countries, fully attesting its equal relevance—with the only consistent justification being that "Vietnam is part of Southeast Asia, not East Asia". It should be clear from the supplied reversion (et al.) that there's nothing I can do but revert him each time he comes around, but I don't want to do that anymore. Remsense ‥ 论 02:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are a couple of prize edit summaries. [15][16] Propose an indefinite block. This user is clearly not here for any purpose other than to push their personal crusade. Grandpallama (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked DelusionalThomaz515610. Cullen328 (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate it—though something in me always wishes I could communicate better in these situations. I just don't have the patience. Remsense ‥ 论 04:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 according to the block log you blocked them for three hours. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Victor Schmidt, thank you for noticing my misclick, which I have corrected. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Lindenearlejones (talk · contribs) This user was repeatedly warned about inappropriate editing of "Short description". After the last remark his response was "You're being uber trivial; no need acknowledging such trivializing", meaning they have no intention to change their behavior. I suggest blocking is a reasonable measure now. --Altenmann >talk 04:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Without thinking, Like here But most of then they remove "None", that's how I noticed. Another common nuisance is wrong capitalization like here --Altenmann >talk 04:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That edit also referred to the otherwise-unknown Swiss canton of Calais (should have been Valais). Narky Blert (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I left a warning at User talk:Lindenearlejones#August 2024. Let me know if problems persist, perhaps by raising any new issues at user talk and pinging me from there. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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

In the article on Cappuccino, they first removed a referenced statement, claiming it was not reliable, even though it came from a professor of food history. They have now labelled this professor as "controversial" within the article.[22]

Same in the article Carbonara: [23]

Here they changed the place of origin of White pizza, removing America without any discussion or reference: [24]

In Zeppola, they refuse to include a mention of the American version of the dish, saying it’s “absolutely not necessary” while other users asked for it in the talk page: [25]

They have also been engaged in edit wars on the article Orzo, removing names and versions of the dish that are not Italian, with another editor restoring them: [26]. The only argument they have is saying “they are Italians so they have more knowledge”: [27]

Furthermore, in the article Porchetta, they had an edit war and refuse to acknowledge that the dish is also typical of another region outside of Italy. The discussion in the talk page [28], in my opinion, lacks respect and demonstrates an inappropriate behaviour for Wikipedia, by refusing to engage in discussion. Here they even ask to remove an ANI: [29]

In Penne alla Vodka, they removed an entire sourced paragraph that claimed that the dish was probably American: [30]

I noticed that today they edited the Mont Blanc article to list Italy before France in the infobox, even though alphabetical order would suggest the opposite. This change was made without explanation. This small detail reveals their nationalistic bias, as they always seem to prefer placing Italy in the first position: [31]

In the article Cappuccino, there was a consensus to include both Austria and Italy in the infobox, as seen in versions prior to February 2024, for example here: [32]. I wanted to change it to include only Austria but did not reach consensus. However, I noticed that Jackkbrown decided to remove Austria in April [33] without reaching a consensus and does not accept any changes.

I believe that they are not contributing positively to Wikipedia. Their bias consistently leads them to advocate for a subjective nationalist point of view instead of considering the facts. Additionally, they never use references to support their changes or statements. They claim to have expertise ([34]) in Italian cuisine, but I only see someone who avoids using references, refuses to engage in discussion, and promotes a nationalist perspective. I think this does not help Wikipedia, and such behaviour should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapsby (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarifications for anyone perplexed like me: JacktheBrown was JackkBrown until an account name change on 17 Aug 2024[35], but their sig had been JacktheBrown for a while. The above saying “they are Italians so they have more knowledge” refers to two edit summaries last month, both ending I am Italian, and I have no right to own this page, but I have more knowledge than you, because it is an Italian food, justifying capitalising the infobox alternative name of Orzo, from "risoni" to "Risoni",[36] and putting single quotation marks around pine nuts[37]. The tban from Gensex proposal is above at #Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown). NebY (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I think I'm semi-involved here because I've participated in some RMs initiated by Jack. I won't comment on the broader issues here, but I don't believe his labeling of "a professor" (Alberto Grandi, since no one else has linked to him directly) as "controversial" is as problematic as others have suggested, though maybe the phrasing could be better. This is because Grandi's claims are in fact controversial. See [38] [39] [40] [41]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
• In my close of this discussion from 6 months ago, which resulted in a 1 month block, I wrote "Any further disruption following the lifting of the block is likely to end up with an indefinite block implemented by any administrator." I cannot say I have yet read through this thread in its entirety, but this may potentially apply. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

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

• As has been noted, the professor is in fact controversial.
• I've proposed a solution to the dispute at Talk:White pizza. We went through something similar a while ago with Italian sausage.
• Adding the American version to Zeppola may well be a good idea, but all Jack did was object to a proposal on the talk page that it be added. No one has actually added it so Jack hasn't actually removed anything.
• Jack seems to have accepted the changes at Orzo.
• The "sourced paragraph" at Penne alla Vodka was only added recently and the source was a blog. --Un assiolo (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Jack accepted Sapsby's changes at cappuccino, improving them, although "Unfortunately, I was forced by Sapsby to accept their changes"; see: [42] and [43]. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  At Penne alla vodka, they removed a paragraph that was sourced from a blog, as you mentioned. However, a quick search can yield reliable sources (I will add some to the talk page). It seems that this user is not motivated by objective knowledge, but rather, as stated before, by inserting their nationalist views into every article they're interested in.

  I see there have also been issues with their edits at Imane Khelif, which in my opinion fall into a similar category. In that case, as Imane Khelif won against an Italian boxer in the Olympics, and Jack wanted to promote the version that she did not truly deserve her victory. Enamait (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with an indefinite block. This user seems to need more education about Wikipedia's culture of collaborative editing. Their bias is obvious and makes them unable to engage in constructive discussion.Enamait (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding: IP 79.21.222.19 who is active at cappuccino talk page has just been blocked due to edit warring and seems to share a similar nationalist Italian POV with JacktheBrown. This IP was also restoring JacktheBrown's version at cappuccino ([44] and [45]). I find it a bit suspicious, maybe someone should investigate more.Enamait (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Enamait: could you please stop creating false reports? Thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I opened a SPI case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JacktheBrown Enamait (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This general topic has been discussed at ANI before, [46]. The issues have continued however so I'll give an abbreviated account below including recent developments (diffs can mostly be found on the previous thread)…

Earlier this year, new user DN27ND wrote the article on Nori Bunasawa off-wiki and forwarded it off-wiki to another newly created user, 110347nbtough, who has identified themselves as Nori Bunasawa at Commons. User 110347nbtough then created the article as a draft and referred it to AfC. DN27ND, who had no previous experience at AfC, then approved the article into mainspace as one of his first actions on Wikipedia.

The article was later referred to AfD for notability reasons here [47]. During that discussion DN27ND resorted to bludgeoning, battleground behaviour, misquoting of policy and racism. Before the AfD was concluded the user was blocked from both the article and the AfD by Star Mississippi (for disruptive editing, COI and bludgeoning). The article was then deleted.

Shortly afterwards the user recreated the article as a draft. While the article remained as a draft it was nominated for speedy deletion under WP:G4 by user:Lavalizard101. At that point DN27ND recreated the draft in Sandbox3, apparently to avoid losing the draft through deletion. Ultimately the draft wasn’t deleted under G4 because it hadn’t been moved into mainspace.

Earlier today DN27ND did move the article into mainspace, in clear breach of his block. I nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:G4 (recreation of deleted material), although it could as easily have been nominated under WP:G5 (created in violation of a block). The user contested the deletion but it was deleted and salted by Novem Linguae.

DN27ND then took the issue to Requests for Undeletion, here [48] (copy pasting their note to contest the original speedy deletion) and has resumed the same kind of uncivil behaviour that affected the AfD.

As far as I can see, the user has a clear conflict of interest, has spent most of their time on Wikipedia trying to get this article into mainspace, has continued their attempts in that regard despite being blocked from the article, and is generally disruptive. I’d therefore suggest that the user be site blocked to prevent further timesink.

Also copying in Marchjuly and Daniel who had previously been involved. Axad12 (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you guys are that important. And the allegations of "During that discussion DN27ND resorted to bludgeoning, battleground behaviour, misquoting of policy and racism" is your interpretation and I disagree. I think the article should be judged on the sources and whether it meets the criteria. Block or no-block, that's pretty miniscule and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Just check the article and judge its quality and whether it meets criteria. The subject of the bio I wrote has lots of international fans, are you going to delete and block everyone? The article was written using legitimate quality sources and sources that are accepted within that particular community and its available online or through a paywalls. DN27ND (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Daniel, Star Mississippi, Lavalizard101. Who are these people? Are they checking these articles using some sort of criteria? To me these users are anon. Are they high school graduates, just wiki contributors, editors of known journals, college or high school professors? How about just check the quality of the article rather than try to check people's behavior and wikipedia might get more donations. DN27ND (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing further evidence of your general MO, much appreciated.

The request for undeletion has already been turned down by Novem Linguae and user:Black Kite. How many more 2nd opinions do you feel you need?

Also, re: your block evasion being pretty miniscule and insignificant in the grand scheme of things, I don't expect you'll find many to agree with that here... Axad12 (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a block evasion. It's a new article and it included evidence from Kyodo News in terms of notability. I think having a huge production company adapt a book for a feature film is a notable artistic project. DN27ND (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you have some sort of personal issue with me? Perhaps review the sources and the article? DN27ND (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a personal issue with you. Only with your conduct. This forum is the appropriate location on Wikipedia for raising conduct issues. Axad12 (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's hilarious that Wikipedia is a conduct regulating website. I thought it was for general information about topics.

