Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues

I recently closed an RfC on Yasuke and feel like the situation at Talk: Yasuke is deteoriating once again as more WP:SPA's are arriving to argue about the subject. There is a not insignificant amount of WP:SOAPBOXING occurring as well as some vaguely nationalist rhetoric where editors are proclaiming that Wikipedia is being governed by black supremacy and DEI as well as considerable activity taking place offsite on a Wikitionary Talk Page where aspersions are being cast on other editors involved in the dispute such as outright accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth as well as what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor as well as WP:Tagteaming seen here. Because of all of these many preceived issues, I think some admin attention is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrhns (talk • contribs) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

From skimming the talk page - this is popular as he appears in a video game? Secretlondon (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The current focus is because he will appear as one of the two main characters in the upcoming Assassin's Creed Shadows, which has attracted controversy in some parts of the internet. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Surprised Assassin's Creed Shadows havent needed protection yet Trade (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Last edit 30 June? Secretlondon (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct. He was semi-recently announced to be in the upcoming Assassin's Creed game. Chrhns (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I am on mobile device so forgive the poor formatting and lack of tagging. If I recall correctly the main person who's behavior crosses into WP:SOAPBOX and WP:OR is Shinjitsunotsuikyu who declares that what's going on is Western imperialistic revisions on Japanese culture/history, due to the questionable nature (in Shinjitsunotsuikyu's opinion) of the sources used. I would like to point out that the the majority of the editors involved in the discussion are posting on good faith, and now that the RfC is closed the article currently matches what was determined in the RfC (i.e., The article refers to Yasuke as a samurai.) For anyone reading this, please do not conflate this behavior with the behavior, content, and opinions of the other editors including but not limited to Eirikr and Hexentante. If there is further discussion or disagreements about the RfC I believe there is a proper appeal process as Chrhrns outlined on that Talk page. I will say that the Eirikr and Hexentante, when explaining their positions, have needed to put up with several editors accusing their behavior as wrongful, staunch, original research with little engagement besides these accusations, despite the many attempts by Eirikr and Hexentante to explain otherwise. However the Rfc summary by Chrhrns is fair and I do not take offense to it, as it explains both sides pretty neutrally. This is a very terse summary of my perspective of the Talk page. Lastly, regarding the discussion of whether sources are unreliable (not other topics such as Yasuke's height and sword), I believe most of the discussion conforms to WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:CONTEXTFACTS, not WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS, which is why the discussions were ongoing and did not halt. Green Caffeine (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I generally dislike accusing others of wrongful behavior withoit backup and I'm typing this all very fast and perhaps brazenly. If you are not referring to Shinjitsunotsuikyu then please read my comment with that in mind. Green Caffeine (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: Soapboxing, I was mostly referring to that particular editor doing it repetitiously after having been warned about it, but also instances which seem to have occurred sporadically on both sides of the debate. Chrhns (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

To be sure my position is clear for other readers, I amend the language of my post dated 19:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC) to say "For anyone reading this, please do not conflate the disruptive and soapbox behavior with the behavior, content, and opinions of the other editors including but not limited to User:Eirikr and User:Hexenakte. That is to say, those 2 individuals have not been disruptive. The reason the conversations about whether the sources are unreliable have not concluded is due to WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:CONTEXTFACTS and other parts of WP:RELIABLE, not the so-called original research or synthesis.

Also, taking a step back, the fact that there are many editors involved with this situation should be a sign that the situation is not as black-and-white as people may think. It's a serious indicator that ongoing discussion was warranted, not to be shut down on presumptions of bad faith.

Still on a mobile device so forgive any improper formatting. Green Caffeine (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not a complicated issue at all. Refusing to drop the stick and the constant original research is against the spirit of a Wikipedia, and makes them very disruptive. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. A few editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia.

Normally I would hesitate to use that word, but off-site discussions between Eirikr and Hexenakte demonstrate that they both had intent to circumvent the RFC process even before it concluded. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same things over and over with no explanation or reasoning, and you just ignored my last message. This is the third time you have ignored us in a row. This shows you are being disruptive with WP:ICANTHEARYOU and your continuance of bad faith assumption towards us despite us being as transparent as possible about it. Hexenakte (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god this nonsense again. How about we just block many of these accounts as WP:NOTHERE. CycoMa1 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, look at Shinjitsunotsuikyu's edit history. They have been here since June and have only contributed on the talk page for Yasuke.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about Wikitionary's policies.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the same case for EgiptiajHieroglifoj, 80.106.161.157, 81.223.103.71, Theozilla, and so many other users.CycoMa1 (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that looking at Theozilla's contribution page, while his recent activity is nothing but Yasuke, he has engaged in content outside of it in the past. Chrhns (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the Wiktionary talk page is mine, I feel compelled to comment.

• Re: "accusing others editors of lying and conspiring at fabricating historical truth":

I never outright accuse. I state what it looks like. This is in the context of the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference, and the inappropriateness of using "wikivoice" to state certain details as objective fact, rather than giving those details properly cited as the opinions of the secondary-source authors.

When that editor then edits the Yasuke article to add a detail ("as a samurai") with citations, and those citations do not say anything about that detail, I can only see two logical ways of viewing such a change: incompetence (the editor not noticing that the cited references do not corroborate their point, or not understanding why this is a problem), or intent (the editor noticing that the cited references disagree, and not caring).

• Re: "what appears to be attempts to Status Quo Stonewall as noted here where they begin discussing how to circumvent the RfC consensus before the RfC was even closed when they saw that the votes weren't going in their favor":

You ascribe a lot of bad faith to my actions. The RFC itself was carried out in a very poor manner. The putative point of an RFC is discussion to arrive at consensus: instead, what we had was many people posting a vote, minimal commentary as to why, and in apparent ignorance of past discussions about many of the sources. This was more of a mobbing than a discussion. I was very concerned that this was producing a consensus born of ignorance.

Note too my wording there (emphasis added): "If you have any clear idea on who of the admins to involve in this, to prevent a popularity vote from dictating the article content in contravention of any sane survey of the actual sources, by all means please reach out." My concern is that most of the voters were ignoring past discussions about sources, and often even ignoring attempts to discuss the sources directly with them. I had no intention of "circumventing the RFC consensus": I was hoping to get an admin involved to bring the RFC back on track, to actually get people to discuss.

@Chrhns, through all of this, you have not done anything to talk with me directly.

To then cast aspersions, as you have amply above, is inappropriate. Even more so for an admin.

Please do better. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As I have said to the other editor when I saw your Wikitionary talk page. I am not, nor have I ever purported or represented myself to be, an admin.. The issues on your Wikitionary talk page are numerous and involving far more users than simply yourself. While there are some links which have not formatted properly, the "lying" was supposed to direct to a post by an IP Address that outright accuses others of lying. As for the source the user cited, the link to the edit you provided directs to the Encyclopedia Britannica article which states "He was the first known foreigner to achieve samurai status". The Smithsonian also calls Yasuke a samurai, as does the time magazine that is sources. You are still accusing the editor of fabrication (and now incompetence) for reasons that elude me. As for the rest of the discussion, I am not here to argue with you, or anyone. I am merely notifying the admins of what appears to be many issues occurring surrounding this article's talk page. When you are discussing finding an admin because you do not like the way an RfC is going, and you are doing it surreptitiously on your Wikitionary talk page, it looks bad. Chrhns (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your status as non-admin, and I apologize for my mistake. Thank you too for clarifying the "lying" comment, that seemed odd and I noticed the link didn't work.

Re: Britannica, I already laid out why that is a problematic reference in the thread at Talk:Yasuke#Problematic_sources_in_recent_edit_re-introducing_the_troublesome_"samurai"_title, which points have not been refuted to my knowledge.

Re: Smithsonian, TIME, CNN, BBC, etc, these are all tertiary or even quaternary references, which all depend on Lockley's book for any description of Yasuke as a samurai. I'd be happy to post a through analysis of these sources, which I'd already begun drafting a few days ago.

Re: my own view of the other editor's actions as incompetence or intent, I posted my reasoning above. If an editor writes "this is a fact^{ref 1, ref 2}", then I (and I suspect most readers) will take that to mean that "fact" is supported by "ref 1" and "ref 2". If I go and read "ref 1" and "ref 2" and neither say "fact", what else am I supposed to think but that the editor who wrote that is either writing incompetently in not noticing that the references do not support their point, or writing intentionally and misrepresenting the sources? Serious question: if you have a third option for what is going on, please present your thoughts. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgot a point.

Re: "When you are discussing finding an admin because you do not like the way an RfC is going, and you are doing it surreptitiously on your Wikitionary talk page, it looks bad."

I see your point about appearing bad. However, I have had (and have) no ill intent. The thread itself is not hidden, and indeed anyone seeking to converse with me directly at w:User_talk:Eirikr will see my comment there directing anyone to wikt:User_talk:Eirikr.

Specifically about "because you do not like the way an RfC is going", my concern was not that I "didn't like the way it was going", but much more seriously, because it appeared to be an abuse of process. RFCs are supposed to be about discussion and reaching consensus. What happened instead was a popularity vote, with most participants apparently ignorant of, and some even seemingly hostile to, any serious discussion of the sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

To your point about RfC, it has been explained multiple times that an RfC specifically calls in outside, uninvolved people to render a comment (hence "Request for Comment"), there is no obligation to engage in protracted debate of the subject matter at hand. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Responding to an RfC. Specifically, the RfC format used was "Separate votes from discussion" which does carry the notation ((emphasis mine)):

This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises

While I understand in hindsight that this format seems inadequate, it should he been brought up in the 30+ days the RfC was extant. In short, your complaint about what happened on the RfC is less an "abuse of the process" and more "it did exactly what it was formatted to do". Chrhns (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• I think the "vote" format was inappropriate for the issues with the Yasuke article, but even then, it was not carried out correctly. Even more so if we read more of that same sectionfrom Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_formatting#Separate_votes_from_discussion:

Separate votes from discussion If you expect a lot of responses, consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "Survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second sub-section called (for example) "Threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth. You can ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section, but you can't require people to follow your advice. Editors are permitted to freely refuse your request.

This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises. It is most suitable for questions with clear yes/no or support/oppose answers, such as "Shall we adopt this policy?". Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers, such as "What kinds of images would be suitable for this article?" or "What should the first sentence say?" This style is used for RfCs that attract a lot of responses, but is probably overkill for most RfCs.

The RFC section itself should have explicitly included room for discussion, and the survey should have been in addition to that — if at all, since, as the guideline says, "Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers".

An RFC that consists only of a "Survey" section is improperly implemented, per the guidelines. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto this really quickly, Eirikr and I have given many of the other editors who oppose our arguments multiple chances as a way of giving a fair chance to present their cases as to why these sources are reliable or to at least acknowledge the many apparent issues these sources have, and multiple times, with the exception of a few editors - who then agreed with our concerns even after initially opposing - have they refused to do either. We have implored them multiple times and every time they get ignored (WP:CANTHEARYOU) or brushed off as "editors aren't allowed to analyze sources and their citations" (contrary to WP:REPUTABLE, WP:SOURCEDEF, and WP:CONTEXTFACTS which allows editors to consider the content itself as a factor of reliability and individually pick certain claims as reliable while dismissing others as unreliable in determination of, most easily, whether it is properly cited and if those citations state the facts they claimed).

We do not intend to circumvent anything, however I did not believe that RfC that was just closed was the right method to handle this complex issue. The Japanese language is highly contextual and its written form relies on the context of the conversation, as this can affect the meanings of those words, especially more so when you factor that kanji symbols can often have multiple different pronunciations that are not anywhere close to each other (for example, 米 can mean rice, meter, or USA (kome/yone (archaic), maitre, or bei respectively)). Simply put, editors who make it to out to be black and white without considering the complexity of the language nor the issues of the secondary sources provided, it makes for a very muddy battle. With the way the RfC was going, majority of the Yes votes did not acknowledge these issues, and some outright did not explain their reasoning at all. We cannot have a productive discussion if half of the discussion consists of ignoring each side's point and bad faith accusations. The number of times I have been accused of OR (which initially I did do, I apologized for it due to the fact I am new to Wikipedia as an editor and was not aware, which I have corrected this) even after explaining and providing multiple secondary sources is innumerable. It was an extremely hostile environment for both Eirikr and I, which felt like we were talking to a brick wall.

The main reason for my collaboration with Eirikr is because I recognized his proficiency in Japanese etymology - which he has a long history of on Wikipedia just by looking at his Wiktionary talk page - and believed he was the right person to discuss with in terms of the issue at hand relating to a specified quote in the Shincho Koki that was missing, supposedly from the public eye. Eirikr and I have both made sure to be as thorough as possible, considering all possible avenues before making any decisions on what to do with the quote. The user talk page is public for everyone to see, we have nothing to hide, and we have encouraged participation from other users who have joined in. It would have been preferable to acknowledge the discussion with us directly before making these claims, however this has been resolved as Chrhns understands we mean no ill intent, and I hope other editors who are reading this realizes that as well.

I have made it clear multiple times throughout the talk page, I have been wrong on certain points and apologized for making them. I also made the mistake of assuming Chrhns was an admin, I have apologized this to him and made sure to remove any mention of it. I am very willing to accept the responsibility of my actions, because I am not here to push any view or any agenda. I simply want to present what is verifiable in accordance with the privilege of editors being able to do basic verification on these secondary sources. I have advocated for a positive claim of making Yasuke be referred to as someone who was retained as an attendant, as this was properly cited by some of the secondary sources in the talk page, and it is much easier to prove someone is an attendant by way of noted role and if they are in a lord's service, than it is to claim someone is a samurai, which is an extremely privileged class that was not the default of the Japanese people nor those under a lord's service as the noted existence of the ashigaru that were levied under a lord were named as specifically non-samurai, and Toyotomi Hideyoshi was a prime example of this as was explained in the talk page.

I do not care whether Yasuke was actually a samurai or not, that is not the reason for my involvement in the talk page. I am not looking to reduce Yasuke to less than what he actually was, as some people such as Shinjitsunotsuikyu wanted him to be referred to as a slave, this requires cited reliable sources just as much as the samurai claim does. I am not against Yasuke being stated as a samurai if there were proper citations of him being one. If there was actual proper citation of the samurai claim in these secondary sources, we would not be having this conversation, however that issue still remains and it cannot be ignored.

I will be back to add more to this discussion as I am very busy in my life and I wrote this up really quickly to add to the current claims that Eirikr and I were trying to circumvent the RfC process, accusing others, and tagteaming (which was later cleared up with Chrhns in my user talk page, he was extremely courteous and understanding which I highly appreciate even after my initial mistake). Hexenakte (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am fluent in Japanese and it is not a complex issue. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. Editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen reliable sources that state he was a samurai (unambiguously, with either backing from primary sources or a reasoned argument backed from primary sources), in either language 英語であれ日本語であれ / be it in English or Japanese.

Even so, for purposes of our article, I think it would be great if we could say "According to [sources], Yasuke was a samurai". Any statement of Yasuke as a samurai, as objective fact, without citations, is what I have a problem with. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources stating it and broadly speaking, it is not the role of us individual editors to "have" or "not have" problems. The RfC already covers this in detail. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"There are many reliable sources stating it"

Do you have any sources stating this? You have made this same claim, and related claims (such as that the Lockley / Girard book is peer reviewed), several times, but you have not provided any sources. Do you have any?

"it is not the role of us individual editors to "have" or "not have" problems."

My issue is with how we (Wikipedia editors) are wording the article at [[Yasuke]]. This is very much within the purview of "us individual editors". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, @Symphony Regaliais a user who has been trying to change the Japanese Yasuke Wiki page and in fact has been accused of using multiple proxies and accounts to push forward his agenda of making Yasuke a samurai, which has failed:

https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8E%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88:%E5%BC%A5%E5%8A%A9

He has constantly accused users of being “right-wing nationalists” in an attempt to belittle their contributions and inquiries to discussion. His “fluency” in Japanese is highly dubious, as it is unnatural and very Google-translate type of structure. He also continues to copy-paste others’ sentences, especially mine as an attempt to retort. 天罰れい子 (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I've actually had to point out on numerous occasions his claims of him "speaking Japanese" despite not posting a single quote or source text in Japanese and demonstrating his case. Even ignoring that, I have had to ask, again, numerous times to explain why he believes Lockley is reliable or why this is not problematic, and every single time this request gets ignored. It is clear that he is not here to have a productive conversation on the reliability of Lockley and intends on disrupting the discussion, and I've tried my best on that, so I think the only matter for him is a topic ban. Hexenakte (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I am fluent in Japanese and I've repeatedly referenced 新辞林's definition of 侍 (帯刀し，武芸をもって主君に仕えた者。武士。 ) to support the conclusions that subject matter experts and reliable sources have drawn in regard to Yasuke being a samurai.

Lockley is reliable because it is his field of expertise, and because his works have been peer-reviewed by other historians and subject matter experts who support the claims in them. I've explained this multiple times (and am indeed happy to do so anytime), however you should be aware that your refusal to drop the stock is not indicative of you being "ignored" by anyone.

Rather, it is indictive of a disruptive editing pattern on your behalf that you've been repeatedly been warned about, where you beat a dead horse and refuse to drop the stick on topics where there is already a clear consensus. I think the next step for you is a topic ban. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you name historians who peer-reviewed Lockley's books? Thibaut (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Lockley's works have been collectively reviewed by historians and subject matter experts (not all of his works are books). As for the published book, it was reviewed by R.W. Purdy who ultimately did not contest any of the relevant claims. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We have talked extensively about Purdy's review. You appear to be ignoring the issues that Purdy points out.

Purdy explicitly characterized the Lockley / Girard book African Samurai as "popular history and historical fiction" (link here, requires a Taylor & Francis login or access via the Wikipedia Library).

Can you give us any other historians that back up your claim that Lockley's works are correct?

You also state:

"Lockley is reliable because it is his field of expertise, [...]"

You appear to be ignorant of the fact that his Japanese book 「信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍」 includes the usual brief biography of the author, which points out that Lockley's area of research is language learning — not history. See also the 著者について ("about the author") section in the Amazon.co.jp listing for the book (emphasis mine):

日本大学法学部専任講師。研究分野は言語学習。担当教科は歴史で、特に国際的視野に立った日本史を扱う。同時に日本やアジアの歴史に関する多くの研究も行なっており、弥助についての論文も発表している。本書『信長と弥助』は初の著作にあたる。イギリス出身、日本在住。

研究分野は言語学習。 (Kenkyū bun'ya wa gengo gakushū., "Area of research is language learning.")

Granted, he teaches history classes at Nihon University. However, the focus of these classes is language learning. Here's his brief class description from the listing on the Nihon-U website (emphasis mine):

Welcome to Nihon University College of Law. Congratulations on your entry. My classes are content-based English classes with a focus on the international history and culture of Japan, containing themes and stories of people from history to help you improve your English and learn content at the same time. I also hold a zeminar [sic] class in the final two undergraduate years. I hope you will have a stimulating and informative four years in our College.

(Note: "zeminar" appears to be either a typo, or a strange back-translation of the Japanese term ゼミナール (zemināru), a borrowing from English German "Seminar".)

Here is an earlier paper by Lockley in 2011 about language learning: "Pre-university experience of ICT and Self-Access Learning in Japan". In the bio blurb at the bottom of that paper, Lockley's educational background is more clearly presented. History is not mentioned.

Thomas Lockley lectures in international communication at Kanda University of International Studies in Chiba Japan. He has worked in Japanese education for five years and also taught French, German and Japanese for four years in UK secondary and primary schools. His research and teaching interests include secondary education, motivation and self-perception.