I really contribute to a few sports and martial arts articles on here on my spare time. A block for me isnt that big of a deal. Isn't this place all volunteer based anyways? So no one is getting paid to contribute? DN27ND (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's hilarious that Wikipedia is a conduct regulating website. Don't all social groups have norms and rules? Hard to get multiple people to work together if there's anarchy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We moderate our content/disputes/discussions here. This website just doesn't happen, you need people to move all the widgets and throw the switches that keep this place moving along. Volunteers yes, still work though. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, Marchjuly, Daniel, Star Mississippi, Lavalizard101, NovemLinguae, Axad12, etc sound like members of a local high school journaling club who spends more time discussing other user's behavior rather than the substance of articles. They have way too much free time on their hands. DN27ND (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

DN27ND, if you make another personal attack, thereby violating WP:NPA again, I will block you immediately. You don't get another warning. --Yamla (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

What I see is DN27ND is blocked from Nori Bunasawa. They worked on a sandbox article and then moved it to Nori Bunasawa. What confuses me is they then seem to have edited the article directly thereafter. I'm not sure how that technically happened, given the block. This does appear to be a violation of the clear intent of the block at the very least. I'm unsure if DN27ND should just be blocked indefinitely or if we should first attempt a WP:TOPICBAN on martial arts, broadly construed. I think given the bludgeoning and COI concerns, probably an indefinite block is more appropriate, but I'm not casting my vote yet. --Yamla (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If it helps, the technical issue has been addressed here [49]. Axad12 (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It does help! And the explanation makes sense to my software developer brain, too. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Kind of interesting that wikipedia is some sort of pseudo-democratic community of computer programmers? I only contribute to some sports and martial arts related content, a block is not that huge of a deal DN27ND (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Where do you contribute to non-martial arts related sports content? Presumably under an alternate account? Axad12 (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to ask leading questions to find out if I have more than 1 account? DN27ND (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's be honest, you already gave it away. There aren't any non-martial arts sports related edits on the contribution history for DN27ND, so you must have been doing them on another account. Perhaps that's why you're so untroubled by the prospect of being blocked? Axad12 (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure bro...you run with that one DN27ND (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You would make a good lawyer in real life. Too bad they require bar exams. DN27ND (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems most of the people proofreading for quality control have no expertise in the subject they are proofreading on, and personal issues between users affect quality control of the content published independent of whether the content is quality or not. DN27ND (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And they are asking for donations to wikipedia to keep this type of format alive DN27ND (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Enough's enough, please indef block' DN27N for civility and battleground mentality issues. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and indef blocked just now for personal attacks. There are two in this thread, one of them after Yamla warned them for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12, got a diff for 110347nbtough, who has identified themselves as Nori Bunasawa at Commons? This will make it easier to block that account. Oh and would also need a diff of DN27ND identifying themselves as Nori Bunasawa. Or any other on-wiki evidence of a link between the two accounts (no off-wiki evidence please, as that would be WP:OUTING). –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. It's right at the top of this COIN thread [50].

Many thanks for your help with this today, much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see enough to block 110347nbtough at this time. They haven't edited since 2021. If they come back to life, feel free to ping me and I'll take another look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it also worth deleting this version [51] of the deleted article, currently sitting in the user's sandbox? Axad12 (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a pass on deleting that. I think that might stretch WP:G4 a bit. Any other admin may feel free to act on it though if they are more confident about deleting it than I am. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Novem Linguae for taking action here — full support from me on the indefinite block. Coming to you live from the 'local high school journaling club', Daniel (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

2600:1004:b059:e97d:4c45:e92e:7536:36b9 (talk · contribs) is blocked and needs TPA revoked. Remsense ‥ 论 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Done across the /64 range. I'll hide the edit summaries momentarily. --Yamla (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Emmanuel Anin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Spamming AI-generated nonsense to articles. They've been warned several times prior to this. OhHaiMark (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that, upon review of the history of Draft:Vivian Jill Lawrence and the info at User talk:Pirate 064#Mass draft creation, this appears to be related to yet yet another project where prize money is being offered in exchange for editing articles. I have never not seen such projects backfire, regardless of the intent of the organizers.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we just ban all contests with any sort of monetary prize involved? I don't think I've ever seen anything positive come out of them. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:9C04:452A:DEA1:1BE5 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• User:Meganinja202 - Two points:
  • When you open a report about another user at WP:ANI, you are required to notify them. I have notified them for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
  • You filed a request at DRN after filing this report. The request at DRN has been closed as pending in another forum (this one). If you want to request moderated discussion of a content dispute, this report must first be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Monjento (talk · contribs) has been removing AfD tags and templates for Remah Naji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See [55], [56] and [57]. They have had 2 warnings on their talk page [58] and [59], and the behavior continues despite these warnings. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Further removal of AfD template [60]. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

An admin has stepped in and partially blocked User:Monjento for edit warring. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting their blatantly dishonest edit summary [61] "Updated spelling error" and their battleground mentality [62] "Truly exemplifying using process to oppress women's history". duffbeerforme (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, an account with similar comments appears now. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monjento LibStar (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Monjento has now resorted to personal attacks basically at all editors opposing their view in the AfD [63]. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an editor who clearly cares about this topic, doesn't really understand our notability policies, and is being piled on. This could still be a learning moment for this editor, hopefully one that allows them to contribute productively. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've left a message for them on their talk page: User talk:Monjento#Some advice. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a pile on. I see an editor engaging in personal attacks against multiple editors. TarnishedPath^talk 05:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • On 16/08/2024 with the edit at Special:Diff/1240636409 @Deb moved Remah Naji to draft with edit summary "Deb moved page Remah Naji to Draft:Remah Naji without leaving a redirect: Move to draftspace (WP:DRAFTIFY): nowhere near ready for article space".
  • Deb notified Monjento on their talk at Special:Diff/1240636897.
  • On 17/08/2024 Monjento submitted the article to AFC with edit Special:Diff/1240645572.
  • On 17/08/2024 the article was rejected by an AFC reviewer at Special:Diff/1240651098 with them leaving edit summary "*Declining submission: bio - Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH)".
  • On 17/08/2024 Monjento, despite the article being rejected by AFC, moved it to mainspace at Special:Diff/1240708788.
  • The next edit at Special:Diff/1240708996 Monjento removed the AFC templates, including a comment left by the AFC reviewer, and left a personal attack in their edit summary writing "Removed the editorialised and uneducated opinion of someone that does not live in Australia".TarnishedPath^talk 09:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  The personal attacks continue [64]. I get a real sense that this user thinks they WP:OWN the article in question. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  They probably do. This is their second article, and the first one was approved through AfC. I can understand why a new editor who has never collaborated on something might think that the article they worked on and put out to mainspace is their work. They responded well on their talk when I suggested they join WIR. I think this editor can be a productive member of the community. I'm not excusing the personal attacks, but I can understand why someone who is being templated instead of talked to might react negatively. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  "editor can be a productive member of the community" whilst this may be true, they really need to cease their personal attacks of anyone who disagrees with them if they want to stay in the WP community. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  And they have for a good while. I hope they continue to desist. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  It's become common for new contributors, especially those whose first language isn't English, to take the attitude that everyone is against them and refuse to accept that they've done anything wrong. If this pattern of editing continues, a block would be appropriate. Let's wait and see how the sockpuppet investigation goes before taking action. Deb (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have my suspicions, but we can wait to be certain. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Due to there behaviour at Remah Naji and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remah Naji, Monjento be topic banned from Australian politics broadly construed. TarnishedPath^talk 01:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a bit excessive for edit warring over one article. There's been no evidence presented here of broader disruption. I think instead of jumping to the big guns, somebody should first explain our guidelines on notability to Monjento, specifically how we're cautious about the notability of candidates for political office. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

(ec) If the disruption is confined to one article, this seems like overkill. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree, don't see the need to topic-ban an editor who has 73 edits and is currently disrupting only one article. The next step here if the disruption either continues or spreads is an indefinite site-block based on their short tenure. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll withdraw the proposal. Hopefully their behaviour doesn't continue. TarnishedPath^talk 05:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• removal of the AfD templates is concerning, but not enough for a complete topic ban I think. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Rishabisajakepauler (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.189.244.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Banned User:Rishabisajakepauler from Texas has been using the range Special:Contributions/64.189.244.0/22 for the past few weeks. His signature style is to ask for a redirect to be created, then later he will create an article from the redirect, bypassing the requirement for article creation to come from registered users. He has been editing articles about hip hop music.

• Example 1: On July 4, Special:Contributions/104.190.206.106 from Texas requested a redirect to be created for American Dream Tour.[66] CFA approved the request and created the redirect the same day. On August 15, Texas IP 64.189.246.115 removed the redirect to create a new article.[67]
• Example 2: On August 23, Texas IP 64.189.247.245 requested a redirect for Drugs You Should Try It. [68] CFA created the redirect the same day. On August 27, Texas IP 64.189.246.115 created a new article from the redirect.[69]

Past IPs

• May 2022 and August 2024: 24.28.41.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 2024: 72.181.10.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• March to July 2024: 104.190.206.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2023–2024: 98.6.144.50 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (blocked six months)
• 2023–2024: 76.183.116.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• In 2022, Special:Contributions/2600:1700:74C6:E80:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for a year to stop Rishabisajakepauler's disruption. Many more IPs have been involved in the past two years.

I am asking for a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/64.189.244.0/22, and extra eyeballs on the problem to catch whatever disruption comes next. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

... Yet another AfC/R block evader to add to my list. Thanks for the ping. C F A 💬 01:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding Special:Contributions/129.120.67.51 because of this reversion today. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've blocked all of the active IPs/ranges for roughly the same amount of time the sock has been active on those IPs (anywhere between 1 month to 1 year). This includes Special:Contributions/129.120.67.51, Special:Contributions/64.189.244.0/22 and Special:Contributions/76.183.116.95. @Binksternet:, did I miss anything?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that should do it. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This user @Zlogicalape: has been pushing his POV for days. Adding that Joseph Barbera has Lebanese descent. Which is a minority view. And which creates a false balance. And also has been casting aspersions on me by claiming that I use multiple accounts.