(As a side-note, I find it interesting how difficult it is to find anything about Lockley's bona fide credentials on the English-language side of the web.)

----

We all learn new and different things over time. That said, it is clear that Lockley's own educational background is not in the field of history: to the best of my Google-fu, he has not earned a degree in history, and thus has not been trained in how to research historical texts, how to interpret texts in their contemporary contexts, how to write in ways that build on historical texts to the author's own inferences and conclusions. I suspect that his different background may underlie much of this (now very public and international) controversy. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the first time you have actually acknowledged my questions. I have asked you multiple times and only now you answer, so thank you for that, but do not claim I am disrupting when I am not the one refusing to answer questions.

I am fluent in Japanese and I've repeatedly referenced 新辞林's definition of 侍 (帯刀し，武芸をもって主君に仕えた者。武士。 ) to support the conclusions that matter experts and reliable sources have drawn in regards to Yasuke being a samurai.

Please link the dictionary source. Eirikr and I have been using Kotobank and they do not describe the same as what you are describing as shown here:[1]

Source text of item 1: 武芸をもって貴族や武家に仕えた者の称。平安中期ごろから宮中や院を警固する者をいうようになり、鎌倉・室町時代には（庶民）と区別される上級武士をさした。江戸時代になって幕府の旗本、諸藩の中小姓以上の称となり、また、士農工商のうちの士身分をいう通称ともなった。武士。

Machine translated (@Eirikr can provide a more accurate translation): A name for a person who served a noble or samurai family with martial arts. From around the mid-Heian period, it came to refer to those who guarded the imperial court and temples, and in the Kamakura and Muromachi periods, it referred to high-ranking bushi who were distinguished from the Bonge (commoners). In the Edo period, it became the hatamoto of the shogunate, a name for the middle and higher page names of various domains, and also became a common name for the samurai class among the samurai, agriculture, industry, and commerce. Bushi.

And below it even covers the term Saburai in item 1 below:

Source text: ㋒武家に仕える者。家の子。武士。さむらい。

Machine translated: A person who serves a samurai family. child of the house. Bushi. Samurai.

If we look at 武家 directly, we can see that it can refer to "Samurai family" or "Samurai class". Looking at 家, it can mean "family; household", and/or "lineage; family name". We know that the term saburai is the historical pronunciation of the term Samurai during the Sengoku period as evidenced by the Vocabulario da Lingoa de Iapam on page 426:[2]

Source text: Saburai: Fidalgo, i, bomem bonrado

Machine translated: Saburai: Nobleman, i, honorable man (I need a check on this one from someone who speaks Portuguese as I am not confident in the spelling)

In any case, Kotobank and the Nippo Jisho (Japanese-Portuguese dictionary) reinforces the idea of nobility within the samurai class, as well as several secondary sources I have posted before in a comprehensive analysis.

Lockley is reliable because it is his field of expertise, and because his works have been peer-reviewed by other historians and subject matter experts who support the claims in them. I've explained this multiple times (and am indeed happy to do so anytime), however you should be aware that your refusal to drop the stock is not indicative of you being "ignored" by anyone.

...

Rather, it is indictive of a disruptive editing pattern on your behalf that you've been repeatedly been warned about, where you beat a dead horse and refuse to drop the stick on topics where there is already a clear consensus. I think the next step for you is a topic ban.

I do not recall a peer review other than Purdy on Lockley's work. As far as I am aware, books do not get peer reviewed, so you need to cite your sources on this. According to Purdy, Lockley's book is full of uncited creative embellishments and is considered historical fiction of popular history, even saying that it is not academic.

Also, I ask that you cease the hostility as you have on numerous occasions pointed here accused both Eirikr and I of without ever explaining why or even acknowledging. This is in fact the first time you have actually acknowledged me since I said I would suggest a topic ban, and you are trying to send multiple replies in quick succession as I am typing this out, presumably to make it appear as if I am ignoring you. Asking for a question or clarification is not beating with a stick, you should not be surprised when you get the same question when you have made zero attempt to responding.

The only person being disruptive is you, because I have always been open to responding to your claims and criticisms, yet I do not see the same being delivered by you. I have given you multiple chances to prove yourself and you have ignored me every single time and continued accusations. You have made zero attempt to make any claims on the Japanese translations of Lockley's work that I have repeatedly asked you to do. If anything, it looks like you are using the "I am Japanese" to establish yourself as an ambiguous authority on the matter without ever elaborating your position to dismiss all opposition, and it makes your arguments look in bad faith as a result. Hexenakte (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@天罰れい子 is a user on the Japanese wikipedia using multiple accounts to post very inflammatory racist and nationalistic content. I am fluent in Japanese and his posts are largely machine translated. He is obsessed with attempting to deny that Yasuke is a samurai and has failed in his attempts to do so.

I've largely stayed away from it but apparently due to that failure he is now attempting to harass and stalk me cross-wiki. Symphony Regalia (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I am going to ask once again, can you actually prove what you are saying? Can you not throw baseless accusations or claims and when confronted about it, actually acknowledge it? I have gone on record multiple times trying to ask why you believe Lockley's translations or claims are accurate, since you claim to be fluent in Japanese. Surely you can explain why as you are claiming to be fluent in both languages.

If you ignore this again I am going to suggest a topic ban on you for disruptive behavior WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Seriously, answer the questions we ask you. Hexenakte (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I've answered this here, as I've done in the past, and as many other editors have given you in response to your questions which are very similar. I will kindly ask you to stop the harrassment. This refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK is indicative of a longstanding disruptive editing pattern on your behalf, that has been called out by multiple editors here. Not to mention the off-site canvassing and WP:NOTHERE-style original research. I am ready to suggest a topic ban for you if this does not improve. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"as I've done in the past"

This is the first time you have responded with any references. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur, see for example [3][4][5][6][7]. Thibaut (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well. I will keep things short and to the point (as best as one can with this subject matter). Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai. There are no reliable sources that argue otherwise.

Meanwhile, you've got editors like Hexenakte and Eirikr that have made massive threads all across the talk page trying to put in their own WP:OR interpretation of said sources, claiming that the sources aren't reliable because they translated the Japanese wrong or didn't show the primary sources they were using, ect. I've tried to explain to them time and again that editors aren't allowed to be sources and claim their interpretation is the factual one, especially if they don't even have a single reliable source backing their claims. My statements in that regard have fallen on deaf ears time and time again with both of said editors (and they are likely to reply to my comment here with yet another wall of text arguing the same points again). Silverseren^C 21:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

"I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well."

Continuing your disparaging ad hominems, I see. Please keep your comments to a discussion of the issues, not the people. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This page is specifically for dealing with the people, not the content. Your behavior is what's under scrutiny. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Ad hominem is never appropriate. As described on the policy page: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

(uninvolved non-admin comment) It is not considered a personal attack to point out that ANI is about behaviour not content. Neither is it a personal attack to point out walls of text. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I take issue with @HandThatFeeds characterizing this page as "dealing with the people, not the content" — in the context of their post as a reply to my post above, this seems exactly backwards from the guidance at WP:No personal attacks. I honestly struggle to see how @Silver seren's comment is not disparaging, something specifically prohibited by WP:No personal attacks.

In addition, they mischaracterize (or at a minimum, misunderstand) my efforts at due diligence in evaluating sources as somehow WP:Original research -- things like digging into cases where a source says "this is a fact^{ref 1, ref 2}", reading "ref 1" and "ref 2", finding that neither "ref 1" nor "ref 2" state "fact", and then posting on the Talk page that the source itself is misrepresenting its own sources: and not as a matter of my own personal opinion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of your "issue" with my characterization, the page explicitly states at the top: This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. (emphasis mine)

Taking issue with your editing behavior is not a violation of WP:NPA. Frankly, I think you need to follow the law of holes at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Taking into consideration of the fact that the person who made this topic in the first place has long since understood that we had no ill intent and clarified that he was moving the RfC issue to be resolved by dispute, this was not made to be a punitive measure, but rather to move a very complex issue to dispute resolution where it belonged. Acting like we are engaging in bad faith behavior despite the repeated clarifications in this topic that we aren't is an issue. Hexenakte (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, so sorry for the confusion. This is not the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard I was suggesting you take the argument to. Rather, this is the Admin Notice Board, where conduct issues are reported. Due to the various problems associated and happening on the talkpage, I thought it prudent to make a report here. Sorry for any confusion I caused you. Chrhns (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai."

One source in particular contains fabrications: Manatsha's "Historicising Japan-Africa Relations" (available here via ResearchGate).

Multiple editors, myself included, described at Talk:Yasuke#Samurai status (among other places) that this reference has serious problems, and is not reliable.

You continued to claim it as a "reliable source", more than once, without addressing any of our concerns.

I put it to you that our descriptions of the issues with this paper, valid and easily confirmable issues, are met with your own stonewalling. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I've never even discussed that source before anyways, so I don't know why you're bringing it up in response to me. I brought up completely different sources. Silverseren^C 22:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, you are correct, upon review of the many threads, I see that it was Loki and Gitz that kept bringing that one up. I believe my confusion comes from your repeated insistence that sources given were reliable (albeit without listing that specific paper). I did ask you about reliable sources a couple times, including mention of this Manatsha paper, and you did not respond. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Could this be a WP:CIR issue?CycoMa1 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't even know at this point. That talk page is a mess. Just like what Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. was like before it was semi-protected. Silverseren^C 22:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

100% yes.

I will also say that extended-confirmed protection for the talk page would solve 90% of the issues. Loki (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem I was talking about. Just as I stated above, I acknowledged the initial OR I did and apologized for it, multiple times, just above if you even read what I posted. Please stop disparaging us with these accusations, especially Eirikr who did not do any OR, and I already accepted responsibility for that matter and have corrected it months ago. Hexenakte (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• While I haven't read the RFC or brushed up on this issue, I find it odd that this brand new user was the one to close what was evidently a contentious RFC. Aside from a few edits setting up a Wiki Ed course that doesn't seem to have actually happened and updating their userpage, the closer's first substantive edits were to find WP:RFCLOSE, mark it as {{Doing}}, and then close the RFC 6 minutes later. There was roughly an hour between their first edit and the RFC close, the account has never edited mainspace or anything outside of this RFC, and appears to know a lot about the more intricate parts of Wikipedia for someone who has never been a Wikipedia editor. It might be worth taking a second look at this RFC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith I cannot find a way to reply to you, so I just figured I'd shoot off an explanation. I was added to Wikipedia as part of a University course I took years ago. We could edit Wikipedia articles, or we could write book reviews. While we familiarized ourselves with the Wikipedia process, I disagreed with my professor's request that we should be improving articles that were related to authors associated with our university (by way of her inviting them to speak, or by way of them serving on faculty). I familiarized myself with Wikipedia's policies as best that I could before I opted out of doing Wikipedia work and instead did book reviews. I saw that anyone could close RfCs and I thought that it would be a neat usage of my time since I'm between semesters and was bored, so after I read the RfC Closure Requests section I logged in to my account, edited my Wikipedia page, and went to work. It seemed to me that the closure would be easy, since there were a large number of 'yes' votes. As I explained in my rationale, "yes, but as a minority" view was argued to be inappropriately editorializing the subject since there weren't any sources that contradicted the statement. As for the closure "six minutes later", that's because I found the format for closing, typed out my rationale/summarization/assesment in a text document, dropped the {doing}, posted the closure, and then posted the {done}. I did not realize that I needed to have a substantial history of actively editing Wikipedia to close an RfC and figured it didn't get much more "uninvolved" than someone who hasn't edited anything. So, my apologies. I was just interested in the closure process because summarizing and assesing arguments falls within my skillset and I do not have a desire to actively edit articles. I didn't realize that this would be disallowed or problematic, and I'll stop doing so going forward. Chrhns (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As for the statement "appears to know a lot about the more intricate parts of Wikipedia", I'm unsure as to what "intricate" parts of Wikipedia you are referring here? My statement that DRN might be more appropriate for the issue was derived from reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Guide which states

For complex content-related issues between two or more editors, you may bring your dispute to the informal dispute resolution noticeboard. This is a good place to bring your dispute if you don't know what the next step should be

and

For simple content-related issues where concise proposals have been made on the talk page, you may bring your dispute to the informal requests for comment to have the broader community look at the dispute and make suggestions.

.

I found the Reliable Source Noticeboard and when looking about the policies on reliable sources, and the rest I learned just from reading through policies before I set out on doing anything, and the other RfC about tornadoes sounded more complicated than what was presented as a "yes" or "no" RfC. Chrhns (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No apologies are needed, but thank you for the explanation nonetheless. I'm absolutely not saying you weren't allowed to close the RFC or that you did a bad job at it (I haven't read the whole thing) Just that closing an RFC is difficult, so experienced editors should review it to make sure it complies with our policies and guidelines. New editors must be treated with respect, but they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards. Closing discussions is allowed, but per WP:NAC they're generally left for administrators or experienced editors, especially the discussions that are likely to be controversial. Getting involved with Wikipedia and learning our policies is a great thing and I hope you continue. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I see. Apologies again. Reading that essay, I see where I have erred. Thank you! Chrhns (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not really see an issues with the talk page. That said I will add that I am fluent in Japanese and this is not a complex issue. Reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. A few editors attempting to engage in WP:OR because they don't like the conclusions of reliable sources, strikes me as personal agenda pushing that goes against the spirit of an encyclopedia. In any case the RFC had a very clear consensus.

I also agree that the off-site discussions between Eirikr and Hexenakte strike me as calculating how to influence the article and bypass the outcome. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Granted what it might have looked like, do you accept my explanations above?

@Symphony Regalia — Also, could you respond to my earlier response to your very-similar post further above in this same thread? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} ‑‑  22:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I find it concerning how you continue to accuse us of conspiracy for seemingly no reason, even after much has been said that we did not have any ill intent. I really should not have to repeat myself on this matter, but the entire point of that wiktionary page was to do further research on a missing quote that is supposedly hidden from the public eye. Yes, we did talk about the issue at hand with the RfC and recognized that it was merely a popularity contest with no attempt to look into the secondary sources themselves. That is why we are here to do a dispute resolution as this is a very complex issue. I am trying to be as honest as I possibly can here, and no matter how much I try to be transparent I am always accused of something and I still fail to see why.

Another thing is you insist that this is not a complex issue because you are fluent in Japanese and you deem it so. Yet you haven't demonstrated it once since the 3 or 4 times you mentioned it. You have not provided any dictionary entries for your point and you have not written in Japanese once. You are essentially saying "I am right and you are wrong" without further explanation, and when you are asked, you completely ignore it, just as you did above.

If it isn't already apparent by now, this is a recurring pattern among those still pushing for these secondary sources. There is no argument being presented against our concerns, much less being at least acknowledged. Somehow those interpreting that the very basics of verification of these sources that anyone is capable of doing is bludgeoning the process, and then refusing to engage on those grounds, despite it being very prevalent among several editors in the talk page, not just Eirikr and I. This is not to mention the multiple hostile accusations on this section alone.

I know you do not agree with us, but I really have to point to WP:CIVIL. It is very difficult to have a meaningful conversation if half of this discussion is filled with hostility, and the fact I have to mention this several times is problematic. Hexenakte (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, given they left comments like Special:Diff/1232446414 on the RSN thread, I'm ready to recommend a topic ban.

They've been asked to improve their behavior if they wish to continue participating and have not, if anything, have gotten worse.

So, now comes the next step. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You conveniently left out the reply to that from another editor, debunking your absurd claim.

DarmaniLink, who complains that Symphony Regalia is casting aspersions by mentioning the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing assault on the Yasuke article, began their first comment on the Yasuke talk page with Descendent of an (actual) samurai of the saeki clan, with a preserved 15th century land grant document in my family's possession here. Another editor complained about black supremacy and DEI propaganda. Personally I don't care about their motives, whether they are right-wing nationalists or passionate amateur historians and samurai enthusiasts - I'm not interested in their agenda, but I'm interested in their sources. Unfortunately those opposing Yasuke's status as a samurai have not provided sources contradicting Encyclopaedia Britannica, Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, BBC, or the research of Lockley and Lopez-Vera.

You've demonstrated consistent bias and I think a topic ban would perhaps be appropriate for you. Please cease the harassment. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm still sticking around, but I can send you a picture of the document if you want proof. I have samurai heritage going back to the 15th century when some distant ancestor was granted land by Mori Motonari. Accusing others of lying, as well as harassment is a personal attack. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Three points:

1. re Eirikr's the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference. Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book [8] and Lopez-Vera's book [9] are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.
2. re When that editor then edits the Yasuke article to add a detail ("as a samurai") with citations, and those citations do not say anything about that detail. Again, I don’t know if that's bad faith or lack of competence but this edit of mine replaces "retainer" with "samurai", which is directly supported by all cited sources, and modifies one sentence, As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend, which is supported by the quoted source, CNN, stating "Today, Yasuke’s legacy as the world’s first African samurai is well known in Japan (...) Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records".
3. Chrhns' closure was flawless, and I support any measures necessary to make that talk page workable and policy-compliant.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that Eirikr misinterpreted my edit, as this conversation on Wikidictionary makes clear. This does not directly affect the question of Eirikr's ability to interpret 16th and 17th century Japanese and Portuguese sources, which I am not in a position to evaluate. However, most of the editors who !voted in the RfC preferred to stick to the numerous reliable secondary sources that suggest that in medieval Japan a man who had a sword, a servant below him, and a lord above him - a lord with whom he had a direct personal relationship - was most likely to be a samurai, that is, a warrior of higher rank and prestige. This was the case, according to sources, even if that man happened to be black and born in Africa. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 —

• In your point #1 above, you list eight sources. You then claim (emphasis mine): "They [Hexenakte and Eiríkr] argued that [sources] are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research."

I must emphasize, that despite your apparent opinion of my position, I don't care one way or the other whether Yasuke was a samurai. My issue is simple academic integrity and verifiability. I care what reliable, confirmable sources have to say, and I care that our article at [[Yasuke]] accurately and fairly presents what such sources say.

Of your eight sources, the first six of them are tertiary or quaternary references.

• Britannica includes zero sourcing or references, and presents speculation that isn't confirmable anywhere (about Yasuke fighting in several battles). I honestly fail to see how this is a reliable source.
• The next five all depend on the seventh (Lockley) for their statements about Yasuke as a samurai.
• Lockley and López-Vera are secondary sources, and while they lack in-line citations, they at least include bibliographies that list primary sources.

So of those 8, we have only two that are secondary sources. Which anyone would know, if they did their due diligence and read the sources in their entirety.

Two secondary sources is a less compelling picture, and this is a big part of why I continue to oppose writing our article such that it states that Yasuke was a samurai, as an uncited statement of fact (in "wikivoice"): most of the sources brought up at Talk:Yasuke in support of making a "wikivoice" statement are either tertiary and merely repeating the statements of other secondary sources, or they have other issues (like the Manatsha paper).

What I have done in evaluating these eight sources is hardly OR, this is simple due diligence in evaluating sources and the bases for claims made.

• In your point #2 above, I see some confusion. I take issue with this sentence, which you changed to add "as a samurai" that appears underlined here:

Nobunaga was impressed by him and asked Valignano to give him over.<ref name="JapanForum" /> He gave him the Japanese name ''Yasuke'',{{efn|The origin of his name is unknown.}} made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai.<ref name="ExcludedPresence" /><ref name="Hitotsubashi">{{Cite journal |last=Wright |first=David |date=1998 |title=The Use of Race and Racial Perceptions Among Asians and Blacks: The Case of the Japanese and African Americans |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294433 |url-status=live |journal=Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=135–152 |issn=0073-280X |jstor=43294433 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230313173327/https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294433 |archive-date=13 March 2023 |access-date=19 May 2024 |quote=In 1581, a Jesuit priest in the city of Kyoto had among his entourage an African}}</ref>

The issue I take is that, as written, the text appears to source the "as a samurai" part to the given references — which themselves make no such statement. Hence my predicament: I do not know if you are mistakenly claiming that these sources support your contention, or if you are intentionally writing so as to make your claim seem as if others are backing it up, even when they do not. Given the way it appears that you are trying to ram through a "wikivoice" statement of samurai-ness, I confess that I have begun to doubt your motives.

• In your point #3 above, I think it's clear from the existence of this very thread that the RFC closure was not "flawless". I do not fault @Chrhns for their good-faith efforts, but the closure was not without its issues.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No, sorry, but your point 2 is just wrong: you are falsifying my edit. This is the code of my first edit:

Subsequently, Nobunaga took him into his service and gave him the name Yasuke. As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and [[stipend]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jozuka |first=Emiko |date=2019-05-20 |title=The legacy of feudal Japan’s African samurai |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/19/asia/black-samurai-yasuke-africa-japan-intl/index.html |access-date=2024-06-27 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

It is identical to the code of my second edit (restoring the first one after the RfC). As you can see, there is a full stop between "...into his army" and "As a samurai". "As a samurai" has a capital "A". The sentance I added is supported by the quoted source CNN. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666, I'm looking right at the wikisource diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1231823282

Specifically, the fifth color-coded paragraph down.

The paragraph in question is not the one you quote here. Again, the exact sentence I take issue with is (minus the wikicode bits): "He gave him the Japanese name Yasuke, made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai." ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right. Now I understand what happened. My first edit did not add that "samurai" there. It was added later by another editor here [10]. After the RfC I undid this edit [11] and in doing so I restored that "samurai". I had no recollection of it because I had not included it in the first place. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, one issue resolved! Thank you for tracking down where that crept in, apparently in this edit by @Natemup.

@Natemup, the sources cited as references for that sentence ("He gave him the Japanese name Yasuke, made him an attendant at his side and enlisted Yasuke into his army as a samurai.") do not support your addition of the "as a samurai" bit on the end. Would you object to removing those three words?

I must log off for now, probably for the next couple days. Here's hoping that we can continue to get this sorted out. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to move them somewhere else, but the body of the article must mention that he's a samurai if we're including it in the lede. natemup (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

i just want to drop, that i heavily pointed out, that one of the mentioned sources, Lockney, heavily evades the term samurai in his own comments and publications to describe Yasuke AND that the same sources about Yasuke's samurai status talk about Yasuke slavery status with zero interest to insert this fact of Yasuke's origin into the article as Original research.

If we allow these sources to "prove" the samurai status of Yasuke, we have to insert into the article, that he had a slavery background in his live. I will add, that in Japan academic papers talk about the view of slavery by Japanese with the example Yasuke. We just ignore these academical talks in the western-centristic views of some people here and silence thereby colonial actions of the Portuguese empire and explicit the Jesuits in Asia for a samurai-demand by few people, who neve rinteracted with the primary sources and rather read news articles about a netflix show.

I even highlighted, that the majority of the "reliable sources" talking about the samurai status of Yasuke were NOT about the historic figure of Yasuke, but about modern cultural media products, who showed Yasuke as a samurai in these shows. The article referring to this samurai-Yasuke in the media and tries to find a historic base to this figure of a samurai-Yasuke.

This doesn't make Yasuke in hisotry to a samurai, this just tells us, that these newsarticles talks about this show with a depicted samurai-yasuke. We have a section about this matter in the article about his cultural depiction. It is not a source for his historic title and lacks in Verifiability!

We lack any kind of primary source, that calls him a samurai. We even lack a primary source, that secures to us, that he was ever freed from slavery before, in or after being in Japan.

And this view is even heavily supported by the main source for Yasuke as a samurai, Lockney, who is evasive to the term and often used the term as a "personal view" about Yasuke in his own publications and comments in newspapers.

For example, the Jesuit records never mentioned Yasuke as a samurai, the Jesuits call him a term, typical used for black slaves or servants in Asia by Jesuits and Portuguese at these times, only call him once by his name, call him a gift given to Nobunaga by them.

The articles use a single sentence in the whole record, about various things given to Yasuke as their CLAIM, that this could mean, that he was made a samurai to justify the depiction of him as a samurai in these modern cultural products. This is not a historic fact about Yasuke or even a statement about the real Yasuk by these news-papers, who wouldn't make original scientific comments about Yasuke in the first place.

--ErikWar19 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

additional:

According to this academic review (accessible through WP:TWL), Lockley 2019 is a work of popular history. I quote the paragraph most pertinent to the discussion here:

The book is clearly intended as popular history, and, while it might be unfair to judge a book by what is it not, the scarcity of primary sources on Yasuke is compounded by the lack of scholarly citations or other means to document the narrative. The afterward lists chapter-by-chapter “Selected Readings” of primary and secondary sources, but no direct citations. The omission of citations is not necessarily a question a veracity of the scholarship, but the authors frequently go into detail about Yasuke and his personal reactions, like his kidnapping from Africa and his sword fight with a young enemy samurai, with no cited documentation. Likewise, there is no discussion of the evidence that explains how, in just fifteen months, Yasuke and Nobunaga developed such a close relationship. Was it just Yasuke’s height and skin color? Presumably, much of this might come from Fróis or be based on reasonable speculation, but, without specific references, details often seem like creative embellishments, rather than historical narrative.

_dk (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

(s. Archiv1; section: Lockley 2016, Lockley 2017, and Lockley 2019?)

is this our "Lockley" Reliable source? --ErikWar19 (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

In 2018 you made 6 edits to userspace. In Novemeber 2020 you blanked your page. Upon returning almost 4 years later you blanked your talk page and an hour later you closed a contentious RfC. You've now gone ahead and made an ANI report over the issue too.

You're quite clearly an WP:SPA yourself. The RfC should be re-opened and closed by someone with experience (no clue whether the close is valid or not but someone with 10 edits should never close an RfC). Traumnovelle (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

There was nothing I saw policy wise that indicated that I shouldn't be doing closures. As I stated above, I simply saw an avenue in which I could use my time to contribute that didn't involve actively editing articles and as the other options were far more complicated than the yes or no question presented, I went with what seemed to be the simplest. I also closed the RfC on Line of Duty today prior to reading I shouldn't be doing RfCs. I blanked my page because it had material from an irrelevant course still on it. I created this ANI not about the RfC but over conduct violations appearing long before I had such as declaring nationalist screeds. I won't be doing any RfCs any more and do not particularly care if the one I did do gets reverted, though I stand by my suggestion that the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard might be more productive. Chrhns (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong, and nobody should be biting you for it. You made a good faith attempt to help out, and that's very much appreciated and welcome here. The only issue is that you started in an area that's very difficult for new editors, difficult even for experienced ones. You also did the right thing by bringing the conduct issue here for discussion. If you have any questions about different ways to participate around Wikipedia, I'd be happy to answer them on my talkpage if you like. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 06:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved observer, I agree with SilverserenC and Loki that it would be helpful to (semi- or ec-)protect the talk-page for a moderate length of time in order to allow more experienced editors to implement the result of the RfC without constant disruption. (The article itself is already semi-protected.) --JBL (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  I would support that. I think the talk page does indeed need some kind of protection.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support. IPs and new accounts have been flooding the page with baseless, resource-free WP:FORUM comments for days. Needs to stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that EC protection is needed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks to Daniel Case for protecting the talk-page following a request at RfPP. --JBL (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is because so many people here insist on using Lockley as a credible reference for claiming Yasuke as a “samurai” (侍) in the strict sense of a noble (high-ranking) combatant swordsman with more specific requirements such as a surname. In fact there exists no reliable primary resource that Yasuke was a 侍. We have Nobunaga’s diary, Ietada’s diary, and a few Jesuit annual reports of Japan as primary sources for mentioning a person with dark skin under assumed roles like servant, slave, etc. with not a single one using 侍.

I personally do not understand why people insist on using Lockley even after he has been exposed for fabricating the Wiki page, and deleting his social media presence to cover things up. The majority of Japanese people online do not approve of him, and there is an investigation by a member of the National Diet of Japan undergoing. 天罰れい子 (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh good, I was worried there might not be enough disruptive SPAs around. Now we've got obvious WP:BLP violations on ANI. --JBL (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This thread (and the Ysauke talk page) is like a honeypot. 天罰れい子's comment is not OK. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

When blatantly false information about a country’s history is unjustly propagated as truth overseas, then you are going to have people who are upset and wish to bring attention to the inconsistencies and lies being spread around. In fact, this topic has been trending in Japan lately and is garnering serious scrutiny and backlash due to historical revisionism by Wikipedia (trending on X which is the main outlet for popular Japanese discourse). 天罰れい子 (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The above diatribe should result in a block for the BLP violating attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to ask how it is a BLP violation when it has been confirmed that Lockley has engaged in WP:ACTUALCOI on the Wikipedia website? Please refer to here. What Lockley has done needs to be called into question as he was trying to add his own book to the Wikipedia article, and was even called out on it months before his final edit. Hexenakte (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding WP:COI a little bit. While strongly discouraged, it isn't forbidden, especially not when properly disclosed, which @Tottoritom did in their third edit. The only definitive COI editing was in the deletion discussion, where they again disclosed their COI. Their edits to the Yasuke page were WP:SELFCITE, which is allowed (within reason). Tottoritom doesn't appear to have edit-warred, and no users brought up issues with them on their talk page, with the possible exception of a 2018 COI notice in reference to the Thomas Lockley page and a mention of WP:CITESPAM. After that, the only edit that Tottoritom made was the addition of their book to the pop culture section of the article in January 2019. They have not edited since then. They barely edited before then.

In a very long comment over on RSN you said I believe the best way to handle this situation is call on the man himself, whether it be through Wikipedia or through the Japanese National Diet, or any other official manner really, to explain the decisions he made, because this is extremely dishonest. (emphasis added).

I hope this doesn't come across as accusatory or aggressive, but what are you hoping to make happen here? Are you looking for any actions to be taken on Wikipedia, or was this WP:FORUM posting? CambrianCrab (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

While strongly discouraged, it isn't forbidden, especially not when properly disclosed, which @Tottoritom did in their third edit. The only definitive COI editing was in the deletion discussion, where they again disclosed their COI. Their edits to the Yasuke page were WP:SELFCITE, which is allowed (within reason) [...] the only edit that Tottoritom made was the addition of their book to the pop culture section of the article in January 2019. They have not edited since then.

According to WP:SELFCITE, it states the following:

Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. (Emphasis mine)

The following is the edit that Thomas Lockley made on January 25th, 2019:

The first full length book about Yasuke in English, written by Thomas Lockley and Geoffrey Girard, called "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan," will be published in May 2018. (Emphasis mine)

A few things here is that one, he gave the wrong publishing date for his book, which was published on April 30th, 2019. This can be seen as a mistake based off of the phrasing "will be published", so he gets the benefit of the doubt on this. However, even when corrected in a later edit, the book was still kept on the page. The question here is why his book was allowed to stay on the article when it is not released. According to WP:SOURCEDEF, "Some sources, such as unpublished texts and an editor's own personal experience, are prohibited." (Emphasis mine). Like I said, this comes across as an WP:ACTUALCOI as a possible attempt to influence the article with his book or vice versa; Lockley himself should address this and be transparent about this decision, as the earlier COI disclosure was relating to his own personal Wikipedia article, but not the inclusion of his book on the Yasuke article, this decision was never addressed.

Another thing is the phrasing that it was the "first full length book about Yasuke", establishing himself as an authority on the matter before we get a chance to even read his book. Moreover, there is no possible way to see any peer reviews on his book, let alone read the book itself, and it was kept on the article page when it should not have. As I stated before, I cannot know what Lockley's reasoning was as I cannot read his mind, but the way he went about this is that because that was his final edit on Wikipedia, he likely did not feel the need to stay on Wikipedia anymore as he already got his book cited on the article. It comes across as dishonest.

In a very long comment over on RSN you said ["]I believe the best way to handle this situation [']is call on the man himself, whether it be through Wikipedia['] or through the Japanese National Diet, or any other official manner really, to explain the decisions he made, because this is extremely dishonest.["] (emphasis added).

I hope this doesn't come across as accusatory or aggressive, but what are you hoping to make happen here? Are you looking for any actions to be taken on Wikipedia, or was this WP:FORUM posting?

I apologize for the wording on that statement, I do believe Lockley should address this COI in an official manner, I just did not know if it needed to apply to Wikipedia as well. In some shape or form, he should address it, however even then the discussion does belong on Wikipedia since it pertains specifically to COI relating to Wikipedia, even if he himself does not have to appear, so I apologize about the wording, that was my bad.

The main point I'm making here is that we should consider the integrity of Lockley's book as a conflict of interest, again, whether it be to influence the article on Yasuke or to use Yasuke for his book, I am not going to pretend to know what his motivations were, and I am not going to speak on his behalf (hence why he should address it), but it needs to be taken into consideration. Hexenakte (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Please note that I had already warned Hexenakte about WP:BLPTALK violation regarding Lockely on their talk page on 28 June 2024 [12]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand how using a peer review contending that Lockley's work is "full of creative embellishments" and is considered historical fiction of popular history, which these are not my words. This was during a time in which most of the opposition against using Lockley's work was being heavily ignored, and since this entire issue is specifically pertaining to his book, it is unreasonable to suggest this is WP:BLPTALK, especially when it is nothing relating to Lockley personally, but rather his work and now currently the issue with his COI on Wikipedia. Again, I have not asserted any claims on his motivations, hence why I said repeatedly he should address this as it comes across as dishonest the way it appears now.

I have been more than willing to do a productive discussion about these issues, but with the constant accusations and hostility, it is extremely difficult to tread that line. I have admitted wrong where I did wrong such as my bad wording above, but my competency on the subject has been demonstrated and speaks for itself. So I ask that you do not continue these accusations and instead ask questions or for clarification as CambrianCrab has done. Hexenakte (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not an "accusation". It's just a warning I gave you because something you wrote struck me as potentially inappropriate. I don't have the time or inclination to re-read your numerous and lengthy comments on that talk page to find out what prompted me to warn you about WP:BLP. So I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying that I warned you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Favonian, Drmies, and Daniel Case: Apologies but as this issue is buried in the middle of a disaster thread, and as you all have acted recently in an administrative capacity to deal with problems at Talk:Yasuke, could one of you please look at the portion of this discussion from the last two days (beginning with this comment) and assess whether any action is needed here? Thanks and sorry again. --JBL (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

initial report is SPA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel like pointing out that User:Chrhns's first edit to wikipedia was to close the RfC on Yasuke will shorten further discussion significantly. JackTheSecond (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

That isn't even accurate? You know we all can look at edit histories, right? Silverseren^C 22:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

To be strictly fair, my first edit outside of my own page was the RfC closure. I am not denying this. Chrhns (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. It has already been pointed out that this was the first thing I have done, and I have offered an explanation (and apology) here. In short, I thought doing RfC closures would be helpful and a way I could contribute my time since I do not wish to actively edit articles, and the other RfC about "tornadoes" seemed a lot more complicated to me. Any other action I have taken in regard to the Yasuke content was directing people to more appropriate venues (such as starting a reliable source noticeboard discussion on the contentious source instead of constantly arguing about it on the talk page). Arguably, the Single Purpose of my account was to participate in my course requirement. I brought the talk page up to the Admin board because there seemed to be a lot happening in the discussion, such as proclaiming that Wikipedia is conducting "black supremacy", a bunch of nationalist rhetoric about how Western sources are colonizing history, and various accusations of editors lying. Chrhns (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not even your first edit anyways and you already explained yourself above when this was asked. It's clear JackTheSecond didn't even read the discussion. Silverseren^C 22:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I saw an SPA account complaining about SPAs. The close is well-argued, and their reasoning above sound. @Chrhns Sorry about the aspersions. JackTheSecond (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I made the closure request, and specifically requested an experienced closer, mainly because of the SPA issues the OP has brought up. That being said, I also think that the close was surprisingly good for a very new editor who's never even participated in an RFC before.

Despite this, I wouldn't be opposed to an admins reclosing it, if it's felt like that's necessary. But I would suggest that it'd be so hard to reach any other conclusion that it might not be worth bothering. Loki (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Soo are we gonna do anything about this guy or do we have to wait for him to go on another rant about "wokeism"?--Trade (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't there already such a case at the same time this Wakanda-scholar called everyone a racist? --ErikWar19 (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Who? Trade (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

User:WakandaScholar (not the same person btw). Thibaut (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that User:WakandaScholar trolled and harassed users on the JP version of the talk page (here) Relm (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A comment like this:

“The historical Japanese records and Jesuit records say that Yasuke was GIVE by Jesuit to Nobunaga. People who get treated like a property in human trafficking are slaves.

So Yasuke was a slave. There is no confusion on this.

As a Japanese, I feel a great threat to our culture and history by foreigners who try to falsify our culture and history for the benefits of their interests.

And now someone just edited the content to Yasuke "as a samurai" and put a semi-lock until November when the AC Shadows releases.

Wikipedia is now a tool of black supremacy and DEI propaganda.

We need to stop any attempt for history falsification.”

should be a sign this user isn’t gonna be very useful to the project. Their edit comments alone are just disruptive and wastes productive editors time. I believe a block is warranted.CycoMa1 (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked Shinjitsunotsuikyu from Talk:Yasuke and Yasuke. Feel free to change that in any way. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ErikWar19 (talk · contribs)

SPA on the Yasuke talk page (with an incursion into the article on former video game executive Mark Kern) who's been bludgeoning to the point of disruption. Recently they repeatedly pushed the view/taunt that Yasuke was actually a slave without providing RSes and/or misrepresenting the sources. Even if Yasuke was a slave of the Portuguese jesuits, that's irrelevant because the contentious point is his status when he was at Nobunaga's service, so all this is pointless waste of time that comes across as deliberate provocation. E.g. slave and/or something else than a samurai, the National Diet Library (NDL) of Japan, who is calling these black people in Japan, like Yasuke, servants and slaves, just one of hundreds of other non-samurai warriors, gunners, entertainers, servants in Japan, Mitsuhide killed captured samurai, but he didn't killed Yasuke and called him an animal and not Japanese, Leupp, who clearly calls Yasuke a slave, is surely not a reliable source, except that we use Leupp already (pointless sarcasm, irrelevant), Yasuke was such a slave-servant already, it was standard praxis in India and Japan for Portuguese to have black slave-servants ... But surely Yasuke is the sole exception without any source proving this unique anomaly in thousands of similar African slaves. This is either WP:CIR or WP:BATTLE, but either way it doesn't help. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to start in this matter, that to falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided.

Gitz just dislikes, that i write on the talk page in favour for Eiríkr, when Gitz accused @Eirikr to force their point of view through a very high number of comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Gitz6666-20240627225700-Silver_seren-20240627224200

He just believes to be successful in my regard now here with clearly stating the accuse of Bludgeoning, because i am a young contributor to Wikipedia.