The issue is explained in the Talk Page which Ive started but I'll try to summerize it: Joseph Barbera wrote an autobiography, in this autobiograohy he says that his parents were Italian/Siclians, and says that his grandmother was from siciliy too. He also talks about his Italian heritage and Sicilian ancestors and doesn't mention anything whatsoever about Lebanon or the Arab culture. The majority of reliable sources say that he was a son of Italian/Sicilian immigrants. However, the daily telegraph and the Atlantic (the atlantic only mentions it in passing) say that his parents were of Lebanese descent, contradicting what barbera state in his autobiography. And also contradicting what one of the closest friends of Barbera stated.

I have provided many reliable secondary sources on Talk Page, such as The Independent and the Gaurdian, which state he was a son of Italian/scilian immigrants.

To reach a middle ground, I had previously added an explanatory note stating that the daily telegraph states that his parents were of Lebanese descent contradicting what barbera states in his own autobiography. But later user Zlogicalape reverted it saying that there's no contradiction and implying that his father was Lebanese who was granted the Italian citizenship. A claim that has no reliable source to back it up. He added that his father was only of Lebanese descent. And removed what the many other sources, including Barbera's autobiogrpahy, say.

I opned a talk page to start a discussion with him, but his only real argument seem to be that Barbera's ancestors were Lebanese by origin, and that Joseph Barbera had hidden sentiments about his Lebanese heritage. The issue with this is that this is not what the daily telegraph states, it doesn't state that his parents were Italians of Lebanese descent, or that Barbera had distant Lebanese ancestors. it only say they were of Lehanese descent. This in my opinion shows that the daily telegraph simply made a mistake here. Besides, Per WP:NOTGENEALOGY: Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.

I seeked a third opinion

I asked an administrator to help us in the discussion

i took the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard

But nothing worked, after 3 days of discussion, the user removed my reliable sources and the accompanying note, again https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=prev&oldid=1242917953 The user seems to be playing games by misusing wiki policies, they said that I'm engaging in original research and other things which clearly I didn't

Also during the discussion, the user was engaging in original research and started personalising the topic and said weird things like moooooo!! He also casted aspersions on me which is a personal attack by saying that I'm using multiple accounts without providing evidence.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1242818262

They also made several unsupported implications that im misusing multiple accounts which can be seen on Talk page I think my position is the most policy based and represents all views fairly, since the majority of reliable sources say he was a son of Italian and not Lebansse immigrants. And since that is what Barbera's states in his autobiography. Adding that Barbera's parents were Italians with an explanatory note stating what the daily telegraph states should be enough.

Note there was previously a consensus on talk page that the Lebanese descent should be removed but it was later archived. See Joseph Barbera ethnicity. I know consensus can change but I thought the discussion they had would be beneficial to read Whatsupkarren (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This user has taken matters into his own hands while displaying "innocent intentions" all while sticking to his main rhetoric and avoiding the arguments presented to him. In addition to avoiding what he has been told on the dispute page:

"Continue discussion at the article talk page. If discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive, a Request for Comments may be used to obtain community consensus."

Not to mention being in violation of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV as well as WP:THISORTHAT

Note: Everything is available on the talk page.

P.S: His statement towards the end "And BTW, I just found out that the Lebanese MTV's actual name is Murr television" is also meant to throw ppl off as showing good faith. Not that it matters to me or the conversation but i just wanted to state that he ain't foolin no one. Zlogicalape (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, weird stuff.

I was the one who requested a comment, and the third opinion agreed with me.

I'd also like from this user to explain how I have violated WP:NOR.

I'm the one who opened the talk page discussion and discussed with you for 3 days, I requested a third opinion, I requested an admin opinion, I took the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard in which you refused to engage productively and casted aspersions on me which is considered a personal attack

I also said MTV (Lebanon) is unrelated to MTV because an admin whom I requested their comment, thought they were related.

What's your issue with this exact action? How am I throwing people off? It's just weird Whatsupkarren (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In Special:Diff/1242570748, User:Gerryyabes added a large section of text very closely paraphrased from this website.(Worryingly, they didn't cite the source) I went to warn them, only to discover that they'd been warned five times in the past two months for similar behaviour by @Fram and @Diannaa. I'm perhaps foolishly hoping that this is a compromised account, given the fact that I can find no earlier warnings - but I think that, given their unresponsiveness, they'll likely need to be blocked (at least from article space) until they show that they understand copyright. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's see if Gerryyabes responds here, noting they appear to live in the Philippines so time zones may be an issue. But yeah, it does look like this has been an ongoing issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gerryyabes doesn't respond as of replying to this comment. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I have p-blocked Gerryyabes from articlespace as a preventative measure. As far as I can tell he has never responded to any concerns brought up on his talk page; at the very least, in my opinion, he should acknowledge the issues and explain how he will avoid them in the future before he's allowed to edit articles agai, with the very clear understanding that he'll be given the hook if he continues his current trajectory. This isn't a newbie editor, they've been around for 18 years. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I endorse this block as a reasobale measure until such time as they choose to engage with the community over this issue. We can leave this discussion open for a little while in the hope that they will respond. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• SM Kamrul Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MGBD (talk · contribs)

Over the past couple weeks I've been dealing with a slow-motion edit-war over on SM Kamrul Hassan with MGBD and a handful of IPv4 addresses that may as well be them; more specifically I've been removing content that is unsourced/badly sourced while MGBD has been reinstating it using the argument "But every other article on Pakistani military officers is sourced this way!". I've asked for protection once but it was declined on the grounds that MGBD isn't too far off from attaining the extended-confirmed userright. Since I'm tired of having to strip out BLP-violating material on a daily basis, I'm coming here to figure out what needs to be done here to stop MGBD from mindlessly reinstating content removed per BLP. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yeah, masses of unsourced stuff in a BLP is not great. I have reverted it back to the sourced version, and fully protected it for two weeks. If MGBD et al want to add material to it, they can provide a request on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey jeske why are you so after this page. This information is accurate and found from military pages. I have previously given you links. and cited it but you just keep deleting them. I am the creator of this page and been running it for 4 years now but you are kind of attacking this individual. I can understand it. But please stop this is a very important person in the country. next time when the information is provided it will be cited again but donot delete this again and please leave this page alone. MGBD (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I am the creator of this page and been running it for 4 years now *ahem*. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 17:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but you can't issue instructions to other editors to leave a page. Also you need to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi thats understandable.. but when the information provided was it was sourced at some point. even the template..was being repeatedly deleted... MGBD (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

No, MGBD, there isn't any version prior to my gutting the article where everything was properly sourced in compliance with WP:BLP; I've looked. Every revision from the creation of the article to when I took an active interest in it has had swathes of unsourced text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

there was a citation done from, the official national defense college (NDC) bangladesh page...after your request of citing them properly. but you said this was extracted from a prior version of the wiki page which is not true. this information is accurate in offical NDC page. Also today I also cited the lietutenant general tittle (3star) on the office template, along with comand of 66th Infantry division and BMA commandant, which is written explicitly in the news references used in this page. So please do not say. So this information is accurate and what can be done now to restore this information and keep in on this page then, tell me.. Please. MGBD (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This version (which is how you left the article) is almost completely unsourced. Whether the information is accurate or not is irrelevant. Unless it can be sourced, it must stay out of the article. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Look at this version I did few days ago. this was deleted by @Jéské Couriano, based on that it was pulled from wikipedia. But is put on NDC Page and still is (please click on the link and sm kamruls picture to load his biography). So he deleted that and i tried to re-instate it. However since the general is a big public figure I think other indiviuals tried to fix the info without citing it. MGBD (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite Please look at this version and kindly re-instate it. That would be very appreciable. Thanks MGBD (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite also please look at this version most of the information was already cited if you see from the reference of this version especially from BMA commandant and Chief Instructor DSCSC Archived wesites. before @Jéské Couriano started deleting them. MGBD (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

all of the referred websites provide the same information written in different words and was updated with time. MGBD (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite also I think @Jéské Couriano is after this page only with some kind of intention... isnt it double standards that other similar pages are not being deleted and only this one... please consider this. This page was never attacked like this in last 4 years, but started since last week... since the sm kamrul got promtoed to lietutenant general... MGBD (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

My only intention is making sure the article is in compliance with WP:BLP, which is a policy that has legal implications and thus has to be adhered to more-or-less to the letter. I also explained why I removed content that appeared to be properly sourced; the NDC article is copied from Wikipedia and the two sources in Bengali do not support the claims they were being used to cite. As to why I'm focusing on this article specifically, we had a helpee come in and complain about it while demanding we also lock down the article so only they could edit it. My gutting the article addressed their complaint minus the impossible protection request. There is no nefarious conspiracy here beyond the fact I have zero tolerance for people reverting edits that were clearly labeled as BLP-compliance-related. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Also Bangladesh Militray academy page and Staff college bangladesh page which was archived... also if you notice all the other bangladeshi generals also have similarity in their pages with the lietutenant general rank and 3 star images on template and other information's are presented from similar military websites and so on.... My question why are you specifically onto this page only? and not any others? they are not sourced.. based on your standards... MGBD (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

MGBD, if you'd bothered to actually read the NDC source you'd have noticed it's pretty much taken from Special:Diff/1085141269, right down to copying the citations (very poorly). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You cannot determine @Jéské Couriano that an official website page of national defence college is providing false information on their website ok. It was upto them to choose where they take their information from but on official website theres always official and accuate information. Please no more war. lets work together if necessary. MGBD (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Official does not mean accurate, and official websites are not immune to WP:CITOGENESIS by copying information from Wikipedia. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also please look at this version most of the information was already cited if you see from the reference of this version especially from BMA commandant and Chief Instructor DSCSC Archived wesites. before @Jéské Couriano started deleting them. MGBD (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