I highlighted quite often, that his claimed reliable sources are not reliable, that he ignores month of discussion about these sources and continuously ignores the arguments and discussion points of other editors in the talk page in the area, that looked to me as WP:ICANTHEARYOU WP:DR and WP:OWN. I will add to this claim this specific comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Gitz6666-20240628212500-ErikWar19-20240628211100

with his accusation, that i would translate my comments to english, that he couldn't understand me and that he is in general not interested in discussing about sources reliability on this talk page to other editors questioning his sources.

But in recent days there were finally some form of logic reaching him about the questionable source of Lockley and the Britannica article, so as a rather new contributor i presumed good faith for Gitz and didn't pushed these questionable presumptions on my side about his contributions, as i am not so perfectly adept to the rules in Wikipedia and may mishandled the situation myself as i don't want to allege incompetence.

---

To prove the point, that Yasuke would actual be a slave, i provided reliable sources on countless occasions, but Gitzs just dislikes to interact with these sources in any manner in the same manner, that he doesn't want to speak about the reliability of sources in general over the last weeks, like this attempt of @Hexenakte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Hexenakte-20240628162500-Gitz6666-20240628160200, that got completely ignored, just as one of many examples.

A) One of my sources is simply a source repeatability linked and used by Gitz's itself. https://time.com/6039381/yasuke-black-samurai-true-story/ IN this news-article Lockney himself calls Yasuke a slave and openly talks about this narrative around the figure of Yasuke by Others.

B)

A different reliable source would be the National Diet Library (NDL) of Japan, who is calling black people in Japan in these times in general, this includes Yasuke, servants and slaves.

https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/

And i even provided the official English translation: https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/e/entry/14/2.html to make it possible to check into the facts, that a major Japanese institution talks in these areas of time about the first black people in Japan about the terminology of slaves or servants.

C)

Than i quoted the work: Japan's Minorities. The Illusion of Homogeneity by J.G. Russel, 2009

We hear once again of Yasuke and the services he and other black people did under Nobunaga. Not as a samurai, but "as soldiers, gunners, drummers and entertainers." And i highlighted, that Russel points for this statement at the works of Fujita 1987 and Leupp 1995.

Fujita is Fujita Satoru, a Japanese historian, who writes specific about terminologies of titles in the era of Yasuke's time in Japan and i highlighted, that this may be a reliable source about his samurai status or rather a different view of his status by Japanese scholars, rather than to trust recent western news-articles.

D)

At least i quoted:

Interracial Intimacy in Japan, Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900 by Gary P. Leupp, 2003

"In 1581, a mob in Kyoto broke down the door of a Jesuit residence in their eagerness to see an African slave, who had been born in Mozambique and brought to Japan by the missionary Alessandro Valignano. Several people were injured. Apparently embarrassed about the incident, the warlord Oda Nobunaga himself summoned the man, inspected his person carefully to ensure that his color was genuine, presented him with a gift of money, and then took him into his own service. <Yasuke>, as Nobunaga named him, subsequently accompanied his lord in battle. After the latter was trapped by Akechi Mitsuhide and forced to commit suicide in 1582, Yasuke was captured but released. (This was, after all, not his quarrel: <He is not Japanese,> noted Akechi)"

Because i already experienced Gitz and Others to simply call a source unreliable to be able to ignore it, (he does it here again to explicit ignore D) as a source to be discussed on the talk page) i added to it, that we already uses Leupp extensively in the article as a reliable source. So yea, we have reliable sources calling Yasuke a slave, while not mentioning this fact in any form in the article.

In all honesty, i rather presume, that it is disliked, that i give actual reliable sources for Yasuke to be a slave in a scope, that it could become the majority view in contrast to the notion, that he may be a samurai, claimed by the Spanish historian Jonathan Lopez-Vera. Gitz just dislikes this possibility.

For this reason, i pointed for example at Tetsuo Owada a famous Japanese historian about Hideyoshi and Nobunaga, used by Wikipedia extensively in the articles of these people, who is talking about the term samurai and the strong difficulties and reactions of others against Hideyoshi and other Japanese retainers of Nobunaga to become a samurai and the motivation of Nobunaga to dilute this title with Hideyoshi in contrast to the claim of Yasuke's samurai-status, that is not mentioned once by Owada and didn't created similar form of reactions at these times in any primary sources.

I want to add, that i had an extensive and long discussion with Eiríkr about the matter of primary sources not mentioning any form of rank given to Yasuke by the Japanese, while the Portuguese Jesuits were visiting Japan to achieve a form of legality in Japan and should have been keen on this prospect, that foreigners may get a title in Japan by a higher lord. In contrast to this important matter, the Jesuits just call Yasuke by the term, typical used for black slaves in their colonies in India over his whole service for Nobunaga and even after Nobunaga's death. I provided sources for these claims in the former sections, Gitz just ignores these areas and thereby presumes me to just state random things without sources. He could read about it, but rather he presumed Bludgeon and/or ignores me and my sources.

---

My clear interest on this talk page, prior to Gitz appearance on this talk page and always not hidden, is to highlight, that A) the sources about his samurai status are spare compared to other terminology used to describe Yasuke, even the slave-term has more reliable sources behind its back. and B) Yasuke is, not disputed by any source, a victim of Portuguese slavery and this matter is not mentioned in the article.

So, did i start a edit-war about the terminology of samurai on the page itself? No. I know about WP:CIR and i feel insecure about my ability to contribute to the article in major areas, as it would need major changes to the article to add this major part of Yasuke's live in this article about him on the top summary of his article and in the section of his Early live and about the section about him being a samurai. I know about my lack of competence and thereby i restrict myself to minor edits in actual articles. Even my contribution to Mark Kern was minimal about sourcing.

So i am only able to highlight the situation of the sources and bring attention to these sources onto the talk-page, that contradicts views and opinions of other editors of the page. This may creates problems with these specific editors, when we have an editor pushing for a specific claims, who is simply not true. This is most likely the case by most of these linked comments. Most of my comments in this regard were directed to the claim of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240709060200-Eirikr-20240708235200 @Symphony Regalia, that claims a clear academic consensus, that Yasuke was a samurai and that Lockley's work is reliable against the opinions on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1232447992#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

and with contributions on this page and in similar regard on the talk page Yasuke is like:

"Thomas Lockley is reliable. There are editors pushing personal/political agendas via original research over published peer reviewed sourcing. Mainly the "anti-woke", "anti-dei", right-wing culture war crowd. These people are starting from the conclusion they want, and then working backwards to attempt to discredit any published sourcing that contradicts it."

And i will leave than this paragraph: They always have to have the last word and may ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view. It is most common with someone who feels they have a stake in the outcome, that they own the subject matter, or are here to right great wrongs. from WP:BLUDGEON so in a form of self-critic i will presume, that some of my comments may act in a form to Proof by assertion and will attempt to limit my comments, i didn't bludgeoning, i face comments, who are rather bludgeoning on the talk page and here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240705042700-DarmaniLink-20240704051100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240702165200-Shinjitsunotsuikyu-20240628163700

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240702165800-Shinjitsunotsuikyu-20240628165000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240709063400-MWFwiki-20240708143100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240706042100-12.75.41.40-20240704060300

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240702165500-Shinjitsunotsuikyu-20240629120200

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Symphony_Regalia-20240708035200-217.178.103.145-20240703014800 ErikWar19 (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

ah last sentence should be i face comments from editors, who are rather bludgeoning on the talk page and here. ErikWar19 (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

oh and this may be interesting too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive269#h-Symphony_Regalia-2020-07-26T03:05:00.000Z

-- ErikWar19 (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Symphony Regali used multiple accounts, and obsessively edited the page of Yasuke in Japanese Wikipedia.

He claims that ethnicity is not important in wikipedia edits, but he falsely identifies himself as Japanese in an attempt to gain an advantage in the debate. Pobble1717 (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: this user is a SPA and likely the same user as the one here. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Just in terms of word choice and grammar patterns, I do not think that @ErikWar19 and @天罰れい子 are the same person.

Moreover, looking at the contribution history of both accounts, they have edited more than just content about Yasuke. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I checked the first source you mentioned, of which you claim "IN this news-article Lockney himself calls Yasuke a slave". What I see when I search for the word "slave" in that article is "Some have said that Yasuke was a slave, and Lockley acknowledges the theory but disagrees. “Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor,” Lockley said. Given that blatant misrepresentation of the source, I'm not interested in spending time looking at any of your other claims. CodeTalker (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And it goes on.

The author speculates that given the circumstances of how the African man arrived at his employment with Valignano, it’s possible that Yasuke was enslaved as a child and taken from Africa to India. There, Lockley said the man could have been a military slave or an indentured soldier, but he “probably got his freedom before meeting Valignano.” ErikWar19 (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Two points:

• ErikWar19 says i am a young contributor to Wikipedia and i am not so perfectly adept to the rules in Wikipedia, and yet in 2017 they were indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry on de.wiki [13]. I doubt they are a new user, WP:BITE doesn't apply - also digging out Symphony Regalia's Tban from GENSEX (which is irrelevant here) while pretending not to know hot to post a link on a talk page is not the behaviour of a newcomer.
• As already explained in my OP and also on the Yasuke talk page (here), the point at issue is not whether Yasuke was a slave/servant when he was in the service of the Portoguese Jesuits. Either out of bad faith or incompetence, ErikWar19 insists that being a slave of the Jesuits prevents Yasuke from becoming a samurai of Oda Nobunaga.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

the block at this time was on the German site, was in 2017 and my sole contribution to Wikipedia was to post one comment on https://www.fr.de/politik/steckt-hinter-afd-freund-lukati-11059673.html this issue on the German site Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht, so the German Arbitration Committee, about the potential misuse of Wikipedia for activities of a party, that is suspected to be extrem right wing in Germany.

It was kinda a big thing, i think 6 of the 10 members of the Arbitration Committee retired around that time from their membership, some in clear protest. After creating my account and posting my negative opinion about this user, i was blocked for sockpuppery, as i didn't contributed to Wikipedia in any other form. So i suspect, that the block was reasonable. At these times it happend, that people created such new accounts to contribute in such a manner and i was suspected to be such a case. I didn't had an interest to contribute to Wikipedia at these time, so i only noticed the block years later and didn't appeal to it.

---

I succeeded once to post a link with a number.....but i didn't figured out, how to replace the number with a word, like "here" or "BBC" and it broke the link, so i tend to just copy paste the link directly into the text. I don't want to break the link.

---

digging up Symphony's ban: i can read his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Symphony_Regalia#c-GorillaWarfare-2020-07-26T03:07:00.000Z-Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion

---

well the thing is, Gitz, the article of Yasuke didn't clearly mentioned his clear slavery background and his presumed slavery-status for the Portuguese in his early live or about his service for the Portuguese. I point at this problem of this specific area of the article, explicit with the samurai status of him, as it is less secured by reliable sources.

I dont insist, that being a slave of the Jesuits prevents Yasuke to becoming later a samurai of Nobunaga. It is simply possible to highlight, that he was a slave, that got his samurai status by Nobunaga into the article. i wrote even about benefits about this concept on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#c-ErikWar19-20240619224500-EgiptiajHieroglifoj-20240619222200

[...] the Japanese side, mainly Oda, may had a different view on slavery compared to Yasuke's Portuguese owners and may even gave Yasuke various things to allow him to distance himself from them. But we can't talk about this interesting clash of different cultures by Yasuke's live in Japan, if we hide his clear slavery-background in the article.

---

I just want to highlight the amount of WP:OWN about this article, to guard the term samurai to such an intensity, that just to point out contradictions with other core elements of Yasuke's live on the talk page of article will lead to this stuff here.

It should be allowed to point out, that i call the reliable sources about him becoming a samurai a potential minority view in contrast to the possibility, that Nobunaga used Yasuke in the same regards Portuguese nobility used slaves as personal servants in their colonies. This would make his gifts and salary to Yasuke just attempts of Nobunaga to make his servant to an samurai or/and to free him from his slavery status. An attempt, that didn't succeeded as he was returned to the Portuguese after Nobunaga's death. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Likewise when the sources for section B were posted on the Talk page for Yasuke I noted that they actually stated the opposite: that Yasuke was a 'African Priest' who was 'highly appreciated' and then it listed an example of Africans serving in combat at the Battle of Okitanawate. The rest of the page is about the Edo period onward, which is irrelevant to the discussion of Yasuke. That comment and where they cited these same sources is here: (here) Relm (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

B states on a sidenote:

"African people are believed to have first visited Japan during the Sengoku period as servants or slaves of European ships from Portugal and Spain." And they state, that Nobunaga appreciated him, because of his strenght, looks and demeanour.

the translation as a African priest seem to be a mistranslation by the English translation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Eirikr-20240710175000-Relmcheatham-20240710133100

the original calls him https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/entry/14/2.html 黒坊主 and this would mean a black monk, monks can't become samurai, they had Sōhei, so i presume, that the original meaning is a young black man, but thx for highlighting this translation problem. ErikWar19 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

so i presume

That statement sums up the problem here. You're inserting WP:OR into your reasoning and then working backwards to try and find ways to force that viewpoint into the article. Combined with your WP:BLUDGEON method of discussion, it has become disruptive. If you don't step away from the article yourself, I expect you're going to wind up with a topic ban, if not a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Serious question: what OR do you see in @ErikWar19's statement just before yours, here? 黒坊主 is 黒 (kuro, "black") + 坊主 (bōzu, "Buddhist monk; acolyte; boy, young man").

@ErikWar19 links above to an article in Japanese posted on the National Diet Library website. The English translation provided on that same website at https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/e/entry/14/2.html translates 黒坊主 as "a black priest". I explained over here why that is a mistranslation that is using an incorrect rendering in English of the Japanese word 坊主 (bōzu). ErikWar19's comment above points out correctly that 坊主 (bōzu), as in "Buddhist monks", were a different social category than "samurai", and that the Japanese term 黒坊主 must be correctly rendered in English as "young black man" if there is to be any possibility of Yasuke being a samurai.

I don't see ErikWar19 "working backwards to try and find ways to force that viewpoint into the article", but then, I also see the source text in Japanese, I know how translation works (and doesn't), and I recognize where the English target text strays from the source.

(I make no comment about bludgeoning, or other possible instances of OR: I just don't see any OR in ErikWar19's post just above.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The entire final paragraph of ErikWar's comment is unambiguous OR. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Difficult to see anything in this section aside from a clear confirmation of the complaint at the beginning. ErikWar19 hasn't edited for a couple of days, but if they continue in this vein I would support a partial block from the page. --JBL (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd also support a page block, but a topic ban might be more appropriate given that the bludgeoning and incivility and such seems to be carrying over to noticeboards. CambrianCrab (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I consider this a friendly amendment. --JBL (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Support as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued incivility from SpacedFarmer

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

This user is continuing their pattern of incivility and personal attacks towards editors who disagree with them. Since creating their account in late 2023, the majority of their edits of been in deletion/merge/split discussions.[14] They have been taken twice to ANI before.

• In April, the complaint describes an incident in which SF was uncivil towards editors who disagreed with them,[15] was warned about their incivility (albeit poorly),[16] only to double down and attack the person warning them.[17] While no action was taken and the civility warning was dismissed as being uncivil in its own right, comments in the discussion including by Snow Rise and Hydrangeans expressed concerns over SF's tone and taking digs at the contributions of others nonetheless.

• In May, I brought up what I felt were several issues related to SF's behaviour at AfD, among which was their incivility. The other issues were mostly dismissed due to SF's record at AfD, but again, nearly every editor who commented expressed concerns at SF's tone towards others, including their behaviour in the ANI thread itself. Clearly a message should have been received that their tone was unacceptable, but no acknowledgement of the concerns was made before the thread was archived.

Now, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round, SF has again taken to being uncivil towards editors who disagree with his nomination.

• [18] In a reply to me: "There's always a home for them in Fandom. Nothing wrong with that site, though. People should think before shoving junk into Wikipedia." Bolding mine; The "go to Fandom" comment is itself bad, but again he belittles and does not assume good faith of the efforts of other editors.
• [19] In a reply to another keep !voter, WP:OTHERSTUFF would have itself been a sufficient reply, but SF can't help but make a personal attack about Fandom. "Fandom is always there for fans like you."
• [20] SF then adds to his initial reply to me, with what is partially a line they use often at AfD but also partially a personal attack, "and do we need an WP:INDISCRIMINATE amount of sports results to clutter Wikipedia with, especially those the most ardent minority of nerds bother with".
• [21] After I warned him about his incivility, he doubles down with "Wow, such snowflakes like the modern times, getting upset by words like 'nerds', I thought nerds like being called nerds. I was a car nerd at one time and am not ashamed of that label. I call 'efforts' like this junk because people write crap."

Given that the user has not heeded past warnings to keep it civil, or even acknowledged that their lack of civility is a problem, and continues to bring this behaviour into discussions on deletion, merging and splitting whenever they face opposition that they can't just quickly reply to with a wikilink (and even sometimes when they can), I believe something beyond a warning (like a topic ban) must be done. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

SpacedFarmer is certainly assertive in expressing their opinions within the context of improving the encyclopedia, but I fail to see how calling another editor a "nerd" is an actionable insult. I've been editing Wikipedia for 15 years and if anyone called me a "nerd" for editing the articles that I choose to edit, then I will accept "nerd" as a badge of honor. Similarly with "snowflakes" which is a term that has been used, over used and counter-used so often that it has lost actual meaning in the fog of trading political insults. An assertion that specific content is "junk" or "crap" is bold and unvarnished, but the appropriate response is to advance a convincing argument that the content in question is neither junk nor crap. SpacedFarmer, I encourage you to select wording in such discussions that is less confrontational and more collaborative. Editors who initially disagree with you about "something" are not your enemy. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The exact worlds used are less of a concern than the overall pattern of immediate confrontation towards disagreement. How many more people are going to have to tell this user to be less confrontational and more collaborative before they finally get it? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 I had a somewhat similar response to the first ANI report about this user brought earlier this year. In that instance, I felt there was blame to go around and that the conduct being complained about with regard to SpacedFarmer constituted fairly minor violations of behavioural norms under the circumstances. When I was pinged here for this report, read it through, and reviewed the original ANI, I was initially anticipating saying something similar. But after reviewing some of the more recent comments in context, and especially after having just looked at the attitude on display in the second ANI, as well as in some other circumstances where SF has been asked to adjust their approach, I'm starting to lean towards agreement with the OP that there's an issue here that needs addressing.

For one, although I don't think that they are the biggest issue here, I don't think that the "nerd"/"fanboy" comments are entirely nothing. Context is king, and the fact is that SF is demonstrating a pattern of dismissing the concerns of other editors with these sorts of non-sequitor comments, combining ad hominem and strawman elements, thus violating the principle that editorial arguments should be based on content and policy, not one's suppositions about what they imagine to be the motivations and qualities of their rhetorical opposition (or, "focus on the content, not the user", as we usually say in short). There is definitely a problematic amount of WP:Battleground seeping into SF's approach here, from what I can see. And frankly a non-trivial amount of arrogance that they are a more serious editor than those disagreeing with them and that they know best what is called for, with their all of seven months worth of experience on-project.