If you'd read the edit summaries, you'd know why I removed them - they couldn't support any of the claims they were used for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@MGBD, content needs citation to an WP:INDEPENDENT source. (Please read that link; it's important for you to understand this.) The Army and its PR service are not independent; they have a vested interest in making him look good. So the fact they say something doesn't mean we include it. About the only thing we want from an affiliated source is bare dry facts, such as date and place of birth, parents' names and occupations, college/degree/date of graduation, dates of promotion, etc. For everything else, we need independent reliable sources to be discussing. Valereee (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

83.87.67.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) must be the same person. They added similar content, sometimes to the same article as Hystricidae21. The IP's edits go back to 2021. Diffs: [70] [71] [72] --Un assiolo (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Bump. I agree with Un assiolo, the edits of Hystricidae21 should be examined. (Although the IP edits may be precursors, not WP:LOUTSOCKing.) Examples of Hystricidae21's edits already given above include violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and not merely a misunderstanding of WP:RS but replacement of adequate sourcing with poor sources:
  • [73], [74], Un assiolo example, degradation of sourcing
  • [75], Toughpigs example, insertion of POV essay content in mainspace, instructing reader to "Verify for yourself" as a reference
  • [76] (by one of the IPs) and subsequent edits by Hystricidae21, converting the introduction of Self-ownership to a POV essay, Un assiolo example, see their revert on 17 August
  • [77], article referred to by Un assiolo, POV rewrite of intro of Compulsory cartel and insertion of essayistic sections on "Compulsory medical cartel" and "Compulsory banking cartel" and a paragraph presenting the "Dutch medical welfare state cartel" as an example of Economic totalitarianism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the Health care rationing page Un Assiolo claims political screed and that NPOV needs to be restored. I suppose that he means that the page contained subjective political opinions instead of facts, but this is not the case. It is a commonly known fact in the netherlands that all medical care, with only a few exceptions require a referral of a GP. I have several references for this: "In the Netherlands, as in many European countries, the health care system has been organized in such a way that people cannot enter higher levels of medical care directly."^[1] and "Primary Healthcare In the Netherlands, general practitioners (GPs) function as gatekeepers for patient referral to specialists." and "Private Spending Out-of-pocket payments have been declining steadily in the Netherlands – from a share of 9 percent of total healthcare spending to 7.1 percent in 2005 and then sharply to 5.5 percent in 2007."^[2]. I was about to add these references in support of this fact. So clearly this is a compulsory monopsony eliminating the market economy for patients as buyers of a basic necessity good and service (medical care).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"

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

"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To echo some of what was said in the 2020 discussion, appropriating the term and framework of tone policing seems pretty insensitive. Tone policing is about folks with systemic privilege silencing the marginalized and oppressed. Appropriating the language and concept implies claiming that Zanahary asking you to be less inflammatory was a form of oppression comparable to the misogyny that women experience and the racism that people of color experience. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you think it is civil to accuse another editor of appropriation? jps (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes: it is called WP:CIVIL, and it is one of the five core policies around which all other policies and guidelines are based. As far as I can tell, the thing which is here being referred to as "tone policing" is "when people expect you to follow it". jp×g🗯️ 05:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

One thing I note is that WP:CIVIL does not come right out and say that people should give the benefit of the doubt to comments about which reasonable people might disagree. Below, I was accused by the filer of this report of being uncivil for asking a question about tone policing. I have had people accuse me of being uncivil for saying something was "uncouth". It is obvious to me, at least, that this policy is a favorite one to WP:GAME precisely because there are so rarely any consequences for accusations that don't land. jps (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Are you seriously claiming you were unable to discern that using the word "bloviation" to describe another contributor's comments would be taken as an insult? jp×g🗯️ 06:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Seriously. jps (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I agree too with regards to definition. It comes across as misrepresentation is this filing when bloviate is a pretty accurate and concise description (and concise is important when dealing with an editor that doesn't get to the point). There is no insult there unless self-manufactured and such reminders to stay on topic are occasionally needed.

Hydrangeans' portrayal reminds me of the trope of an English teacher making words sound bad to students (as a teaching moment in how people often trick themselves in vocabulary). Something like, "The girl defenestrated her boyfriend in front of the entire school." That teaching moment often catches people thinking it has sexual meaning when it's instead a dispassionate way of saying she threw him out the window. Maybe Hydrangeans' way of portraying that was retaliatory, but the WP:BELLYBUTTON approach I'd take here is that they simply learned a new word (relevant xkcd) and didn't check the definition before jumping to conclusions. KoA (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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

I think you might be misrepresenting Epachamo's comment and JPS's response, they made an identical one on my talk page [81]... And you seem to be presenting one thing as two, there is no plea seperate from the quote but "and" suggests that there is. JPS also does not reject their advice (he does not go and try to chase anyone off or say that he will... He says he will continue to AGF even though its being stretched to the limit). Epachamo's advice isn't bad though as a universal maxim for effective editing, I find it fitting in this situation as well "I beg you [Hydrangeans] to give him [jps] the benefit of the doubt and work with him rather than chase him off, even if it takes time, patience and effort." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

My impression is that jps enjoys arguing, and while that sometimes is helpful in situations where POV-pushers are trying to wear out opponents, it is so fucking tiresome when there's no "off" switch. I have also noticed a tendency to characterize situations as one click more severe than is necessary, e.g. an explanation that might not entirely oppose a religious viewpoint becomes "apologetics", a comment that takes time to parse and consider becomes "bloviation", a human person asking for some human consideration of other humans participating in a collaborative environment becomes "tone policing", etc. I don't think that approach encourages collaborative editing.At the same time, in this particular area of the encyclopedia, we've got multiple people who actually share an opposition to the purely religious interpretation of events, but are camped out in different corners of the semiotic square. So unfortunately we get situations where (for example) "the whole golden plates thing is bullshit" is set against "the whole golden plates thing may not entirely be bullshit in one or two specific aspects but is obviously not true in the religious sense" (aka "not not bullshit"), rather than both recognizing that they share an opposition to "the golden plates were real and confirmed and holy" (aka "not bullshit"). That entrenchment is not helpful to the encyclopedia, either. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is it's really unclear at least to me, what you mean by any of that. As someone who thinks most religious stuff is silly but a lot of the LDS believes is particularly silly, I've been observing this from afar on FTN and frankly without knowing much about the scholarship, it's looked to me like the others have been far closer to trying to promote text that is in accordance to our policies and guidelines than you have.

As others have said, the existence of plates is fairly unrelated to whether you accept Smith's story about how he came to them. It's perfectly possible to think Smith's story was utter nonsense while accept one or more set of plates which Smith showed to people did exist at one time.

If I may use a different example, AFAIK and supported by our article it's widely accepted that someone called Jesus of Nazareth did exist around the time Christians believe he did. It might be fair to say we cannot "prove" he did exist anymore then we can prove virtually anyone specific, beyond I guess those who show up in modern gene pools, existed that far back. But AFAIK the evidence for him is considered so strong that claims he didn't exist are generally considered fringe. In fact, I think it's been said that our evidence for Jesus is stronger than we actually have for a number of other historic, non-religious figures we generally accept did exist.

Accepting the existence of Jesus does not require accepting that he was the son of god, born of a virgin, rose from the dead, that he turned water into wine or performed other miracles etc. But we do get the occasionally skeptic who incorrectly believes that the correct skeptical position is to reject the existence of Jesus when it's clearly not. Yet your approach to the existence of these plates has struck me as similar to those skeptics trying to convince us we shouldn't generally accept the existence of Jesus.

To be clear, I'm quite sure the evidence for these plates is not as strong as our evidence for Jesus, but it seems perfectly possible to me that it is strong enough that our articles should present them as factual, just as I'm sure our articles largely present the existence of Jesus as true. But it's not clear to me you understand this.

An alternative might be because the evidence is lower, we might present the plates as something which most likely did exist, but there are alternative non fringe theories which suggest they didn't. It's possible the evidence is weak enough that even this is too far, but there's definitely no reason why we should present the existence of plates as something in significant doubt, just because Smith made a number of nonsensical claims about them.

What matters is ultimately what reliable secondary sources who have analysed the evidence from a non-Mormon POV have concluded about the existence. If the vast majority of such sources have decided these plates do exist then that's what our articles should present, no matter whether editors may disagree with their analysis per WP:RGW etc. Such editors are welcome to do their own analysis, get it published in a reliable secondary source and wait their analysis to get widely accepted and then present it to use along with their WP:COI for us to evaluate and improve our articles.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is different from Christ Myth Theory because, basically from the get-go, the issue was that people accused Joseph Smith of making it up and not having the plates. I know of no comparable argument going on in, say, 1st/2nd Century Roman Empire about whether Jesus existed. Do you? jps (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, unlike Jesus where there are plenty of independent, non-religious sources which state without equivocation that Jesus existed, I don't see any of the sources about the plates saying anything definitive. Instead, arguing that something existed is couched as plausible. jps (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, there are absolutely zero sources that even mention Jesus during his lifetime. All sources that exist mentioning Jesus were written after his lifetime. We have zero independent sources from people that met, saw, or heard of Jesus during his lifetime, only from his close followers. The first anti-Mormon book was written by E.B. Howe in 1834 Mormonism Unvailed, which you can read here. We even have the story of transporting the plates in the beans. "A box, which he said contained the plates, was conveyed in a barrel of beans, while on the journey." Howe heavily alludes to doubts about the existence of golden plates, but NOT that Joseph Smith had a box which he said contained plates. Howe knew Smith, and hated Smith personally. You would not find a worse enemy to Smith than Howe. This is primary source analysis, but is evidence even historically to show that there was little doubt that he had a prop. Epachamo (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We can argue over the close reading of Howe elsewhere but, suffice to say, I see no categorical acceptance that there was a prop... certainly not enough for us to make a declaration in WPvoice. jps (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I've said enough but just wanted to note that "non-Mormon POV" was poor phrasing on my part. I meant to exclude those treating the existence of the plates as a matter of faith, but of course that isn't the only problem. In fact we shouldn't trust someone approaching this from a "Catholic PoV" etc either. Instead what matters is an academic historian PoV. Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this formulation... but what I think is relevant here is that Wikipedia doesn't go beyond what the sources say. There are lots of sources that ask the question "If Joseph Smith was showing off something that he was saying were Golden Plates, what explains that?" A decent question, but what I don't want is for WPVoice to use those sources, which all seem to approach the subject as a plausibility argument, as an argument to include text in WPVoice that says something like "Joseph Smith was showing off something" as though this is a plain fact. jps (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I also 100% agree with this description, and one part is so apt I will quote it:

I have also noticed a tendency to characterize situations as one click more severe than is necessary, e.g. an explanation that might not entirely oppose a religious viewpoint becomes "apologetics", a comment that takes time to parse and consider becomes "bloviation", a human person asking for some human consideration of other humans participating in a collaborative environment becomes "tone policing", etc. I don't think that approach encourages collaborative editing.