This attitude may well have been unintentionally enabled by those of us who blew off the first few episodes, but regardless, it's clearly starting to become irreconcilable with a collaborative environment, and I think we're headed towards either a block and/or a topic ban from sport/motorsport subject matter if SF is unable to perceive the issue with their approach and adjust accordingly. I don't know that we're at the point of such a proposal yet, but (for their own benefit if nothing else) SpacedFarmer should at least get a clear warning from us at this juncture. And a clear acknowledgment from them that they understand where the community concerns are coming from wouldn't hurt. Regardless, without a rapid change in outlook concerning how to regard and communicate with their fellow editors in content disputes, I don't see how they avoid some sort of sanction at some point probably not too far down the line. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I appreciate your perspective. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

A new response on SpacedFarmer's user talk offers fresh evidence of their increasing use of personal attacks: "People like you are what is shit about modern motorsport, no wonder why the once great sport full of pussies like you nowadays." I think something needs to be done. Toughpigs (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for personal attacks. Amazingly stupid comment considering this ANI is open for this exact reason. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: SpacedFarmer topic banned from deletion, broadly construed

I think it's safe to say that SpacedFarmer doesn't have the temperament to work in the deletion realm of Wikipedia. I'm proposing a topic ban from all deletion areas of Wikipedia, broadly construed. Support, obviously. Maybe this'll give SpacedFarmer a chance to change his tact around deletion. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support because of the constant & massive incivility towards editors and article creators within deletion discussions, as demonstrated in this and the previous ANI thread. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support per my report above and the new PA. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: SpacedFarmer has gone beyond "losing his cool" and is now openly hostile to other editors. Toughpigs (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Despite my misgivings based on what has been presented in this thread, I wanted to wait and see how SpacedFarmer responded to the administrative block before weighing in on any additional CBAN. I have to say that I am not heartened by the complete radio silence in response to multiple admins reaching out on the talk page trying to encourage a change in tact. That said, unlikely though it is to be coincidental timing, it is at least possible that the user is simply busy off-project.
  I additionally have another concern: if a TBAN is advisable in this instance, I'm not sure if removing them from deletion discussions is the right fit. Afterall, I don't think removing them from deletion is going to address the hostility that seems to characterize many of their interactions in the area of organized sport topics. And on the flip side, I'm not sure that they would be as problematic when discussing deletions matters for other topics. That said, the proposal may end up being better than nothing. I'm going to wait a little longer and hope for some response from SF before formalizing an !vote in any direction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Support:Given the amount of time that SpacedFarmer has had to address concerns here, and their decision not to do so (despite being back to edit briefly a couple of days ago, I'm prepared to support the proposal now. I still have concerns that the topic ban might have been better directed at the subject matter that has surrounded their problematic conduct, rather than the process, but consensus at this point is that the TBAN be directed at deletion discussions and that's better than doing nothing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support: They've refused to adjust their behaviour despite past warnings. The incivility towards others, as well as the disparaging nomination statements they routinely make and won't adjust from, have grown quite tiresome. They routinely fail to do proper WP:BEFORE searches and then badger those who oppose them at various times. They've shown no signs that they intend to work at it and do better, so at this point I think it's time to say enough is enough. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Support per TheImaCow.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as currently proposed: Most of the issues so far have pertained with sports related deletion discussions, and more specifically motorsports. I think action is warranted based on the history here, but this is too broad a sanction for me to support at this time. Let'srun (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  On one hand, I think it's entirely coincidental that the April ANI report also involved the motorsport(s) topic area and that this overall pattern of lashing out at disagreement could happen at any other XfD or merge/split discussion. On the other, the pointed comment about "modern motorsport" being "full of pussies like [me] nowadays" highlighted above by Toughpigs certainly indicates an unwillingness to contribute positively there. I'd support a topic ban from both or either area. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I think a topic ban from motorsports would appear to be more appropriate here. Let'srun (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally attacked again

Since last year I have been the target of (sometimes carefully hedged) accusations and smears from an editor who disagrees with me.

16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Calling me "continual and deliberate false accusations" [22]

04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Suggesting that I'm trying to use the "big lie technique, in the hope that Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" [23]

10:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "adding misinformation" [24]

Suggesting that I'm being paid by a Chinese company to edit on their behalf

10:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Given the influence and the large amount of $ the Sing! China incident involved, it won’t surprise me if it turns out that someone is paid to edit in their voice" [25]

21:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) "That sea lion and their bait are really disgusting" [26] "I hope you are paid, and well-paid. Otherwise it doesn’t worth the time and effort you’ve devoted." [27]

Their behavior is unwarranted and needs to stop. Vacosea (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the third time since September last year. Whenever I said the truth, pointing out your mistakes / stating the fact that you attacked me, or you can’t win the discussion [28], you bring me to ANI. [29][30]. You did not succeed the last two times, and now you continue. When will all these end? Is there really no consequence for you to spread misinformation about me for so long (over nine months)? Is it the “norms” here that people who are more gentle and don’t like collecting diffs and filing at ANI deemed to WikiBullying/harassment? [31]

This is tiring. I’ll just copy and paste here my final comment (at ANI) in the last complaint you filed against me:

I don’t think people will be interested in the 24 diffs you posted above (most of which were months ago, back in 2023).

Perhaps I shouldn’t have tried to make peace with you. I’m too forgetful, and forget how good you are at misleading people with unrelated diffs, links and sources. Maybe you would like to post all the diffs at one time, like this.

It seems to me that your main purpose is not trying to improve the article. Rather, you are using aged or tangentially-related diffs in the hope that you can get rid of another editor by sheer weight of numbers, especially where said diffs have been raised at previous ANIs that ended without the desired ban. I won’t comment on the issue of the former admin you mentioned, as I know nothing about that. However, I don’t think ANI is only moderated by one admin. Again, digging up old non-issue issues is a waste of community’s time and is exhausting other editors. Not to mention the untrue claims / potential WP:PA that are made. I don’t think I’ll take the bait this time. You can go on with your diffs.

I would say this kind of interaction is just exhausting. I really don’t think I have the time and energy to deal with the bait anymore. This is sapping up the community’s time. But I know you will never stop until there’s a boomerang.

Again, you can go on with your diffs. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld If you believe Vacosea is trying to get you into trouble to win an argument, why are you giving them so much ammunition? The "sea lion and their bait are disgusting" comment really sounds like you're calling Vacosea disgusting, which is a clear personal attack. Similarly, the "big lie technique" comment is hard to see as anything other than calling Vacosea a liar, which also seems like a WP:PA. Your accusations of paid editing might have merit, but the place to do that is WP:COIN, not an article talk page. And your comment telling Vacosea that you consider their accusations libelous, despite having cautioned Vacosea against using the term "defemation" for the same reason.

If, as you say, interacting with this person is exhausting, then perhaps moving to another area of the encyclopedia would be better for you. As valuable as your contributions are, that part of Wikipedia will survive if you need to move on, and the project will be all the better for retaining your time in an area that doesn't exhaust you instead of burning you out on this one. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In reply to the accusations (of which 4 out of 5 happened more than 9 months ago)

Hi there. Most of the diffs cited above were months ago, and I think I’ve responded to them (multiple times?) at different venues already. And now, you are asking me to respond to those again, one by one. Can you see how exhausting it is??

Not to mention that, ANI is a high traffic venue, making untrue claims against someone (in this case: me) can do much more harm to them (e.g., to their reputation) than doing that on talk pages. And this just happens again and again.

Filing a case for them is easy. And it’s a great way to harm others without any consequences (I’m not commenting on the other cases here, but just this particular one that I know so well. I believe many cases are legitimate). All they need to do is just start a discussion like this, and then those who see their comment will just help them keep the ball rolling. Even if I reply to your concern above, you and others (who maybe relatively new to what had happened before) or maybe them, will continue to respond and again, I’ll need to answer one by one. This is the third time it’s happening in this venue, not including talk pages. If memory serves, the first ANI I mentioned above had lasted for months (with dozens of irrelevant diffs they posted). Isn’t that tiring? Issues like this are exactly what drive good editors away. Further, all these and the stress that brings can drive people crazy I would say, especially when occurs repeatedly.

They are the one who made untrue claims, but they don’t need to reply or worry about that at all, just because the victim is not interested in filing compliant, and also, is now busy defending themselves …

Anyway, I’ll response to some of the newer claims now. I’m not sure if there’s any language barrier. For me, the word “disgusting” is just similar to “annoying”, “discouraging”, etc. it’s just a word used to describe my feelings and I don’t think it’s “attack”, and it’s used to describe my feelings towards the sealioning behaviour:

”Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate",[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip ...”

If I was wrong and that word does mean attack and shouldn’t be used, I’ll retract that, with apologies. As for “moving to another area of the encyclopaedia”, do you mean I should quit editing an article of my choice, and which I’m the main contributor of, just because I have been trying hard to protect the page from misinformation (which results in untrue claims / PA / case against me)? It shouldn’t be how things work ...

I think I’ve written long enough and hope that I can just stop here. Regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It does sound exhausting. That's why I'm hoping we can find a solution that works for you. The issue is what an uninvolved editor can be expected to do. If editor A accuses editor B, and B does not refute the accusations, it seems likely that uninvolved editors would conclude editor B is at fault. If you don't have the mental energy to defend yourself and provide diffs of Vacosea's bad behavior, then it seems likely that you'll be sanctioned by the community sooner or later. This is why I suggested abandoning the article you helped create, because the alternative could be a forced abandonment of all articles. Just trust that someone else will step in and defend against misinformation, even if you move to different articles.

Of course, if you CAN muster the energy to provide diffs, that could end things differently.

I see where you were coming from re "disgusting", but I would avoid characterizing other editors that way in the future; if someone called me or my behavior disgusting, I would certainly be upset! In any case, I hope we can solve this in a way that you don't have to deal with ANI again; I can imagine how stressful it'd be to get dragged here, and I rather suspect you have better things to do than come back here again. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I was willing to work it out with them again at the first ANI before the personal attacks began [32]. They later crossed out comparing me to Joseph Goebbels but everything else remained as stated. To date they have not specified what they mean when accusing me of spreading misinformation or making untrue claims. Vacosea (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Mehedihasanbicp and previous accounts

The account Mehedihasanbicp is the fourth and currently active account of a SPA devoted to autobiographies of MH Mehedi Hasan. User:Mhmehedibicp is the oldest account, which originally created Draft:Mh Mehedi Hasan. After that was speedied G11, User:Mhmehedihasan81 and User:Mehedihasanbicp, both of whom have been spamming the same thing at their user pages, recreated the spammy draft. SPA User:Bicpteam also spammed the same bio at their user page. "BICP" is apparently short for "Bangladesh Islamic Cyber Protector", as noted in the infobox. There's been no actual block evasion yet, but the latest account User:Mehedihasanbicp has continued to post the same spammy bio at their user talk after multiple U5 deletions [33], and hasn't responded to a post about sockpuppetry at their user talk. If this belongs at an SPI, I'll take it there. Wikishovel (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: My personal preference would be a formal SPI. That said, putting myself in the shoes of the article draft creator: "there's this amazing website called Wikipedia I've seen all my life, and it also allows you to make a webpage about yourself!" I think the time has come to take a less gentle approach here. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, SPI opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mhmehedibicp. Wikishovel (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks in contentious topic

JDiala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [34] this is just a rationalization to avoid including anything which could give the appearance of criticism of Ukraine/NATO. It wouldn't be "too much" for the article, you could fit in his position and counters to it within one or two sentences. The POV pushing in this topic area is remarkable.

[35] This is not serious or good faith conduct, it seems like you're just looking for a pretext to rid the encyclopedia of this properly-sourced and widely-discussed allegation.

[36] The only POV pushing happening here is your usage of exceedingly tendentious reasoning to dismiss anything remotely critical of Ukraine on this and related articles.

Is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Editor warned: [37] . (they undoed the warning without archiving, afterwards)

The editor responded I don't consider that a PA [38] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Vexatious complaint. I don't think a judgement call, based on sound reasoned evidence which I provided in these discussions, that a pattern of editing behaviour constitutes POV pushing is necessarily a PA. It's also worth noting that Manyareasexpert made the same allegation against me here merely because they took issue with me referring to an NYT piece as a "report" rather than an "article"; that's what my third comment is in reply to. JDiala (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that my comment was regarding your contribution, and I'm ready to adopt another approach, if it would be suggested to how to point out that referring to an article as a "report" is not OK and may be considered POV pushing. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

This reads like a content dispute to me, primarily. You might try wp:third opinion. JackTheSecond (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The content is more or less fine as of now, but this thread is a call for protection against other editor's false accusations and the continuing use of them as a lever in a discussion. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with referring to an article as a "report". Reliable sources use the term "report" all the time, a newspaper report later suggested, Daniels denying a news report, CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez ... and Phil Mattingly contributed to this report, White House dismissed as "absolutely false" a New York Times report, According to the new report in The Atlantic, Biden's campaign quickly denied the Times report. So yes, it is OK that JDiala referred to an article as a "report". And no, simply referring to an article as a "report" is not considered POV pushing by any stretch of the imagination. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I see. I struck through that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's add some necesary nuance to that. Certainly there are contexts where "report" is in some way acceptable, but typically it would need to be accompanied by a qualifier, as in the your "news/newspaper report", ideally with other marking language. There are situations where using "report" in and of itself, without proper attribution, could give the impression of an agency or institutional body as a primary source. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm much more concerned by JDiala's misrepresentation of our OR policy to insert their own original research about whether something constitutes a "war crime". That's a more serious issue by far than these relatively minor civility infractions. Though I do find some irony in the fact that JDiala added Also per WP:PA, editors should "comment on content, not contributors." to their userpage just a few days before this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to discuss this if you could articulate your specific objection to my interpretation. JDiala (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to second that request. Mind you, I'm more inclined to trust than to doubt that there is an issue here if TBUA is trying to highlight something, just based on my previous experience with them. But I've already read the majority of the last few threads on the page and am not immediately seeing the "war crimes" matter touched upon just yet. Perhaps it is appearing more int he edit for the article itself rather than the TP discussions, but either way, Thebiguglyalien, could you do those of us trying to follow up on your concerns a solid and provide some more specificity, with some link or diffs, or a description of where to look? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

My concerns come from the underlying arguments that are clearest in these comments: Special:Diff/1233668716, Special:Diff/1233953912, Special:Diff/1234125938, Special:Diff/1234165526. To my eyes, this is an editor claiming that they have the right to decide what the sources "actually" mean based on their own definitions and interpretations, trying to invent connections so that the source's statement becomes due in the article. They're dismissing any comments about the discrepancy as "pedantry" and "technicalities", essentially beating down the discussion until they can get their own OR interpretation through. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup, good (albeit obvious, as it turns out) call. JDiala, with regard to your comments on this editorial issue in general, but focusing on...

"I think you are also confused as to what the standards for inclusion here are. There does not need to be a verbatim assertion "Ukraine has committed a war crime" to warrant inclusion. Demonstrably documenting criminal acts like the murder of unarmed captives and emphasizing that such conduct is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, for instance, is enough to warrant inclusion.

...in particular, I'm afraid that it's actually you who is very confused about the standard for inclusion of such statements. If you want yo say that "Ukraine committed the war crime of A" then you very much need a source that says "Ukraine committed the war crime of A"--if not verbatim then at least directly, precisely, and expressly. If you want to instead justify inclusion of that particular statement on the basis of the reasoning that "Source X says that Ukraine did 1, 2, and 3 in this and that manner, and as we all know, 1, 2, 3 would justify war crime A in this situation (according to the definition found in Source Y, and/or my own assertion)", then you are unambiguously arguing either from WP:SYNTHESIS (if you tried to link the facts asserted in Sources X and Y to reach a novel conclusion about how to label what Ukraine did, without that label being applied directly to Ukraine's conduct in either source) or just plain old vanilla WP:Original research (if you omitted the step of mentioning Source Y and are arguing from your own perspective that the label of a war crime "obviously" applies to what source X says Ukraine did.

To reiterate and be crystal clear: no such highly controversial and sure to be challenged label may be used, unless you have WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT to support that label in terms of it being expressly used by RS. That would be true even in a garden variety article, let alone a a highly disputed CTOP areas such as this. It's really important that we leave this discussion being certain that you understand that distinction, because this is kind of editing-in-contentious-topics 101. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: @Snow Rise: I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. This is perhaps an understandable misunderstanding if you have not been keeping careful track of the discussions on that page over the past few days (and just had a cursory glance) — but it is a misunderstanding nonetheless. At no point, at all, did I suggest stating any claim a source did not make. Thus, for instance, a claim like "Amnesty International said that Ukraine committed war crimes because..." is something I did not propose or suggest. I have no objection to stating plainly precisely what the AI report stated, namely that it views Ukrainian conduct as an IHL violation, rather than any stronger claim. Rather, the debate on the talk page was essentially this: given that the article title is about "war crimes", does any source we cite have to verbatim use the term "war crime" to even be included the article? Thus, for instance, if I have a reliable source Y that says "country X murdered a hundred a civilians in this massacre, a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions", but said source Y nowhere uses the verbatim term "war crime", are we allowed to use source Y in an article titled "war crimes by X"? I argued yes because "Geneva Conventions" is sufficiently closely related to the topic of "war crimes" that inclusion would be worthwhile. I am not arguing that we can state "source Y said X committed a war crime" (that would be OR); I am merely arguing the far weaker position that source Y is worth including in the article at all, in a manner in concert with the OR policy (something like "source Y said X violated the Geneva Conventions"). Manyareasexpert objected to this and argued the opposite side, claiming that such sources should not be included at all. Briefly, the discussion had to do with standards for the inclusion of a source in a given article, not how we represent the source in our writing. Thus, it wasn't really an OR thing.

Now, it's certainly possible that my position on this matter is incorrect. If someone thinks so, please do feel free to explain why. However, even if I am incorrect, I do not think this is an "editing-in-contentious-topics 101" issue — because many of the sources the article already cites do not use the term "war crime." So, clearly, if this is something I'm misunderstanding, this misunderstanding is shared by many other editors who edited this article. JDiala (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, as to that, we are in much more of a grey area. It's certainly true that there is no outright prohibition on using a source that fails to have terms that precisely align with the articles title, be it COMMONNAME or not. But that said, there is going to be a very onerous WP:DUE WEIGHT analysis about whether such a source is going to be an appropriate fit to the subject matter of the article in question. That may or may not be the actual basis for those who have pushed back against inclusion on that article, whether they have accurately expressed it in those terms or not. I will take a further look at the talk page discussions as soon as I can and give my impressions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I've now read the entire talk page, and have a much better idea of how things got to where they are now. Addressing Diala, I can see how you slowly lost your patience here, and that your efforts start from an understandable place and that you maintained a fairly focused and content-oriented approach for the majority of the discussion, and that the speculation on your opposition's motives is mostly something that seeped in as you went along, apparently out frustration. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that there are a couple of places therein where you had to deal with rhetorical strategies which (I think unintentionally) took the discussion around in circles.

Mind you, none of that should be taken as validating your tendency later in the two threads to imply bias as motivation to the other parties you were disputing the issues with; if anything, my primary advice here is to reiterate what I said below about how poorly that will serve you and eventually get you into trouble. At the same time, though, having seen the entirety of this discussion, I am more convinced than ever that no action is warranted against you for anything that has transpired on either talk page so far.

Regarding the content issue (without getting to into the weeds, as this is not the place to resolve such questions): my personal take is somewhere between your own and that of the consensus position (if we can call it that, seeing as the bulk of the dispute is between you and two other editors, with one additional comment in support of each side from a fourth and fifth editor respectively). The extent to which 'violations of international humanitarian law' fold into or qualify as 'war crimes' is very much an open question in the sources either side may rely upon, and reflects broader issues in international law and human rights standards owing to the fact that both are substantially the product of customary law, rather than more express and binding standards. The resulting wiggle room has long made these kinds of questions moving targets in the area of diplomacy, international public image, and realpolitik. It is therefore no surprise to me that, even among editors doing their best to abide by the information they find in RS, there are some wildly varying positions as to the editorial consequences of the standards and how we frame (or in this case, where place coverage of) certain events.