I would sum it up as unnecessary hyperbole that increases the temperature of a given discussion. It is confrontational rather than collaborative, and not cool. Less of this would be cool. Levivich (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that using "bloviation", which has negative connotations, unnecessarily escalates confrontation in a discussion. A more dispassionate description can be effectively used to convey the desired point. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the behaviour of ජපස. Recently, they blanked a section in Worship of heavenly bodies. When I restored it, rather than taking the issue to the article talk page, which would be the correct and respectful path, they went directly to a noticeboard [82]. The way their characterize my edit "Skyerise insists we have a section ..." and "I am worried that this is WP:POVPUSHing" seem to verge on personal attacks, considering we haven't yet even discussed the issue on the article talk page. In my opinion, this editor needs to moderate their pushy methods: premature forum shopping? Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Worst sentence (said of an editor's writing)
  • Unintelligible (said of an editor's summary)
  • tone policing (said to an editor about their advice)
  • bloviation (said to an editor about her reply)

  Borrowing Loki's phrasing in this thread, while I don't think it's quite at ANI levels in a vacuum [...] In combination with past warnings, I do think it's probably deserving of a filing. The intractability and repeated dismissal of requests to dial down the temperature resulted in ANI seeming necessary. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  The first three diffs are two months old. The fourth quotes some text, then, referring to the text, says "This is bloviation." That is followed by an assertion that no reliable sources support a claim that apparently lurks in the quoted text. The current FTN discussion shows "bloviation" was struck. Calling part of a comment bloviation might be unpleasant but it's not a CIVIL problem. I think people should focus more on the plain meaning of comments rather than feeling slighted. That is, are there any reliable sources supporting the claim in question? If not, words which cover up the situation might reasonably be referred to in a disparaging manner. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Calling part of a comment bloviation might be unpleasant but it's not a CIVIL problem. I think people should focus more on the plain meaning of comments rather than feeling slighted. Yes. But a bit more than that, Hydrangeans went out of their way to link to an article about a style of political speeches, so that they could allege a more insulting version of "bloviate" than the common usage. That's disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, and a large part of why I called this a borderline vexatious report. It mostly suggests to me that we might not be out of line considering a one-way IBAN for Hydrangeans. Grandpallama (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Only comment so far, but I don't think an editor identifying incivil comments counts as "tone policing". That's a euphemism that deflects an accusation and turns it back on the other editor instead of addressing and explaining the original comments. It's as if an editor identifying racist language is then being called "hateful" for pointing it out. I'm not addressing individuals but talking about the language we use to discuss problems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I would call tone policing a euphemism, but I completely agree that the majority at this website seem to align with your opinion on the matter. Wikipedians as a group just do not think tone policing is a problem when discussions turn to civility. jps (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think this is Tone policing. This filing doesn't try to discredit your content arguments because your tone is bad. You may be right on content; that doesn't mean your tone doesn't break the site rules. And if your tone did break site rules, that doesn't mean your content argument was wrong. Put another way, if you start commenting loudly in the theater about the acting, you may be right on content, but it's not tone policing for other patrons to shush you. They're just trying to enforce the rules of the forum, regardless of whether you're praising or condemning the actors. So too here in Wikipedia; WP:CIV is one of the rules of the game, and you have to abide by them or else go somewhere else.

  If it's alleged that this filing is an attempt to silence you on content, then you could provide some diffs and make a case for WP:GAME against the filer. Absent that, the complaints about Tone Policing seem to misapply what that term is used for and ignore the actual issue alleged. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the filer did the classic WP-thing of hopping over to dispute number 2 and reflexively took the "enemy of my enemy is a friend" approach -- a daring WP:AGF maneuver:

  • [83]
  • [84]

  This isn't the first time she has done that, neither.[85]

  But generally, I really don't like this kind of score settling argumentation in spite of the obviousness of this low-level harassment she continues to direct at me. While I continue to have concerns over her signal to noise in areas where we overlap, I remain convinced she is a net positive for the project.

  jps (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think it is obviously false that "Wikipedians as a group just do not think tone policing is a problem when discussions turn to civility"; it would be more accurate to say that "Wikipedians as a group do not agree with jps's definition of the term 'tone policing'". jp×g🗯️ 04:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Obviously false", eh? I am interested in how you were able to determine "my definition" of that term. jps (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  How would you define the term? Epachamo (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I do not object to the Wikipedia definition. jps (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• On a brief look, it seems like this report heavily relies on history -- it's hard to see these most recent diffs as particularly beyond the pale such that admin action is needed. I haven't looked in detail, though, and mainly wanted to jump in about this "tone policing" stuff. Tone policing is the phenomenon of a dominant or otherwise powerful group dismissing grievances from marginalized groups because of the way they made their argument, thereby derailing the conversation or avoiding the subject. It degrades understanding of a real tactic to apply it to "people keep telling me to stop being a jerk even though I'm right" situations on Wikipedia. We're a collaborative project where, in theory, nobody has more power than anyone else (but if anything, the long-time, somewhat more aggressive users have more power), and we have a civility process because we have to figure out how to co-write encyclopedia articles. Black Lives Matter activists, Republican politicians, and Fox News pundits are not in a situation where they're all on equal footing trying to collaborate on a single task. It's one side who wants change/action but lacks political power and another side looking for ways to dismiss/mischaracterize them. That's not what's happening here. Now that I'm writing this, I'm realizing it's become enough of a pet peeve that I should probably write an essay... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would appreciate such an essay. But I will say that power dynamics on WP don't necessarily settle out in neat up-down dichotomies. jps (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Unless I missed something, this wall of text has had only one administrator comment in it. Like most disputes about civility, people feel strongly, but this is looking to me like diminishing returns. If any admins see anything that requires them to act on it, that hasn't emerged yet, and otherwise, this isn't going to accomplish anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is more here than just incivility; this editor is engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND-type tactics, revert-warring just up to the line on multiple articles, abandoning ongoing talk page discussions in the process, and forum shopping for support. Check their edits as Worship of heavenly bodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), then stalking me to Liber OZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which unless I am mistaken, they never edited before; opening threads at WP:FRINGEN after a single edit was reverted, without going to the article talk page first, etc. Adding a whole "list" of article at Talk:Worship of heavenly bodies not as a serious query, but as a WP:POINTy edit. In short, this editor has been and continues to edit in an abrasive and dismissive manner, doesn't accept that other editors can have good faith differences of opinion from them, and occasionally strays into incivility when they are called on their behavior. Skyerise (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• Popping in here to note that my biggest problem with jps' conduct is an unreasonably expansive definition of FRINGE that encompasses every alleged religious miracle, as readily recently admitted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Humphreys: Claims that Jesus Christ bodily rose from the dead or that the Red Sea literally split apart [...] are fringe claims. (my edit; see the full AfD discussion for context). jps' insistence that religious beliefs be treated as FRINGE scientific theories is a persistent Category error present throughout our recent interactions, and I can see why less experienced editors might find that position offputting and uncollegial. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would love to have this discussion, but I'm not sure what venue is appropriate (I doubt it is here). Wikipedia seems to prefer etic versus emic approaches, and to the extent that it does, we are under a sincere obligation to make sure the text does not say things in WP voice like, "Jesus bodily rose from the dead" or "There is evidence that Jesus rose bodily from the dead" or "There is controversy over whether Jesus bodily rose from the dead" or "Some scholars accept that there is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead". There are, of course, a myriad of ways to talk about the subject of miracles that satisfies everyone, but there are definitely ways to talk about miracles that Wikipedia needs to eschew as a WP:MAINSTREAM reference work. jps (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  And just to be pedantic, people come back from the dead all the time. It's called Lazarus syndrome, and we don't have to appeal to miracles to explain it. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have no problem with this explanation, but it has nothing to do with the discussion I was referencing. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with JPS and HEB on this one, and wonder if there was a miscommunication. In an article about theology, these miracles (or Young Earth creationism) would not be fringe. In an article about the creation of the universe, it would be. As you pointed out, the article on Creationism shouldn't treat YEC as fringe, because it's in the context of theology. However, History of Earth very much should. In the linked AfD, I got the feeling JPS was arguing that insofar as Russel Humphreys would only be notable for his Creation science work, that work itself is considered fringe and thus not work covering. (Note "pseudoscientific" in the creation science article.) JPS, please correct me if I misinterpreted what you were saying. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have thought for one whole day on how you can simultaneously agree with this explanation and also think it has nothing to do with the discussion you were referencing. I think you are taking something like a non-overlapping magisteria approach to religion and science here on Wikipedia, but I don't think Wikipedia is set-up to accommodate the strictest separation of the two. But, obviously, there is something I don't understand in your critique and maybe this isn't the place to discuss this. You say your talkpage is open. So is mine. But after this comment, I actually don't even know where you want to begin the discussion. jps (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe this is overly technical but isn't that just stating a truism? A miracle is something that lies entirely outside of conventional scientific and medical knowledge and practice... That is it has no explanation other than the supernatural. Theories which lie entirely outside of conventional scientific and medical knowledge and practice are fringe theories as wikipedia defines them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Jclemens: now that we appear to have established that you were wrong about that being disruptive behavior (because FRINGE does actually cover every miracle, including the religious ones) perhaps in the spirit of civility you could apologize to JPS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  There are no less than three separate unfounded or incorrect assumptions in this statement. I could provide an apology that's not related to what you think it should be, but I'm afraid someone would object to that as snarky or petty. jps knows where my talk page is, and is welcome to bring up any concerns with my statement there. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  That is surprising to me, what are the three or more unfounded or incorrect assumptions you see? Always happy to correct/explain/strike when mistaken Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Question: @Hydrangeans: What is your primary objective in starting this report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

For a chronic, intractable behavioral problem to be resolved. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Weak report. The only admins who have commented so far (Johnuniq and, briefly, Liz) don't seem interested in sanctioning jps without much better and more recent examples of incivility, and I'm not either. And it's humorous, if anything, to see Skyerise (currently blocked) complaining in several posts above about an opponent's incivility in discussions where Skyerise themselves displayed rampant incivility and edit warring. Hydrangeans, do you want to improve this report, or withdraw it? Bishonen | tålk 12:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC).

  For completeness, I'll note that a third administrator, JPxG, also has commented.With community discussion about the user's behavior apparently ongoing, withdrawing the report seems premature. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Probably also worth mentioning that JPxG clearly does, at a minimum, think jps has done something wrong here. Tho I'll leave it to him to say if he actually wants to do anything about it. Loki (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll second the recommendation that this report be withdrawn, but reasonable minds can certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  I will third the recommendation. The primary issue as I see it is that jps does not suffer fools gladly, and I have often been on the receiving end of this many times, even when I was pretty sure that I wasn't being foolish. To his benefit, I think jps has toned it down quite a bit in the last year or so, and is no longer vying for the curmudgeon of the year award. I also note a measurable improvement in his approach to other editors, including idiots like myself. For what it's worth, I tend to lean on him for his help and expertise, so I find him to be a valuable resource in spite of his blunt and unforgiving attitude at times. He's corrected my mistakes in several places, and he managed to do so with respect while leaving my dignity intact, so he can be a nice person when he wants to be, and for that I thank him. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything actionable here. The diffs don't demonstrate incivility. This comes across as reporting someone for an issue that there are already preconceived notions of in the expectation that traction will be forthcoming because of prior discourse. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  Do you agree with the characterization offered by Indignant Flamingo and Levivich above? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's time to close this and return to our regularly scheduled construction of an encyclopedia. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• It’s unfortunate to see this pattern come up again. At this point I think it's a knock it off rather than a sanction, maybe a formal warning, but it is a demonstrated pattern of not understanding community norms. It doesn't matter of you are right, you don't act like that. PackMecEng (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to ask for help with User: 92.40.212.171. This IP user engages in disruptive editing. See: Special: Contributions/92.40.212.171, and [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=92.40.212.171]. When I attempted to contact them about verifiability on their User Talk page, no response was left (see: User talk:92.40.212.171#Your_recent_contributions.) They then changed "the" to "stfu" in the Welcome template left on my User Talk section. They also tried (IP so not autoconfirmed so abuseFilter prevented them) to add "Don’t change my edits luhanopi" to my User page.

Luhanopi (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for three months for personal attacks and harassment, and also for vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Jpbowen recently set off copypatrol (view report), and a manual check has confirmed that they very closely paraphrased this source beyond what is acceptable. Upon further examination, I discovered their other most recently created article, Gunfield, also contained close paraphrasing from one of its sources. (Outlined here.) They've fixed the issues I've pointed out and I trust they won't re-occur, but it's probably best for the time being if somebody removes the autopatrolled flag from their account.

You can view our conversation about the issue on their talk page. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Done. This seems pretty cut-and-dried and the user has admitted their error. You are right to have told them recent cases of close paraphrasing issues does disqualify anybody from either holding or receiving the autopatrolled right. I have indicated in the log that they may re-apply at any time, but obviously a couple of creations without these issues first would make a better case. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways Thank you for responding and confirming my interpretation wasn't completely off-base. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

They are disrupting the infoboxes of articles related to leaders that are of interest to both WP Bangladesh and WP Pakistan. I first noticed the issue in the A. K. Fazlul Huq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, where they altered his birthplace to its present-day location rather than the location as it was at the time of his birth, all while remaining logged out. After I requested protection for that article, they logged in under the name James Conan Niag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and continued the disruption. They then moved on to the Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article, where they removed the present-day location from his birthplace. When I confronted them, they reverted my edit with an offensive summary (while logged out), calling me "illiterate" and "paki", a derogatory term used to describe people of Pakistani heritage. I am reporting this disruptive behavior, sockpuppeting, and the personal attack. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I've noticed over the past few days there has been a big spike in the number of incidents related to Bangladeshi articles. I could just be sleeping under a rock, but what could be the cause of this? I didn't see much of what is appearing now 20 days ago while the protests were occuring. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The outright coup? An authoritarian government toppling? New tensions with India and all the fallout? This isn't going to be a matter of a sudden and brief spike. Ravenswing 07:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

A lot of office-holders were replaced after the unrest, though I don't think it explains the issue of East Pakistan politicians here. Borgenland (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Now they are targeting my edits on Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), can an admin take an action here, this is blatant vandalism and wikihoundimg by this editor. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• I would like to add to my previous comment that I attempted to engage them in a discussion here, but instead of participating, they chose to revert my edit, simply stating "leave it as it is." They then followed me to Pakistan, where they reverted my edits and removed the sources I had added. I spend considerable time researching for the sources, and their battleground behavior is really discouraging. After that, they reverted my edit on the Muhammad Ali Jinnah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page but later self-reverted, claiming it was a "recent edit," as if it was acceptable to wikihound and revert me as long as it wasn't recent. They then moved on to the Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page, restored an edit they made while logged out yesterday with an abusive edit summary, which they reverted it as an eyewash initially. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a user, Ybsone, who is following me around and either reverting my edits or objecting to my proposed edits on talk pages. His conduct strikes me as that of a "grudge" mentality because we had content disagreements in some RUSUKR articles in late July (e.g., War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine), and because of these disagreements he has taken to opposing my future edits on even unrelated topics. This conduct does not strike me as being in the collaborative spirit of the project. He is making the editing process a personal battleground. This is in particular a violation of WP:FOLLOWING.

The majority of these "following" cases are in RUSUKR but the most blatant ones would be those outside this topic area where there isn't any plausible deniability; those are selected below as examples.

Example A: Most recently, he has reverted an edit I made on the alcohol article within 30 minutes. This revert is his only contribution to the article. The latter fact combined with the short time window is strongly indicative of a decision to follow me around rather than an organic interest in editing the article.

Example B: A bit over two weeks ago, he objected to a proposed change I suggested in the article on controversial psychologist Kevin MacDonald. Again, he has never contributed here before.

Example C: This is within the RUSUKR topic area where we originally had a content dispute, so I cannot accuse him of following me around for this case (it is plausibly genuine interest), but it is illustrative of his grudge and battleground mentality towards me. Consider the RfC Talk:Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC: Mention Russian demand on NATO expansion in lead?. The user in question wrote five separate timestamped comments underneath my yes vote. These were five separate "original" comments so to speak (they were not replies to replies addressed to him, as is typical). They were made over a five hour period (08:49 UTC on 13 August to 14:01 UTC on 13 August). This is unusually aggressive bludgeoning. It is an unusual level of personal interest in another user's vote that you would make multiple comments about their vote over a five hour period, unprompted by anyone else. Noteworthy also is that the user devoted far more bits of text to criticizing my vote, than justifying his own vote, which was left as a short (and frankly incoherent) sentence, seemingly an afterthought.

Indeed, if you look over the user's edits over the past month, it's mostly either chastising me (both within RUSUKR and without) or editing about sports cars (which is a favourite topic of his).

Finally, I note that the user has been warned of his conduct by another user, Mellk, on his talk page here.

I would request that the user be asked to cease this conduct. JDiala (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You could just take the criticism of being wrong when trying to change the tone of a long standing articles and move on. YBSOne (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Am I "disrupting Your enjoyment of editing" when pointing out that You have changed the lead of an article because of mistakenly thinking that "is one of the most widely abused psychoactive drugs in the world" is "undue". Again, nothing to do with drinkers it is just being widely abused out of other psychoactive drugs. Am I "disrupting Your enjoyment of editing" when Special:Diff/1236158164 preventing You from WP:SOAPBOXing and changing the tone of the lead in a long standing article? Has Your enjoyment of editing been disrupted? YBSOne (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Other instances of soapboxing reversal by me with talk page discussions. Special:Diff/1236481183 Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 27 and Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_26#Lead_is_clearly_POV; Special:Diff/1238537335 Talk:Vladimir_Putin#Public_image_in_Lead; Special:Diff/1237547921 Talk:Russia#"Very_low". In my opinion this user is WP:NOTHERE to better Wikipedia but to clear Russia/Putin/Russian aggression, of a bad image and change the tone, to spread propaganda and to WP:SOAPBOX, hence my behaviour that may have been mistaken for WP:FOLLOWING. I urge admins to check the editing history of other subjects like: Special:Diff/1238510210 Talk:Kevin_MacDonald_(evolutionary_psychologist)#Ordering_of_labels_in_lead_sentence.