So I am not lodging a position as to who is being more reasonable in their a priori content positions here, other than to say that neither position is unreasonable. I'd lean ever-so-slightly towards some degree of coverage of the military asset emplacement inside civilian facilities issue, based on the sourcing presented so far, but the problem is that you are outnumbered here and likely to remain that way: you could RfC the matter, but given what I have seen about how the content area has been regarded on-project, I suspect that this will not do very much to change the ratio of support very much. If nothing else, you may want to hold off on pushing the dispute over the lead. That may just be a bridge too far for the interested editors there right now.

The unfortunate, dark, unavoidable truth is that, insofar as we are talking about war here, in time there will be no shortage of violations of humanitarian norms by both sides that anybody other than the most devoutly aligned will be unable to recognize. No matter how much more principled and defensible the starting positions of a given side over the other, it is inevitable that the great disease of our species will corrupt and drive abuses. There has never been a war of any serious duration in the history of mankind that did not result in the people on all sides eventually committing acts that the very thought of which would have turned their stomachs at the outset. I doubt this will be the exception. I can appreciate the perspective that we shouldn't necessarily drag our feet in coverage where we feel that this has already begun to happen, but I doubt you can get consensus to do that on this issue, on the basis of the one Amnesty International source which, the other two editors are correct in noting is not even substantially discussing this issue as much as Russian abuses. I think you have enough of an uphill task in just keeping the issue in the article at all, let alone trying to leverage it into the lead.

In the meantime, you have to avoid tipping over that line of disagreeing with the reasoning of your rhetorical opponents and into expressly implying bias on their part. I'll briefly comment on that below presently, as it is more germane to your most recent post there, but suffice it to say that, having seen the entire discussion and your comments in context, I see the cause of your frustration and I feel the complaint was both premature and a little one-sided (though perhaps for the best in the longrun). But you still can't continue in that direction: the issues complained of here are weak tea so far, but they will lead you increasingly into the wrong approach for resolving these matters with the best possible results you can get for your preferred outcome on the content, given the resistance. to some of your positions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It is true that I am outnumbered in the current discussion, but note that the inclusion of allegations that the UAF is violating IHL by operating near civilian areas (both from Amnesty International and the OHCHR) has been a longstanding issue of dispute since 2022, having resulted in several major discussions and even RfCs. Many editors do agree with me that it is worth including. There was past consensus in an RfC that it is worth including.

In light of this history, I don't think the current (comparatively small) discussion should be sufficient to undo this past consensus. It should only be undone based on the result of a new RfC. Given that Manyareasexpert is the one wishing to undo the past consensus, I also think it should be his responsibility to both start and advertise this new RfC. JDiala (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll wait on further discussion of some of the forking editorial issues being raised immediately above to lodge a perspective on that, but having reviewed the behavioural complaint here and looked at the thread in which it arose, I'm of two minds as those complaints. On the one hand, JDiala, there are definitely places where you are inviting needless distraction from the issues by implying failures of perspective or issues of bias in your rhetorical opposition, where they really aren't helpful to your core point. Do remember, this is a WP:CTOP area, so the cause for (and expectation of) civility and respectful discourse are heightened. I appreciate that when you feel that other editors are being influenced by subtextual factors, the line between making a valid argument about perspective and implying outright bias can feel a little thin. But I'm going to add my voice to others here that you are tripping over that line with comments like "let's be honest, this is just a rationalization to avoid including anything which could give the appearance of criticism of Ukraine/NATO."

And "This is not serious or good faith conduct, it seems like you're just looking for a pretext to rid the encyclopedia of this properly-sourced and widely-discussed allegation." is, if anything, even more of an issue." Please try to remember, not just to avoid kerfuffles like this, but for the sake of enhancing the potential viability of your own arguments, that this kind of implication of active shilling/protectionism for what you perceive to be the cultural leanings and biases of other editors is not in any way helpful.

All of that said, the worst JDiala has said in this regard is, at least to this point, still comes in a bit under the threshold that would require community oversight and response, let alone sanction. Collectively, every comment brought to bear against JDiala in this thread so far does not really amount to the equivalent of even one proper WP:PA. Do their comments walk right up to the line of the wrong side of AGF with regarding to the outlooks and biases of their opposition, and even take a solid step over? Yeah, they more or less do. But on the whole, what is being reported here is pretty typical, low-level implication of lack of perspective that one is bound to see here and there in these circumstances. As I said before, not a winning formula for JDiala, and the quicker they realizes that, the better--because not only are they hurting their own efforts, but eventually sticking to and doubling down on such comments will pass a point of proper violation of expected behavioural standards. But at the moment, there is nothing I would classify as outright WP:disruption--though arguably they are treading near tendentiousness or even WP:battleground behaviour. In short, go carefully, JDiala. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and for not recommending further punishment. I am going to do my utmost to be careful with civility issues. I have already been sanctioned in the past, and I do not want to deal with allegations like this anymore. I do wish there was a way to honestly discuss patterns of POV pushing—which few editors would deny is a serious problem in many topic areas—without entering into WP:PA or WP:ASPERSIONS territory. JDiala (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are behind the eight ball as far as such complaints are concerned: there's always going to be POV issues coming from every angle on a topic like this, but you also happen to be coming from a weak position if you try to make the argument about supposed POV. Besides which, in terms of both principle and rhetorical effectiveness, it's just best avoided as a tactic in most all editorial disputes. Focus rather on what you regard as the weak editorial arguments which you perceive to be the result of biases, not the POV you suspect is fueling them.

And try to remember three things: 1) people are rarely fully aware of their biases or often inclined to immediately recognize them when pointed out, 2) the very act of identifying them typically relies on arguments which are susceptible to counter-accusations of bias, and 3) it's entirely possible to reach the wrong conclusion (including the wrong editorial conclusion on this project) without it being the result of bias so much as just flawed reasoning.

An approach that eschews attempting to look behind the curtain by speculating on the motivations of your fellow editors during talk page discussions dodges these issues and makes your resulting editorial arguments leaner, better able to withstand scrutiny, and less likely to harden your opposition's perspective or drive others into their camps. It will also, as you just identified yourself, go a long way towards avoiding accusations of aspersions, PAs, WP:TEND, and battleground mentality. It's not always the most intuitive strategy, but if you make it the your preferred, second-nature here, I promise you it will serve you well within our project's dynamics.

More to the point, if you don't adopt that approach, you'll likely be back here again, and the complaints may not be perceived as much as a tempest in a teapot as I have somewhat framed them in this case. Both because perspectives vary on such things and because the longer editors embrace a strategy of carping on the perceived motivations of their opponents, the more frustrated (and entrenched) all parties tend to become, and less credit is given and the more discussion diverges into the personal aspects of the dispute. In short, such habits tend to become self-reinforcing. All that said, I saw a lot of forbearance from you in those discussions, so I would tend to believe that you do not lean towards personalizing disputes as a matter of course. Just don't let yourself get pulled into that gravity well in these exceptional cases either. Hopefully everyone agrees that's the most that needs to be said here at present. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• As a note of order, I saw this ANI discussion and tried to offer an advice to JDiala on their talk page: [39],[40]. Basically, I said that edit warring is not the way to "enforce" WP:BRD. And I got this response from JDiala. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  I wanted to stand against another wave of personal attacks against you there but decided to not to get involved as it was happening on editor's talk page. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think that was the right instinct in the circumstances, MAE. As to the rest here...good grief the overreactions on top of overreactions here.. So, first off, My Very Best Wishes, I can't imagine what helpful outcome you expected would result from visiting the talk page of an editor you are currently in dispute with and piggy-backing on top of a productive discussion that an un-involved editor was having with them (that was resulting in useful concessions and constructive dialogue) in order to tell them that they had policy wrong, essentially extending the existing dispute between you into a third space, where it definitely did not need to be, and creating circumstances where a meeting of the minds was pushed even further away. In my opinion, that choice shows very poor situational awareness and underscores just how much this dispute is not being driven by unilateral issues with JDiala alone.

  Further, having now followed up on the entirety of the dispute to this point, I'm inclined to agree with JD on at least one point: you seem to keep confusing the nature of their objection to your position on a core issue. You keep attempting to educate them on the specifics of what WP:BRD and WP:EW actually entail, but they aren't disagreeing with you in principle on what those policies say. Rather, their position is that the status quo and consensus version of the article is the ones that they support, and therefor it is the edits which set aside that version which first invoked the BRD cycle. Now I'm by no means endorsing every aspect of JD's position here (neither on the editorial nor the behavioural issues), but I have seen you talk past this point of his on the article talk page and his talk page a few times, and honestly, in his place I'd be a little frustrated by that at this juncture too. Now, you may very well disagree with which version of the article is the status quo or consensus version. But you need to at least start discussing how to resolve the disagreement in terms where you two stand a chance of coming to an understanding.

  Or better yet, you could both stop the cycle of arguing who was the one to start the edit warring and just let that portion of the dispute die, since it is serving no useful function in resolving the core editorial issue. I'll AGF that you had the very best of intentions in trying to have that discussion again on his talk page, but if nothing else, you have enough years on this project that you should have been able to anticipate just how well that was going to go over.

  Now, JDiala...frustrations or no, you have got to lay off the trigger a little when it comes to how you frame the intentions of others. You made all these professions about doing better in that respect above, and to Kip on your talk page, but the very first time your response was tested thereafter, you lost all perspective and immediately went into overreactive, ABF mode. It's one thing to try to point out that you don't feel your points are being addressed in a fair and constructive way, but you can't keep lacing such responses with comments like "This cannot be seen as good-faith conduct.", which have no purpose in resolving the editorial (or for that matter, behavioural) issues and can only serve to raise the heat of the discussion. And please do not interpret my tepid support for you in some aspects of the discussion here as carte blanche to assume you know which actions by which editors constitute issues, as you did in your response to MVBW on your talk page. You may find yourself going out on a limb believing someone has your back farther than they actually do.

  All around, I think you all need to take a pause for the cause here, because, whatever the result of this thread, any of you taking this level of combativeness back into this particular CTOP is likely to result in an AE block at some juncture. RfC this, if necessary, or use another dispute resolution process. This back-biting is accomplishing nothing except to waste your time and that of the community members responding here. Bluntly, none of you has done anything that I think could get any of you community sanctioned here at ANI (and I'm sorry My very best wishes and ManyAreasExpert, but that very much includes JDiala's assessment of your editorial approaches, hyperbolic though they have been in places). But you're all sitting on top of a ticking timebomb in terms of potential AE sanctions. Take that advice for what it's worth, because this is likely to be my last contribution in this thread. You have a content dispute here that could be easily resolved through out content processes. So do that. Or continue with the constant cycle of overreactions to eachother's positions and edit warring where each of you points the finger at the other side as the inceptor, and see where all that gets you. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Original research after warning for user Silence of Lambs

Silence of Lambs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Continued WP:OR on Two Chinas after prior warning. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. - Amigao (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

As the one who caught and removed the OR in question, I would respectfully disagree, at least with the diagnosis. Since my initial worries about tendentious editing, Silence of Lambs now strikes me instead as someone who clearly wants to build an encyclopedia, but hasn't got a good grasp of content policies—for what are ultimately borderline disruptive results, unfortunately. Remsense诉 03:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Your OR warning on the editor's talk page also came shortly after being warned about this [reverted] edit to Succession of states involving even more blatant OR and section blanking without any edit summary attached. Is this a WP:CIR issue? - Amigao (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

That sequence seemed to me like one cut-and-paste job from Succession of states to Two Chinas, only after which I posted on their page. I obviously share concerns about competence in any case, though I still feel I should personally be patient with them. Unno. Remsense诉 03:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about the NOTHERE, but I keep running across this editor. They've been here 5 years now and I'm concerned about competence at this point. They just made this edit where in a list of countries they link South Africa not to its country article, but to the Apartheid article. This is commonplace for their edits and I do get strong WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS from this editor. Those kind of minor under the radar edits are pretty common from them, especially linking countries to other things to make a point. I'm not convinced of their sincerity or competence. Canterbury Tail talk 12:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It puts the citation in the article. It does this each time it edits. King Lobclaw (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

"It"?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It puts the lotion on it's skin.... RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Playing "lambs" with Cartman, are we? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

They are simply a net negative for our readers. Here they simply blank the sources so our readers can't do any research or confirm the content. Moxy🍁 14:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Since this ANI has commenced, we are still seeing the same old pattern of disruptive behavior (e.g., adding unsourced OR text with no WP:ES whatsoever). After months of warnings on the user's talk page and a temporary block, it is stretching credulity whether the user is truly WP:HERE. - Amigao (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The same user made edits on 15 July (here and here) in which citations were used that clearly did not back up the added text. This is worse than simply adding unsourced text since it could be an attempt to obfuscate WP:RS. - Amigao (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that Silence of Lambs be blocked indef for WP:OR, faking verifiability (citing sources that don't support content), blanking refs, and refusal to communicate. Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I also support an indef for lack of competence, faking references, POV editing, soapboxing, refusal to listen or communicate, trying to right great wrongs and present the world as it isn't. Take your pick. Canterbury Tail talk 14:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaning in this direction myself, though I'd like to give the user a little longer to respond here before actually deploying the nuclear option. Edits like the South African one which CT has raised above cannot be accurately described as anything but express vandalism, even if done for for "principled" (that is to say, ideological/RGW) reasons, as opposed to pure trolling. Five years is a long time here to still not show such a basic comportment with WP:HERE purposes, especially considering they don't seem to be an infrequent contributor. Ideally they comment here in the next few days, have a dialogue with the community about what is and is not acceptable conduct here and commit to making necessary changes or, failing that, I say move forward with the indef plan until they do undertake such communication and assurances. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to give the user a little longer to respond here I checked before registering an opinion; SoL has made a lot of edits since being notified of this discussion, so the lack of response appears to be a choice. Schazjmd (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

They know where their talk page is, and they read talk page messages. I think they're trying to ignore the problem until it goes away. They've had their chance to respond here, and if we wait until they respond or edit again then this could be archived away and forgotten until next time. We don't need their input to reach a conclusion, their lack of input at this point is conscious so lets not wait for something that isn't forthcoming. Canterbury Tail talk 15:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I was thinking waiting a day or two, not long enough for the discussion to be archived without action. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over the matter if the consensus is that waiting would be a waste of community patience; even just looking at the matters that have been reported here, the issues with this user's approach are non-trivial, and if they have been ignoring this discussion, well that's on them. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"citation needed" IP

For the past year or so, there has been an IP removing sections from articles with the summary "No citations." or "Fixed." (see Special:Contributions/64.189.18.0/24) Despite being warned multiple times on their talk page, such as here and here, they have continued without responding to any of the messages. Could an admin do something about this? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed dubious claims that arewithout citations. 64.189.18.51 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the point that is tried to be suggested to you is that you evaluate a "citation needed" tag as to demarcate dubious content too easily. I found readily available sourced for some of it, and generally the project progresses from finding appropriate sources in such cases. JackTheSecond (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I once came across a 12+ year old citation needed tag. I removed all the content and the next day the content was added back and was appropriately sourced. Sometimes people need a bit of motivation. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If you can remove the tag+content, you can find the source yourself. Only after you make a reasonable attempt to cite the statement and fail should you remove the text. It's not your place to "motivate" others by just removing things on a whim. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The source was a published book. I shouldn't have to purchase/obtain a book before removing unsourced content. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I never said you should. But at least attempt to find a source before removing the content. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement in WP:V to do that. IP has done nothing wrong. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The point of the tag is so people can add citations later. It says "citation needed", not "dubious"—we have {{dubious}} for that. If what you have been doing was a good idea, we wouldn't bother with tagging anything in the first place. Remsense诉 19:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of the content. If an editor believes it isn't possible to verify the content, or that it's outright wrong, then they could remove the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked through several of his removals and all seem fine. In fact IP even added a citation here: [41] So I'm not sure why you are reporting a user for removing unsourced content, which is something he is allowed and even encouraged to do. I would say if anyone's conduct is inappropriate it'd be some of the people who reverted genuine edits with incorrect edit summaries using automated tools, but I don't think anyone here needs administrative action. Actually I just noticed IP removing unsourced BLP statements. I'd say this makes him a better editor than most registered users. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"No replies will be given" is not acceptable

Plorpy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) plainly states on their talk page that Messages will be deleted when read. No replies will be given. Unfortunately, communication isn't optional on Wikipedia. It is also an active problem, since while their editing is largely constructive, they keep making the same categories of errors (e.g. WP:SDNONE in Special:Diff/1234484201, Special:Diff/1232755155, Special:Diff/1225263704) as well. Remsense诉 17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Have they kept making those errors after being informed, though? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes; I wouldn't consider it an active problem if not. Remsense诉 18:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I see it now. For reference, Special:Diff/1213014909 indicates that Plorpy read and understood {{uw-shortdesc}} on March 10, which is before all three diffs above. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Remsense诉 18:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Valereee: They have ignored you, in fact and have continued editing. Perhaps a preventative measure that enforces communication is due... ——Serial Number 54129 18:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  Give them a reasonable amount of time to check their talk page. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I've pblocked from article space to see if we can get their attention. Valereee (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, you did, and their response was "I've done nothing wrong.". The Kip ^(contribs) 20:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the p-block is preventing them from making further problematic edits to actual content, and their appeal has been declined, so I think we're done here for the moment. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, except for me having a perfect chance to shamelessly plug the essay I wrote about these situations. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:BlockList&wpTarget=%2324972384 Valereee, Seems they might have tried to evade. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the info IP! LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Autoblocks also happen automatically at the time of a block, as did this one, or change to a block, just check other recent blocks. – 2804:F1...C3:48A5 (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Today I learned. Thank You. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued harassment from User:Notwally

At discussion Talk:Steven van de Velde#RfC regarding the inclusion of the "convicted child sex offender" in first sentence I replied to User:Zaereth with this comment (over a few edits; that is what was visible by the time of replies). Before Zaereth could reply, User:Notwally did so for them here, including a literal insult directed at me, as well accusation of bad faith over my reply. It must be noted that the resulting discussion with Zaereth was civil if not friendly: they took my reply in good faith and we had a positive discussion. I do not know why Notwally, who I have never interacted with before, decided to jump the gun and jump down my throat.

I then replied to another user, User:Pincrete, again in good faith - to the point I even left a small note at the end to indicate so, after having had Notwally assume bad of me, here. And inexplicably, Notwally decided to reply to this - also before Pincrete even had a chance - and this time, here, they misrepresented what I said, again insinuated bad faith, and acted like I was showing a negative pattern of behaviour. For two replies, both engaging in discussion.

It must be noted that earlier in the thread there were multiple users who engaged with nearly every single comment, likewise furthering discussion, and that Notwally did not take to accusing bad faith of them. And, the discussion with Pincrete was also pleasant, nothing for Notwally to worry about.

At this point I was annoyed (understandably so I would say). So I did two things: I asked them to leave me alone. And, since another user had decided to join in on Notwally's comments about me and both users had the same SPI notice, I alluded to them being investigated as socks. I have already acknowledged this was unwise - and evidently it was, because if Notwally had some inexplicable grudge against me already, now they are just making blatant PA's every time I comment at that talkpage, and lying about my involvement.

I ask for someone to summarise an argument instead of link to somewhere else, and get this. I engage in a different discussion about phrasing, and get this. (Edit: They've made it clear in that last one what their bad faith assumptions about me are. You'd assume that the very pleasant, productive discussions I've actually had with the people I actually engaged with, would show to Notwally that their bad faith assumptions are incorrect. And still, they continued.)

I have to AGF, and assume that Notwally sees the situation very differently than I, and no doubt they will have some justification for going after me. But I bring this here because even assuming Notwally thinks they are doing right, I cannot reconcile one major thing: if you are doing what you think is right, and someone has asked you to leave them alone, you would not continuing prodding at them.

At this point, they have made multiple comments after I asked to be left alone that only exist to insinuate bad faith on my part. They are not contributing to discussion on that talkpage anywhere, only commenting to cast aspersions about me. I believe this is unjustified, continued harassment, and trying to make that talkpage so hostile towards me that I don't contribute. That's unacceptable. I gave them a warning about this on their talkpage and got this edit summary. Well, if I can't tell them to leave me alone, let's see if an IBAN can be implemented. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Kingsif should be able to repeatedly imply that other editors are trying to benefit child predators, nor that they should be able to make baseless sockpuppetry accusations. Rather than a boomerang, it would be nice if Kingsif would just stop. – notwally (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't been doing that, though. You made that assumption from my very first comment - meanwhile the user I was replying to took it in good faith and we had a productive discussion. Since then, no matter what the actual content of my comments and discussions, you have continued making it. I am trying to see where you've been coming from. Given the nature of the subject, if you have it in your mind that someone has an agenda, you can use the context to paint anything in a certain light. But it's not the case - asking for expansion rather than links to other pages, asking for explanation of rationale because I agreed with a premise but didn't reach the same conclusion - I've already explained my motives.

And look, you don't have to believe me. But as I said, my main issue is that I have asked you to leave me alone. If you were only acting to do what you thought was best, I believe you would have honoured that, regardless of what you think of me. Not only have you not done so, you've gone out of your way for it.

If you really think my contributions to discussion are so bad, I encourage you to participate in those discussions yourself. Not to harass me with bad faith accusations. Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

When two other editors also took issue with your responses, you immediately and repeatedly accused one of them of being a sockpuppet [42] [43] [44] (including falsely claiming that a SPI was ongoing when it had been closed and deleted 4 days prior as a "meritless filing" [45]), while also immediately doubling down on your demands of editors who chose to not vote "yes" in the RfC [46]. You can try to put whatever spin you want on things, or you could just stop. – notwally (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

And for accuracy's sake, it was only one other user who took issue, Nemov. Presumably, the other user you refer to is Kcmastrpc - who did not take issue with my edits, but suggested that if there's a user accusing me of things, I should probably make fewer replies. You can see our discussion at their talkpage. Kingsif (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said, it was unwise to bring that up. I couldn't see the result of the SPI. FWIW, I was writing it at the time you made this comment, but I've now apologised for that [47].

My replies are not targeted at people who did not !vote yes - if you actually read my !vote, you'd note how I opened by saying I thought I would vote !no, so your premise is entirely faulty. It's also continuing your bad faith assumption that I took issue with a certain side (untrue - that the !votes where I asked for expansion were predominantly from one side is coincidence), and that the issue was so serious I would accuse people of supporting crimes (also untrue - my comments discuss content).

I'd like you to address the issue that I brought to ANI, instead of continuing to make bad faith accusations against me. I asked you to leave me alone. Not only did you continue harassing me, you went out of your way to do so. If you felt like my editing was so bad, there are options to resolve this that aren't apparently watching a page to wait for me to comment and then writing personal attacks in response. Are you going to leave me alone, or will this need to be enforced? Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is a candidate for WP:BOOMERANG. This editor is bludgeoning the discussion and making unfounded accusations. After accusing myself and notwally of being socks, Kingsif also templated my TALK with an unwarrented harassments notice[48]. Kingsif started this entire episode by accusing notwally of WP:BLUDGEONING a discussion. If there was anyone bludgeoning that discussion it's Kingsif as I pointed out, as well as Kcmastrpc. So far Kingsif has accused editors of being socks, bludgeoning, and harassments. These accusations lack merit and aren't in good faith. This ANI is another example that Kingsif completely lacks self awareness in regards to this content dispute. Since Kingsif brought this issue here to be resolved, my recommendation is Kingsif is restricted from further comment on that article. Nemov (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  • I have to believe you are heavily misguided when you falsely claim I started this. Notwally deciding to not AGF of the first comment they ever saw from me, then thinking their bad faith assumptions warranted stalking my comments to attack me, is what started it.
    That is when I did not accuse Notwally of bludgeoning the discussion, but of exhibiting bludgeoning behaviour towards my comments, something which cannot be disputed - insistently replying to everything I, and only I, wrote, with attacking language is exactly that.
  • If we're addressing the SPI mention fully, let's do it. I did not accuse you of being socks: Notwally themself has handily provided three diffs above dealing with that. In the first two, I mention the SPI case, without making my own accusations. In the second, I only refer to it for explanation why I mentioned it the first time, and also use the phrase ganging up, a clear indication that I believe there are multiple users. As for the third diff Notwally provided, I don't know why they have, as it contains no mention of socks and has the phrase the pair of them, another clear indication I believed I was dealing with two different people.
    I acknowledged, I believe at your talkpage, a while ago, that mentioning it was unwise. Clearly, because it doesn't do anything to calm a situation. So why did I? See it from my experience, a user is harassing you and then another user who has not been involved joins in, and when you go to ask them to leave you alone you see that they've both been cited in an SPI. It was unwise, but you can see why in the heat of the moment I made the snarky aside (indicated by small-text template) comment Aren't you that guy's WP:SOCK? Just like I can see why that comment would leave a bad taste in your mouth, but does not mean you can ignore the hostile behaviour that led me to make it.
  • You can also see in that second diff from Notwally that I repeated my request to be left alone, showing that I clearly felt this had not been heeded. Are you surprised that shortly after, I left you a harassment notice at your talkpage? Those notices are not accusations, the language in them is incredibly congenial; they are genuine requests for the recipient to be careful how much they are "commenting on contributors" so other users feel able to edit without feeling needlessly attacked, as I did.
  • I am trying to see your edits in good faith, and so I must assume you see it all with a different view. I invite you to see it from mine. At the time you got involved, I had critically asked about one argument, to which Notwally had responded rudely, and then agreed with but wanted to discuss the finer details of another, to which Notwally had responded even ruder. Bearing in mind that neither user I spoke to was Notwally, and neither user had any issue with my comments. Then you arrived and accused me of bludgeoning – for two on-topic comments. I would say that your accusation towards me of bludgeoning was (and, here, is) unwarranted.

  Was I the image of grace in replying to you both? I don't think I was that bad at all. Not super friendly, but who would be: because if you want to be critical of how I responded to being comment-stalked and insulted by Notwally, you have to acknowledge what led to those responses, and I am the injured party.

  Again, rather than insulting my self-awareness as you did in I believe your second ever reply to me, I encourage you to have some awareness of your own, about Notwally's provocation and how yourself jumping in mid-thread to make accusations only added fuel to the fire. Kingsif (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Since they've reappeared, I would also like to request an IBAN on Nemov, who I had assumed had dropped their stick with me, but who I also asked to leave me alone before and they continued. While Nemov's accusations of me in this thread are tamer than Notwally's serious false accusations, Nemov's are still likewise untrue. I believe Nemov is making them in good faith based on their experience from when they got involved in the original discussion, but since their involvement in that original discussion was just to pile-on comments harassing me, and they mocked me asking them to stop, I also feel that them leaving me alone may need to be formally enforced. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Wall of text aside, several editors have approached you about the problems with your edits and you're still assuming everyone else is the problem. That is a lack of self-awareness. I look forward to an admin addressing this and have nothing else to add. Nemov (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Actual response below, but even this comment is more of a misrepresentation that could be a PA: several editors have approached you about the problems with your edits Sorry, but one guy (Notwally) not AGF and insulting me for commenting on an argument, then another guy (Nemov) saying I'm bludgeoning for making two replies, is not that. None of the users I was actually responding to had any problems. you're still assuming everyone else is the problem I'm just asking to be left alone. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

  Surely by now you know I like to fully discuss things? ;) Ok, TL;DR, your multiple accusations against me, while I AGF that they are based on your experience, are wide of the mark and do not acknowledge that Notwally "started it" and was provocational in even their very first reply to me. That I did not make the sock/bludgeoning accusations you say I did, and that I am not wrong when I describe that I felt harassed. That the harassment began before I made any comment on Notwally (or Nemov), and my comments to them were generally variations on "you're misrepresenting me" and "leave me alone". That if you want to be critical of how I responded to being comment-stalked and insulted by Notwally, you have to acknowledge what led to those responses, and I am the injured party.

  Since I already wrote you that my mention of the SPI was unwise, I clearly acknowledged where I had not helped proceedings. But you joining in with commenting on a contributor, and then not seeming to recognise even now that this is something that made it worse and directly led to me asking you to not harass me, could be termed a lack of self-awareness.

  And FWIW, as noted above, Kcmasterpc did not have issue with my edits, you can see the link to their talkpage where I believe they said they didn't even read the comments, they just saw that there was heat happening and advised me to take a breather. Kingsif (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• To an admin (I put this here to not append my opening statement): while I have felt the need to defend myself against Notwally and Nemov's continued false accusations (which in Notwally's case come from an instant and unyielding presumption of bad faith against me, but I AGF of both in making them), it must be said that (most of*) their accusations are immaterial, whether they believe them or not.
  Why? Because I engaged in discussion with various users at that talkpage and none of those users had any problems with either my comment content (Notwally's problem) or my discussion etiquette (Nemov's problem). So whatever the pair think of my replies to those users, my comments evidently were not doing any harm. So I do not believe it is the place for uninvolved users to effectively speak over the involved users who have no problems (especially after the point of being asked not to). The comments from Notwally (and, to a lesser extent, Nemov) were in this way also actually disruptive to the discussion: without their comments, there would be no off-topic threads there, myself and the users I engaged with would have been able to just have our productive discussions.
  There would also not have been the threads that got heated between myself, Notwally and Nemov. That's why I said most of their accusations are immaterial. *Because while I do not think they can fairly have a go at me for perceived problems that involved users did not have, how I responded to them is something they can. Besides the diffs presented here, I have not revisited those threads, but my recollection is that I did not give as much as I got, snarky aside about an SPI (which I have since apologised for) notwithstanding. Still, I've asked for IBANs on both those users; I'd take it going both ways. Kingsif (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Kingsif, you are bludgeoning this discussion and responding to every comment that is made with long explanations about how you are the victim. It's no wonder that other editors have stayed away from participating in this complaint. You have had more than your say (times 10) so I think you can refrain from any more commenting unless a question is directed at you. Continuing to repeat your case doesn't help sway others to your point of view, it just makes other editors not want to read through all of your commentary. Additionally, this is ANI and you know that you can't determine what editors choose to focus on and your own conduct is under as much of a microscope as editors you've brought a complaint against. At ANI, brevity is your friend and I wouldn't be surprised if this gets archived with no action taken. But I could be wrong. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's interesting to note that before your comment Kingsif had written 2494 of the 2789 words in this section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Ahmad_Shazlan

New account Ahmad_Shazlan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making disruptive edits not just on the English Wikipedia, but across several Wikimedia projects: Special:CentralAuth/Ahmad_Shazlan. The edits relate to South-East Asian food items (particularly klepon), which the user wants to label as specifically Indonesian. Example diff: [49]. There has been a history of similar disruptive editing by other accounts. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahmad_Shazlan continues to be disruptive and WP:UNRESPONSIVE. For reference, Megat_Lanang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked a few months ago for similar edits on the same topic; see previous incident report by Gunkarta. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

CurlyHeadCel

I want to get some extra eyes on this since I am feeling like something fishy is going on. I had believed CurlyHeadCel might be a sock but an SPI would be inappropriate for a single account. At the very least, I felt that they were trying to troll us and waste our time. I linked the discussion below that sparked this issue as well the commons contributions for them:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Can_someone_confirm_if_this_image_is_Hurricane_Floyd_or_Hurricane_Fran?
• [50]
• source of the images uploaded to commons

Noah, BSBA^Talk 20:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

TBH, I'd consider a username block for them, as well as Trooncel whom they've apparently been interacting with per their talk page -- ("Troon (slur)" being an anti-trans slur, portmanteau'd with incel). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester: They had a userbox page with that slur on it. I had it G10'd so it's gone now. Noah, BSBA^Talk 00:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

bruh what's an spi — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurlyHeadCel (talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. 216.126.35.174 (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

bro what's WP NOTHERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurlyHeadCel (talk • contribs) 00:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked CurlyHeadCel per WP:NOTHERE. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Well Bruh, why don't you click the link and read all about it? 216.126.35.174 (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• ...And this IP is blocked for block evasion. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Cool it with the smugness. Could've at least been nice enough to tell them what an SPI is instead of just immediately blocking them. OzzyOlly (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, I think the IP poster was confused for the poster that this thread is about. Their two comments in this thread were to say the poster was ‘not here’ and linked the associated page, and the second one was to tell curry to read the link. They said “bruh” in their reply but their editing histories are dissimilar. Kingdom0aerith1 (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's correct. I said "bruh" to mock CurlyHeadCel since I find their use of the word distasteful. I was wrong for mocking, but I am not evading a block. 216.126.35.174 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

ROCK GOTTI1813

ROCK GOTTI1813 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

To begin with this editor is almost certainly a sock puppet for the banned editor CanadianHistorian(MMA & History). There is an on-going sock puppet investigation requested here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CanadianHistorian(MMA & History), but the issue here is that even if this editor is not a sock puppet, there are some serious conflict-of-interest problems. This editor only edits the Rock Machine Motorcycle Club article, and in this post here [51] admits to being a Rock Machine member along with being their "historian". That is clearly is a massive conflict of interest problem. Moreover, the combative tone of this post and attacks on other editors with "personal issues" suggests that this editor has a battlefield mentality and a general inability to work constructively with other editors. And there is this claim that "police" sources are not reliable, see here [52]. I am going to phrase this as delicately as I can. This editor claims to be a Rock Machine member, and as far I can tell, this person has not committed any crimes. That is not the issue. However, the police and the overwhelming majority of RS such as newspapers and books say that the Rock Machine is a criminal organization that merely poses as a motorcycle club. The Rock Machine claims to be a motorcycle club that just happens to have some members that commit crimes. Can someone who is the "historian" of the Rock Machine really approach this question in a manner that is neutral and factual? Finally, the claims of RockGotti1813 that his membership of the Rock Machine makes him better qualified to write about this subject fails the verifiable requirements. Whatever he may know about the Rock Machine cannot be verified by other editors, something that this editor apparently does not care about. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Zakary2012

Zakary2012 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Editor with a long history of disruptive editing, culminating with making a userbox that says "this user is transphobic". Can directly be considered disruptive as per WP:HID and WP:NQP (yes they're essays rather than strict policy, but directly stating "i am transphobic" is pretty clear-cut.)

Other disruptive edits:

Vandalising a page with political motivation

Adding the "royal anthem" to Australia repeatedly after being told to seek consensus

These are just a few of many edits by this user that are reverted for being disruptive or unhelpful. GraziePrego (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that my Userbox wasn't allowed. I thought it was ok because it was just for me to express my opinion on my own user page. If you think it was offensive just ask me to remove it. Zakary2012 (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

If just removing it was sufficient we wouldn't be here: it's the capstone on your pattern of behavior: how can you justify both this and absurdities like

−

Daniel Michael Andrews (born 6 July 1972) is an Australian former politician who served as the 48th premier of Victoria from 2014 to 2023.

+

Daniel Michael Andrews (born 6 July 1972) is an Australian former dictator who served as the 48th premier of Victoria from 2014 to 2023.

? Remsense诉 06:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I do acknowledge that what I did on the Daniel Andrews page was plain wrong and unjustified. But with the edit warring on Australia about the Royal anthem, at the time I didn't know about the rules of edit warring and am extremely disappointed in myself for my behaviour Zakary2012 (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

And what about the removal of reliably sourced material from Transphobia earlier today seemingly just because you didn't like what it said? If you think we care about your (or anyone's) perspective on the matter more than reliable sources, you're deeply mistaken. Remsense诉 07:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I just felt that a statement like that which was basing something on skin colour was racist and not the Wikipedia way. And anyway that has nothing to do with this discussion Zakary2012 (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Outright transphobia goes well beyond just "your opinion". What would even be the point of such a userbox? To just make sure any trans people stopping by your page would know you didn't like them? It doesn't make any sense. GraziePrego (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't thinking and let my opinion get ahead of me. Zakary2012 (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Bragging you are transphobic would probably get you immediately blocked. Just like stating that you are sexist, a racist or anti-Semite. Why would you want to advertise this? Only an editor wanting to be indefinitely blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I wasn't thinking. Zakary2012 (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  An indefinite block is 100% appropriate, as this editor has now engaged in 1. bragging about transphobia, 2. disruptive editing, 3. edit warring, and 4. vandalism. GraziePrego (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  At the time I didn't know what transphobic actually meant. I thought it meant you were against gender transition not that you hated trans people. Now that I know the definition I greatly regret my decision. I think I do deserve a punishment but something more like a week-long block Zakary2012 (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  (While even if this is the case, the editor has not covered themselves in glory, I think it's worth at least mentioning that their username seems to plausibly communicate that they are in a stage of their life where one can make a ton of mistakes without malice while learning very quickly about the world.) Remsense诉 07:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  I am not trying to cover myself in glory. I simply trying to apologise for my recognised wrongdoing. Zakary2012 (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  I was trying to discreetly point out to the other editors that I'm more inclined to take your apologies as genuine due to the possibility that you're a teenager and so these being mistakes that you will learn from makes more sense. Remsense诉 07:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, ok. Thanks Zakary2012 (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Also, again, when I committed edit warring I didn't know that it was wrong. Zakary2012 (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  I find the excuse that "you didn't know" very hard to believe. You have been welcomed and given links to look at several times, and been specifically asked to educate yourself about things like contentious topics and copyright. I've asked you to provide edit summaries which you still generally don't do. And you dont get to nominate how long a block might be.Nickm57 (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  I was still new to Wikipedia at the time and it wasn't until someone mentioned it in a talk page that I realised it was a thing and that it was against Wikipedia rules Zakary2012 (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a pure case of WP:CIR. A block seems warranted.CycoMa1 (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

•  Administrator note: I've blocked the user indefinitely per WP:HID. Not only they are open about their transphobia, their bias has clearly affected their edits, as can be seen here. Any admin dealing with an unblock request should strongly consider a TBAN on gender and sexuality. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, @Isabelle Belato. GraziePrego (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Isabelle Belato Thank you.CycoMa1 (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Qwqwer: Distruptive, Innapropriate Language

@Qwqwer has been editing on multiple Pakistani assembly pages by changing one party to another due to a recent political case, this is completely fine, but another user informed him on Talk:National Assembly of Pakistan to not update the seats yet due to political reasons of making sure that the party has been changed. His response? He just told the editor to shut up and used the f-word. Titan2456 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Titan2456 it appears you've failed to warn the user in question of this discussion, which I've done on their talk page.