User spends majority of edits on [talk page battles] with other editors to make their way by any means necessary. YBSOne (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

See as an example [86] where he argues that Nazis don't believe in white supremacy]. Nazism has sources saying they did. I topic banned him in June from ARBPIA. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also: "Mention that she's Jewish in the first paragraph, as this is most natural." and Talk:Jesus#Do_not_call_him_Jewish_in_the_first_sentence. YBSOne (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also: Special:Diff/1240305960, Special:Diff/1238429006, Special:Diff/1237921444, Special:Diff/1237852938, Special:Diff/1237502321, Special:Diff/1237004405, Special:Diff/1236988703, Special:Diff/1236988472: allowing themselves to discredit or discard RS or parts of it when it doesn't meet their expectations nor agenda, as mentioned by other editors. YBSOne (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a legitimate technical question whether "white" as a category adequately describes the particular group the Nazis regarded as being superior, especially since, as I note, they regarded many racial groups conventionally regarded as "white" (namely Slavs) as being untermensch. I certainly was not suggesting the Nazis weren't racist, which is what your misleading phrasing suggests. It's also not clear what the point you're trying to make here is. This is disappointedly sloppy engagement by an administrator. JDiala (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala Nazism included in the definition of Nazism white supremacism. They didn't think that Slavs etc were white but were Untermensch )eg Jews, not just slaves) as you say, sub-human. For them, only Aryans were white. I'm not suggesting you don't think the Nazis were racist. I'm not surprised you don't show good faith to someone who topic banned you. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a content disagreement. I'm not sure what the point of you bringing up this separate content disagreement is. Is it to imply I'm a WP:NOTHERE as suggested by Ybsone? It's not a usual expectation for editors to look at other WP articles (in this case Nazism) for definitions of things when editing a given article (in this case White ethnostate), especially since WP articles aren't themselves considered reliable sources. I've presented what I think is a sensible rationale for my position, and I note that for the relevant content dispute (the inclusion of Nazi Germany in the White ethnostate article) there are other editors agreeing with me (indeed, it was someone else who brought the matter to NORN in the first place.) You can object to my position, you can present sources disagreeing with it, but that's a far-cry from a NOTHERE case.

While I don't mean to assume bad faith from you, and I appreciate your reply here, I hope you can see my perspective. I present what I think is a legitimate concern that I think I am being stalked by someone with evidence to boot. You join the discussion as an administrator, don't engage at all with my concerns, and assert what amounts to "heh, he said Nazis aren't white supremacists, here's a link" which is an awfully simplistic description of my position and that entire discussion in general. Considering also the power balance here (you are a highly experienced editor and an administrator), this interaction made me feel deeply unsettled. I'm not sure that was intended but it was the effect. JDiala (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also: Special:Diff/1239684673 Talk:2024_Kharkiv_offensive#Propaganda_Posters. When sources say just that, too bad for the sources. YBSOne (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice to anyone reading the linked thread how myself and Cinderella157, the user agreeing with me in the discussion, have clearly articulated policy-based arguments whereas YBSOne provides nothing but a link-dump and a (usually grammatically incoherent) rant. JDiala (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the OP is a victim here, given that they have showed a rather strong WP:TENDENTIOUS pattern, particularly when it comes to RUSUKR. This is usually under arguments of improving "neutrality" followed by double standards on how sources should be used to attain this "neutrality".

WP:FOLLOWING says: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles"

It seems more likely to me that JDiala would find themselves "followed" because YBSOne wants to prevent disruption, rather than this editor in good standing with well over ten years of experience suddenly deciding to single out an editor to harass them.

All in all, I think if anything should be done here it's a WP:BOOMERANG, if that is in the form of another topic ban for this user or something else I don't know. TylerBurden (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

There was never a double standard on how any source should be used. You incorrectly alleged a double standard here which I responded to and refuted. Your appraisal of WP:FOLLOWING is likewise incorrect. Note the word "unambiguously." These cases aren't unambiguous because there's talk page discussions with reasoned disagreements in each cases (in KM's case, we have a lengthy discussion with multiple editors agreeing me). This is a typical content dispute not a reversion of NOTHERE content.

Editors can judge my contributions in RUSUKR for themselves. The two major editing positions I have been pushing for in the topic area over the past two months—the more liberal inclusion of Ukrainian war crimes in the War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and increased emphasis on NATO expansion in the Russian invasion of Ukraine—both are being endorsed by the editing community in their respective RfCs (1, 2). I convince other editors with the strength of my arguments; others use more insidious mean like stalking, lawyering or making "boomerang" demands when called out on their inappropriate conduct. JDiala (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Glad You mentioned this particular instance where at first You pushed for inclusion of the content when there were allegations, or word for word "concerns", nothing else:

You have added those allegations 4 times "no consensus for this revert. AI report explicitly frames Ukrainian conduct as an IHL violation", "No consensus for this removal. You need to start an RfC if you're trying to remove all Ukrainian allegations", "(1) This is a BRD violation, (2) the link to the Amnesty report was removed, (3) allegations UAF violated IHL were removed, (4) I object to moving it to a different section." "There's an ongoing discussion about this." basing it only on twisting the Amnesty International report that only says it raised "concerns". But when this did not pan out, You imidiatelly started pushing for speedy removal of the same content: "Report says Russia didn't commit war crimes here, so why is this in this section?", because it was no onger under Ukrainian allegations so better get rid of it so not to cast shadow on Russian allegations. "Reducing length of this to two sentences per past RfC decision. This is ultimately pending the outcome of the current RfC." and "The past RfC decided it is 1-2 sentences. Please do not engage in disruptive editing. This is a compromise position I've agreed on which is literally verbatim what the past RfC says.". Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_26#Ukraine_accusations; Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_26#Lead_is_clearly_POV; and Talk:War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_27#Reversion_of_attack_on_care_home_edit. My original WP:NOTHERE allegations are still standing. YBSOne (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, as for "increased emphasis on NATO expansion" there is already a section for it: Disinformation_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Allegations_of_NATO_provocation_and_aggression YBSOne (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You evidently have strong opinions on the content here. That is fine, but it is important to accept situations where consensus does not reach your favored outcome. As I’ve mentioned, it is apparent from both RfCs that the position I espouse is that endorsed by a solid plurality of editors at this time. This is far from NOTHERE. It’s actually highly productive editing in a contentious area. JDiala (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"increased emphasis on NATO expansion" is not the same as "Mention Russian demand on NATO expansion" which was in fact just a pretext, but You cannot see that because of Your pro-Russian POV. Incluson of those demands is not the same as real expansion and real threat of NATO, as was already presented to You with a RS in that discussion Special:Diff/1240079541. YBSOne (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting my views here. As far as article content goes, my position has always been to include a variety of perspectives on NATO, not necessarily state the anti-NATO claims as being factual in wikivoice. JDiala (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced he's misrepresenting your views. My one encounter with you was about three weeks ago where you argued public polling on Vladimir Putin should be included in the lead with reasons such as him having higher approval rating than American leaders. Given the article itself discredits public polling as useful in the body it's unclear why you wanted to use it in the lead.

Looking through the other links provided here in the topic area and it's evident you're only making changes that benefit Russia. Some edits you make have merit such as mentioning Russian expansion in NATO (I strongly disagree with that, and many policy experts refute it but nonetheless the issue exists at all). In other cases though, you seem willing to ignore Wikipedia policy arguments to advance a pro-Russia view like the example above. If your edits all had good sourcing to back them up I'd have no problem but this just isn't the case, you need to be more rigorous with sourcing and policy arguments especially in a topic area as controversial as Ukraine-Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladimir_Putin#Public_image_in_Lead HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 05:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You are writing that "I'm not convinced he's misrepresenting your views" but you reference a separate content dispute which has nothing to do with the topic at hand (NATO). In general, if you're going to opine on someone else's views, it's best to provide germane evidence, for instance in the form of diffs, not bring up something entirely unrelated. You write that "the article itself discredits public polling as useful." This is misleading. The body of the article makes no such claim in wikivoice. Rather, it briefly attributes a claim made by the director of the Levada Center where he indicates that polling in Russia is not comparable to polling in the West due to a lack of political alternatives. It is also an incorrect summary of his quote. For instance, the summary uses the word "irrelevant" where nothing in what he actually said in the quote (or in the cited article overall) would indicate the usage of such a strong word. This is all followed by extensive polling evidence indicating that Putin enjoys considerable support in Russia, often with concrete, non-propaganda reasons given like an improvement in living standards and an improvement in Russia's standing internationally, which cannot just be handwaved away as disinformation or brainwashing. OK, we can talk about this and how these disparate facts should be weighted. This is a content dispute more suitable for the talk page. I am open to a compromise position where his widespread support was discussed in the lead but framed in the context of a personality cult. But the position I'm espousing isn't per se wholly unreasonable or a blatant misrepresentation of the source material presented in the body, which is what a NOTHERE allegation would entail.

You are also writing that I have a "pro-Russia" bias. This is incorrect. I have a pro-neutrality bias. The topic area is currently, in my estimation, leaning heavily to the pro-Ukrainian side. I am working to mitigate this bias in accordance with policies. Note that I can cite multiple cases (1, 2) where I made edits which could be regarded as anti-Russia as well. My edits thus aren't uniform in their POV. JDiala (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The topic area is currently, in my estimation, leaning heavily to the pro-Ukrainian side It is not Your job to estimate that. This is the point all those editors are trying to make. Your edits are not NPOV, Your edits are pro-Russia-POV to balance the mythical pro-Ukrainian-POV, that does not exist in reality. YBSOne (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, editors are allowed to make judgement calls on the neutrality of a given article or set of articles. As a side note, the words "you" and "your" are not capitalized in the middle of a sentence in the English language. JDiala (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This subthread is also emblematic of the bludgeoning Ybsone regularly engages in. Notice he has two separate replies beneath a comment that was not addressed to him (I am talking to HetmanTheResearcher here). JDiala (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

And your correcting capitalization of another poster in the middle of an ANI thread for no reason? YBSOne probably deserves a trout, but your PIA behavior seems to have been neatly transferred to yet another contentious topic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

YBSOne has on multiple occasions personally attacked me in this very thread. In fact, he started the discussion off with the following: "Am I "disrupting Your enjoyment of editing" when pointing out that You have changed the lead of an article because of mistakenly thinking that "is one of the most widely abused psychoactive drugs in the world" is "undue". Again, nothing to do with drinkers it is just being widely abused out of other psychoactive drugs. Am I "disrupting Your enjoyment of editing" when Special:Diff/1236158164 preventing You from WP:SOAPBOXing and changing the tone of the lead in a long standing article? Has Your enjoyment of editing been disrupted?.

The sarcastic tenor here is intended to insult and personalize the dispute, not really appropriate for ANI. Politely correcting a spelling mistake is comparatively far more minor. JDiala (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

You have mistaken an insult with a genuine quote from the policy You cited: "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing". YBSOne (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

"British lawmaker", "Ukrainian official", etc. are awful sources. and random allegation made by a belligerent in the conflict (btw US Embassy nor US are a belligerent in the conflict), and yet You have no issues quoting Russian lawmaker and Russian official and belligerent Putin, right? Putin saw the role of NATO in Ukraine as a direct military threat. This has nothing to do with neutrality as You are not here for neutrality but to correct the mythical anti-Russian bias. YBSOne (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Belligerents in a war are generally considered dubious sources for statements of fact. That was the point I was trying to get across. I apply the same standard to Putin. Any claims made by Russia or Putin I would want attributed to them, not in wikivoice. I also don't think claims made by foreign politicians or lawmakers who are not investigating matters on the ground and who lack any particular wartime or IHL expertise should be weighted highly, irrespective of their country's stance in the war. There was also a clear consensus from multiple editors on the corresponding thread that random US embassy tweets are poor sources for war crime matters. I'm sorry that you are upset that your views on content aren't always what consensus reaches but that's something you should learn to accept; you don't always get your way here. JDiala (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Some more ungrammatical rant on Your alleged NPOV. Removing a critical and sourced information on the death of the critic of Putin's regime Anna Politkovskaya, while claiming sources do not state this fact: the mention of Putin's birthday in the lead is speculative, undue and also not discussed in the sources provided. and The link with Putin's birthday is undue and unencyclopedic; it's just meant to elicit speculation., while that is what cited source tells, even emphasizes this; that was also debated in numerous other sources; that can be used too if needed and the source provided: "If there is a connection between the Politkovskaya and the President of Russia, it is the day of her death - his birthday.". Other sources that You didn't bother to check "She was assassinated two years later, on October 7th, 2006, the day of Putin's birthday." "On Putin's birthday in 2006, Politkovskaya was murdered" because Your goal is to distance Dictator from this clearly political murder. YBSOne (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no proof that this was a "clearly political murder." The article doesn't say this, and the sources do not say this. It was at best a suspicious-seeming murder. You are inserting your own POV into this issue and basically soapboxing, ironic as you are the one accusing me of being POV. As for my edit, I didn't feel like the birthday coincidence was sufficiently WP:DUE to warrant inclusion in the article. I was later told that it was established consensus from years ago to include it. I ceased pursuing the matter further. This is a standard WP:BRD cycle. JDiala (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add "clearly political murder" to the article because that would be speculation. I added an important fact that was pointed out by many different reliable sources, that was deleted by You because of Your pro-Russian POV. YBSOne (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

This response does not inspire confidence. Putin is a central figure in the Ukraine War and giving hi a favorable view does by proxy gives a pro-Russian stance to the conflict (as opposed to, say, making edits about Russian cities and their histories. Still related to Russia, but not to the conflict). Although, I won't press further what's a talk page dispute as you said.

Nonetheless it's still evident your bias is pro-Russian. The first edit you show seems very tedious more than showing bias since I've seen scholarly sources which go both ways in calling these territories disputed (For disputed, look to 1. Arel D, Driscoll J. A Frozen Conflict Thaws. In: Ukraine’s Unnamed War: Before the Russian Invasion of 2022. Cambridge University Press; 2023:171-196. "The process stalled from the beginning for lack of an agreement on how to conduct local elections in the disputed Donbas territories."). The second could be seen as neutral, but you also mention that "belligerents in a war are generally considered dubious sources for statements of fact" just above me so this doesn't diminish my case of bias. In any case, one response is not enough to show neutrality when most if not all of the other edits you make in the topic area are pro-Russia. I'd have more issue with Ybsone if your edits were using scholarly sources instead of ephemeral news articles (for lesser-known topics I can understand, but in the Ukraine-Russia space there's a wide selection of articles published after 2022) but you're not, so I view Ybsone's efforts here as preventing additions with dubious quality rather than any grudge against you. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if I grant all of this (I don't — I firmly insist that my edits all intended to promote neutrality, not out of any particular admiration for Putin or the Russian regime), I don't think it's remotely unusual for editors in a contentious area to make edits which appear to have a bias towards one POV. This is not unusual. I can cite multiple editors (including YBSone and TylerBurden in this very thread) who have a clear pro-Ukraine bias in their editing tendencies. The singling out of me here is odd. Ultimately, I don't think it's possible to read someone's mind and determine "bias" and the default WP:GF assumption should be that they are here to improve the project. For each and every one of my edits, I believe I have consistently provided cogent, policy-based reasons for them. In the few cases I have erred, I have accepted the community's decision to revert (for instance the Anna Politkovskaya article, where an edit I made was inconsistent with an established consensus). I don't think I have done anything wrong in this topic area or anything indicative of WP:NOTHERE. JDiala (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Bias is fine, I'm not concerned with that so much as justifying your edits with good sourcing. My problem is you're not using scholarly sources and peer reviews to justify your claims. You want to mention Putin's popularity in a lead? That's fine if there's scholarly sources showing this polling can be taken seriously. You want to add the Amnesty Report on Ukraine? Go for it, but find peer-reviews which establish the article as a good one for the topic. You can make your arguments much stronger through scholarly sources and articles peer reviewing those sources.

For a topic outside the Ukraine War, your proposal in Germany. You want to improve the article about Germans (which, I do agree a dictionary is not a good source)? Then provide scholarly sources showing the German nation's history since antiquity. It's always nice to look into a wiki article and find fresh perspectives from citations. But I haven't seen that from your edits. Rather I see a lot of edits that taken together look like POV Pushing in a contentious area that force other editors to waste their time correcting your edits, which it seems Ybsone has been doing (along with their edits to automobile-related articles). I don't plan on editing anywhere close to the Ukraine War anytime soon, even when I get EC status on this site, so I won't make more replies in this incident thread as I've said all I need to say. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

then to be consistent it makes sense to accept them for anti-NATO material YBSOne (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

"in wikivoice" This diff is completely consistent with what I wrote above. JDiala (talk) 08:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

User left a message on my talk page accusing me of "lying about his country" and "displaying al shabaab as mighty warriors". After reverting their uncited edits. Lots of previous personal attacks on edit summaries and Wiki commons as well. WP:NOTHERE. Ecrusized (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

They weren’t uncited. And I’m simply trying to have consensus with you to stop our edit war. And I wasn’t even going after you personally! Zabezt (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ecrusized and Zabezt, consider this a warning that edit warring behavior is a blockable offense, and the way to avoid being blocked for edit warring is to strictly avoid any edit warring behavior whatsoever. Being convinced that your point of view is correct is not a valid defense. There are a variety of types of legitimate Dispute resolution options available to you. Both of you, please explain the failure of either one of you to discuss the map dispute at either Talk:Somali Civil War or at Talk:Somali Civil War (2009–present). That simple fact makes both of you look bad. Cullen328 (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This user started an edit war on the Somali Civil War and Somali Civil War (2009-present) articles, and is refusing to have a discussion with me to end it. Instead of talking to me so we can come to consensus, He decides to report me any chance he gets. (Victimizing himself in the process, for example in this page he said I’ve done “personal attacks” on him, when I haven’t.) The articles in question has a problem with the maps, because no one can decide which map is correct and should be used. I don’t want this user punished, nor am I intending to do a revenge request or have personal hatred for the user, I simply want to end this fight with the user so there can be peace and truth to the articles about the civil war that’s happening in my home country of Somalia. Zabezt (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

(raises an eyebrow) You don't consider "Stop lying about my country" [87] a personal attack? Ravenswing 03:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Zabezt, please heed the warning in the section above. Please also explain why you have failed to discuss this map issue on either of the relevant article talk pages? Cullen328 (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been trying to discuss it with him any way I can, he simply won’t respond to me for some reason. But I will take your advice and try to discuss with him on the talk page. Zabezt (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That should have been your first step, Zabetz. Debating through edit summaries is a very poor practice. That is not what edit summaries are for. Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand, but I’m still new as an editor, So I expected something like this to happen. Zabezt (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m still new as an editor Zab, I’d like to give you some advice that our dear old Mop, ArbCom member, and CU Yunshui gave me, when I was new. ANI is your big shiny red button. Do everything else, before you push it (well, that was his logic, I think). I appreciate that you didn’t start this ANI thread, but I wanted to pass down the wisdom, and this seemed like a good reason to. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 08:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if that justifies a "personal attack" more than it's said from an obvious connection / standpoint on the unfolding Somalian war and its history. But I also think an institute of war style map is probably ambitious given it would need to be updated frequently and this issue will probably exist forever. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t mean it aggressively! It was more like a suggestion. Zabezt (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

And one carrying the obvious premise that he IS "lying." Which is a personal attack. You may indeed be a new editor, but keep on just assuming that someone whose opinion differs from yours is doing so out of malice, and you likely won't have the chance to get more experience. Ravenswing 07:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand. Zabezt (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Zabezt, you failed to inform the editor that you started a discussion about them here. There are multiple notices, including a bright message on the edit page when you posted this complaint, informing you that this is mandatory. This is required. Please do so now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Zabezt (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait… now done. Zabezt (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)