That said, I support some kind of sanction, given their only response to the valid questioning of their edits was "Shut the f-ck up." That screams WP:NOTHERE to me. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Oops, didn't notice that the ANI notice is in the edit-warring section. My mistake. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

They are not here to contribute constructively. I've come across them on various articles, where they repeatedly change content without citing sources. I left warnings on their talk page and attempted to engage with them on the article talk page. If Titan hadn't reported them, I would have. I support an indefinite block not because they used offensive language against me, but because their disruptive behavior is causing chaos across various articles. We cannot continue like this; we have more productive ways to spend our time. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. Regardless of the "shut the fuck up", you only have to look at their contribution history and how significant amounts of their edits going back years have been reverted by multiple editors. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

77.137.66.2

Block request https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.137.66.2 for obvious reasons Southdevonian (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

‎Repeated WP:GS/AA violations

BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı (talk · contribs) has violated WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction numerous times. They were blocked once already for it by Firefangledfeathers, but they continued doing it after being unblocked [53]: the article is about Armenian genocide perpetrators' party, and BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı specifically edited/moved the name of the main perpetrator, Tallat Pasha. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı also seems to be a proponent of the pseudoscientific and ultranationalistic Sun Language Theory. Using questionable sources to pov push the Bronze Age Mesopotamian Gutian people [54] and Turukkaeans [55] as Turks, which is next level ridiculousness. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Every article they've written also needs a lot of work just to read coherently as well. I've done some work towards that, but I don't have time to fix all of the basic grammatical errors. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Lighthumormonger and the Wikipedia Editors Guild

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just a bit concerned and wanted to escalate this issue. User:Lighthumormonger apparently runs "The Wikipedia Editors Guild".

Not sure the legality on using the "Wikipedia" trademark there.

Anyway, apparently in emails (example) they ask organisations to submit press releases so that the WEG can then publish stuff in Wikipedia.

They have been rather evasive in the relevant Commons thead.

I do notice they are actively editing in the area of the email, no conclusive diffs found yet. Just asking for some eyes on this as it may affect Wikipedia content.--Commander Keane (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I was taken aback by the claim in the email that "a letter from Steve Altemus to us at the Wikipedia Editors Guild stating Steve's belief in this fact, would be enough to qualify as having been published under our rules, so then we could publish it in Wikipedia". Whoever wrote that has a dangerously distorted view of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

m:User_talk:Lighthumormonger#Questions_about_the_WMF_and_misc is nothing short of alarming. "Questions about officers and charter (and other such detailed questions) can be asked at the Yahoo email." What!? Daniel (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

So far, all of us are what I would call "long time editors of Wikipedia." Lighthumormonger registered an account just a little over a year ago. Grandpallama (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

no conclusive diffs found yet
The email reply from Altemus was posted to dropbox.com and added as a source with new text, making the claims in wikivoice rather than attributing them to the company CEO, in this edit by Lighthumormonger. <edited to add> I've added attribution for the claim. Schazjmd (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We're not Commons, but I feel like the questions being asked in the linked thread Commander Keane provided are pretty applicable to enwiki, and the ongoing evasiveness of Lighthumormonger in answering them means we need to be asking them directly here, too. The refusal to disclose who is a member of this "guild" is troubling, since they are presumably editing enwiki in coordination with one another. Grandpallama (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This same debate has been going on for about three days in a parallel version at the Wikimedia Commons ANI board here. I apologize but I simply do not have enough energy to repeat myself here. I would hope that you guys don't ask us to repeat ourselves here at WP. We just don't have enough manpower to try and put out multiple fires all over the place all at one time. Thanks, Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, if you have enough manpower to organize edits across multiple wikis, you should have enough to discuss with the community in the multiple wikis you edit in. If you want to set up an organized group of editors, it should be done on-wiki and with the consent of the community, rather than in private. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like straight up WP:UPE and should result in a block at minimum. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Lighthumormonger, why did you indent my initial comment here when I clearly intended for it not to be seen as a response to the previous comment, but as a new step in the discussion? Stop fucking about with other people's comments, period. Grandpallama (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

In all three discussions with Lighthumormonger (here, Commons and their user talk page on Meta), they only answer questions with evasions, distractions and offhand quips. Not having "enough energy" to respond to questions here is not acceptable. This seems like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Toughpigs (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• It is possible this is nefarious, but also possible this is harmless. Not harmless in the sense that WEG did everything right - they made several errors - but harmless in the sense that it is possible they're just a little misguided. We can't know without further questions. I understand the difficulty of dealing with multiple overlapping conversations. @Lighthumormonger: can you at least agree not to make any article edits on Wikipedia until you've had a chance to respond here? I don't think it's going to work to say "I only want to deal with this on Commons". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Their answers at Commons are incredibly evasive, as well. I am leaning towards the conclusion that they are wasting our time here as well as at Commons. Lighthumormonger - please list the enwiki usernames of the other members of this group, or I suspect the next thing that an admin does will be to block you as WP:NOTHERE. We haven't got endless patience. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don’t know. There’s a possibility in my mind that this is innocent but misguided. A look at their edits here in the past year do not show they are not here to create an encyclopedia; if you decide to block, please be more specific than that. I can see how answering questions from a disorganized group of half a dozen editors here and a dozen editors at Commons could be nearly impossible. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, it was possible. *looks down thread, looks at Meta* But perhaps not. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Of course "but perhaps not". My whole point is we don't know yet, and that's kind of a shitty time to block. Anyway, the block has been made, ANI has again demonstrated it isn't really fit for purpose, so I'll see if the editor wants to talk on their talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, fair play, there is always the faint possibility that they are doing this genuinely, though I suspect you will get the non-answers that everyone else who has politely tried to enquire has got. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The linked thread on Commons seems to indicate that they are performing undisclosed paid editing, while representing themselves under false pretenses. There is no legitimate organization on the English Wikipedia or on Commons calling itself the "Wikipedia Editors' Guild". There is no affiliate organization called the "Wikipedia Editors' Guild". The WMF does not have any record of this organization. Their user talk page on meta (where they are indefinitely blocked for continued trolling and for refusing to disclose the nature of this "guild") contains this:

The Wikipedia Editors Guild (WEG) is in agreement and alignment with all of the journalistic ideals of the Wikimedia Movement as stated within the Charter of the Wikimedia Movement.

This page will be augmented in the future however circumstances may dictate. Should anyone have any questions about the WEG and it's nature or purpose, please leave theyr questions here and we will try to address and answer these questions here in a timely fashion.

Thanks kindly,

The Commons noticeboard thread contains this PDF which was uploaded as a rationale for a file they uploaded. I would highly recommend everyone read this, as it is an extremely obvious and audacious scam email: they are trying to imply that they are officially associated with Wikimedia projects or the Wikimedia Foundation, and represent themselves as an "administrator".

They are doing this in correspondence with corporations, on whose behalf they upload images to Commons, after bizarre emails in which they claim that they are somehow involved with the projects and make decisions on their behalf. The company in this email is clearly addressing they as if they speak on behalf of the project, as they have represented themselves to the company as such.

Multiple people have mentioned that they are actively refactoring people's comments during noticeboard discussions.

Since they have refused to participate in this discussion to explain this outrageously sleazy behavior (and furthermore referred to themselves as "we" while doing so), I am indefinitely blocking them until such time as they can be bothered to provide a full and complete accounting for whatever this is. jp×g🗯️ 19:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Note to anyone trying to read that PDF link above, my browser blocked it as a dangerous website. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, Christ. Okay, well, these screenshots should load for a few hours or so:

• 1
• 2

jp×g🗯️ 19:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG:. I uploaded the two images to an Imgur album. Available hereLakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 21:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

So the idea is that they're trying to offer astroturfing services? It seems just to boil down to an edit-for-hire scam with more ego and less self-awareness than usual? Remsense诉 21:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

On their talkpage, in response to the block, they are significantly doubling down on claims about the length of their tenure as an editor. Either they're outright lying about that, or this is also potentially a CU-relevant situation. Grandpallama (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Feel like WP:DUCK is beginning to apply here with regards to the evasiveness of questioning on their suspicious behavior. Something is extremely fishy about this entire scenario and the misrepresentation as an semi-official WP rep is deeply concerning - support a block. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Indef now superseded by a CU block as a sock of a banned editor. Grandpallama (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Not actually a CU block - just a regular old admin block. —Ingenuity (t • c) 20:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ingenuity, my mistake. The sockmaster has TPA revoked and e-mail disabled, so presumably the sock account should have at least the former removed. Grandpallama (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

So they were a sock of an already banned account (not blocked, banned) who is running a clique of cherry picked editors as a "Wikipedia Editors Guild" which is also possibly meatpuppets. Wow. Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I doubt the other members of this "guild" even exist. This is just trolling. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Worth noting that someone’s now created an account claiming to act on behalf of the “guild,” and seemingly solely as an attack account against myself. SFR blocked it. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Related, TPA here probably needs revocation. Grandpallama (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ironic how he complains of libel/slander and has now done exactly that to me. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  Wait so this was just a troll the whole time? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 02:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• More or less. A sitebanned LTA who apparently never entirely gave up their socking. "Troll" may be a your-mileage-will-vary kind of term insofar as this is one of those cases of someone whose behaviour has been so bizarre over time so as to create some doubt as to their intent and whether they are actively trying to waste the community's time or just have genuine...issues. The current behavior relating to the "Wikipedia Editor's Guild" is pretty par for the course, let's put it that way. Ingenuity, I'd like to endorse the recommendation above that talk page access be removed: putting aside the amount of community time they have wasted across three projects in the last few days and their continued efforts to those ends, the header of their latest section of comments seems to be a clear (if indirect and rather milktoast) NLT violation. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  lol. jp×g🗯️ 05:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  Seconded LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 10:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by IP 47.69.67.250 (as well as by potential sock IPs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The IP 47.69.67.250 has made several personal attacks targeting myself, making the following claims, continuing after I warned them that personal attacks violate Wikipedia policy (Warning Difs: [56] and [57])

"Once more, you try to fool me and others with deviating from the main problems." (Dif: [58])

"So you are now dictating others which sources to use by inventing FAQs that nicely serve your private ideas of editing?" (Dif: [59])

"Still fooling us" (Dif: [60])

"Redacted II consistently puts his own theories into the arcticle as facts, violating multiple WP rules" (Dif: [61])

Additionally, they threatened to report me on multiple occasions:

"Time to report you" (Dif: [62])

The IP has similar behavior (and a similar address) to the following IPs. Additionally, at multiple times, the IP mentions their prior behavior, which was conducted by one of the other IPs.

These potential socks have made the following comments:

"The "a user" who did this draft is Redacted II again, who arguably posted the first anonymous post as well" (Dif: [63]. 47.69.69.199)

"Obviously, you think you own this article and don't want to cooperate in any way. Not WP style." (Dif: [64] 47.64.131.12)

"You always try to take others for fool just to cover that you lack real arguments" (Dif: [65] 47.69.68.190)

"Don't always try to fool people" (Dif: [66] 47.69.68.190)

"This is no doubt once more one a dubious action to push opinions" (Dif [67] 47.69.68.190)

Mentions of prior comments made by a different IP:

[68] (47.69.67.6) mentions [69] (47.69.68.190).

This is an extensive history of personal attacks, all by similar IP addresses with a very similar "style".

If this belongs in a different section (like the sock puppetry section, though that isn't the main issue IMO, then please move it) Redacted II (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any of those diffs as personal attacks. The IP's style of discussion is not collaborative, but that's not the same thing. Also, I don't see this as socking. The IPs obviously belong to the same person, but there's no policy against using different IPs unless it's to gain an advantage in some scenario, like a vote or edit-warring. Is there any evidence of that?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

They have denied using multiple IPs (Dif: [70]) (though, that isn't the issue: it is claiming I am attempting to "fool them" and "ignoring their argument" (invariably as a response to me responding to their arguments).

IMO, making those claims repeatedly in the face of evidence, as well as threatening to report a user for giving them warnings, are personal attacks in violation of Wikipedia's policies. After all, we are all supposed to Assume Good Faith, and not claim that the editor they are arguing with is attempting to "mislead editors". Redacted II (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

They deny using several IPs at the same time; that would be an entirely different behavior from having their IP address change from time to time, which is what has actually taken place. The fact that they continue discussions and refer to the earlier addresses as their own is evidence against deceptive behavior. --JBL (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, my issue with them isn't that they've used multiple IPs (though their denial, at least to me, seems like an attempt to make others believe that they are not all the same person).

My issue is that they have made several baseless accusations. Redacted II (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I've already told you the comments by the IP are not personal attacks. This thread is a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

And I disagree. Even though you think they don't qualify, that doesn't mean that everyone else will share that opinion. Wait a few days before dismissing this as "a waste of time".

And for why those comments violate WP:PA, here is a quote from WP:PA.

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."

They have made accusations without evidence. Redacted II (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The IP's comments may be frustrating and annoying, but as Bbb23 has told you, they don't rise to the level of personal attacks. I don't see anything actionable here. Sometimes we just don't get along with someone else on WP, and the only thing to do is roll your eyes, shrug off the comments, and move on. Grandpallama (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see these as personal attacks. You know you've been attacked when the comments require revision deletion. Years ago, an editor once told me that I embodied all of the worst things about Wikipedia and you just need to shrug comments like that off and keep editing. If we blocked everyone who stated another editor was pushing a point of view or lacked a real argument, admins would be spending all of their time blocking editors. This is the internet and often people are less than polite. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Just found I "got a message" and thought I should comment.

First, of course every few days my provider gives me a slighly new IP. That is completely normal and I cannot change that. I never used that to appear as several persons.

Second, I never have deliberately attacked him, I just told him not to fool me over and over again by deviating from the main problem and repeating inappropriate arguments, which I saw as intentional attemps to silent me. When I learned that he might have misunderstood the word "fool", I tried even to explain this in the discussion ("you might know that "to fool" also means "to mislead", and in this and only in this meaning I used it"). So where to complain? Furthermore, English in my 2nd language, thus I apologize if I not always get the right wording, but that hardly can be punished.

I admit that I got more and more annoyed that he just put my arguments down and acted as if he owned the article, and he clearly also provoked me. Btw, he was the first to threaten to "report" me, and he accused me and others even here to be sockpuppets.

Having said that, and hoping I understand the way WP works, I would like to add that I have the feeling that even this discussion is one more attempt to deviate from the main problem, which is he is constantly using wrong references, making "original research" and . For anyone interested in details, look at the discussion. Parts of the article have been hidden now by "Redraiderengineer", "Temporarily removed vehicles for updated citation per WP:CHALLENGE on talk page.". As Redraiderengineer is much more familiar with WP vocabulary, methods and tools, please have a look on his elaborations about the flawed citations and referenced. I was accused of "nor working on the article": Despite from experience that IP-made changes get often deleted without even explanation, I just don't know enough about WP to insert multiple references into tables or similar. I just wanted to help making this article better by pointing to these problems on the talk page, but Redacted II put repeatedly everything down despite clear arguments that were supported by others as well. I think this is extremely important because Starship test flights are very high in public perceptions these times, and the article still has many issues, mainly stating facts that only derive from "original research". Thanks to all. 47.69.67.250 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I do want to say (Again) that my issue wasn't that they had used multiple IPs. I even asked about it (Dif: ), saying that I was fairly certain it wasn't malicious. They never responded there, and denied it later on.

" just told him not to fool me over and over again by deviating from the main problem and repeating inappropriate arguments"

So, disagreeing and explaining why you are wrong is "deviating" and "inappropriate"?

"("you might know that "to fool" also means "to mislead", and in this and only in this meaning I used it")"

I understood the message. If you had been calling me a fool, that would (hopefully) be an undeniable personal attack.

"Btw, he was the first to threaten to "report" me"

Because of the above reasons. Threatening to report someone for no reason at all isn't appropriate at all.

"which is he is constantly using wrong references, making "original research" and"

The references were backed by Wikpedia's policy, there are no examples of original research, and you left the last bit blank.

"Redacted II put repeatedly everything down"

Because there were clear arguments against it (such as it being supported by the sources, the FAQ, or not even being possible). Redacted II (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued policy violations by IP 116.86.53.37

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

This IP has a very lengthy history of adding unsourced content (1, 2, 3) and ignoring MOS guidelines – ENGVAR in particular (1, 2). They are still non-communicative and still failing to use edit summaries. I've reported them previously for their editing (see here). They were blocked for a week back in December, and I'm not sure what to suggest here moving forward. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

103.179.182.61 Persistent vandalism and unsourced contents

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

Persistent vandalism & persistent unsourced contents.

There had been persistent vandalism 1234832059 (vandalising existing redirect) 1233687282 (obvious vandalism removal including removing reliable source citation without explaination & with extraordinary claim WP:EXTRAORDINARY) 1232854799 (earlier same extraordinary claim WP:EXTRAORDINARY about North Korea) 1230012264 (obvious vandalism inconsistent with the rest of the article) 1232652151 (unsourced edit without sync/update to already existing citation)

Also there are persistent unsourced statements without explaination or discussion 1233688070 1233688558 1233688794 1234966986 1234752204 1234752136 1231812049 1233990401 1230034865 1229998896 1233877172 1232671030 1232653414 1232523831 1231911992 1232652695 (1232652695 partial reverted on unsourced Joe Alaskey) 1232525849 Special:Diff/1231810378 1231810378 1231810340 1231810220 1231188218 1231188147 1230836195 1229997973 1233694271 1233492865 1233491210 1232860319 1232855235 1233490269 1232525872 1231959328 1231261781 1232524051 1232524141 1232524269 1232560809 1232652551 1232711411 1229998664 1232525067 1232653183 1232524944 1229998549 1232653126 1232527647 1232526546 1232524815 1232524726 1232521192 1232179116 1231920075

Lastly, there is also unnecessary inappropriate edit and self-revert, in Special:Diff/1234832059/1234832233 Special:Diff/1232108229/1232109300 Special:Diff/1232108238/1232109246 Special:Diff/1232108238/1232109246

Significant time were spent to clean up WP:CLEANUP, most of the time, mess.

These WP:VANDALISM, WP:SNEAKY subtle vandalism, WP:UNSOURCED additions without any explaination without discussion...
All these edits apparently doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia and are worse than being mere imcompetent...
Apparently this anon IP 103.179.182.61 isn't here to build encyclopedia WP:NOTHERE. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

103.179.182.61 just acknowledged the ANI notice by Special:Diff/1235035946 WP:BLANKING (ANI Notice) section (WP:BLANKING : has read and is aware) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm blocking that IP address as a confirmed proxy. Other admins are free to replace my block with another, if they prefer. --Yamla (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

2407:7000:98BE:6700:FD72:DBB4:4E2A:6951/64

Can somebody take a look at what's going on with the contributions in this range? Most of it seems to be nonsense in their talk page and the sandbox. Thanks. —*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 10:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with a new user using the sandbox for its intended purpose. Though a reminder to keep testing out of their talk page may be approporiate. I just noticed they are not using their talk page for testing, but their personal sandbox. So no concerns here. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Updated 11:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

By a weird coincidence, before I saw this AN/I thread I just reverted a new user attempting to add spam citations [71] [72] for their website "indianbikedriving3d (dot) in (slash) indian-bike-driving-3d". The sandbox history contains huge edits that just various versions of "indian bikes driving 3d,indian bike driving 3d,indian bike driving 3d new update,indian bike driving 3d cheat codes,indian bike driving 3d game,indian bike driving 3d new cheat code,indian bike driving 3d code,indian bike driving 3d update, etc etc. Looks very likely to be the same spammer. BugGhost🦗👻 13:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

95.248.88.77 Persistent overlink duplicates and irrelevant links

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

Persistent WP:OVERLINK overlinking of duplicate audio/video links & irrelevant video links.

Earlier today, anon IP 95.248.88.77 re-revert Special:Diff/1235011351 past after 5th warning in a month for disruptive editing Special:Diff/1235013971, WP:OVERLINK overlinking the same duplicate audio (d_xdMHrdm7Q & fT4vFaIzggA). These disruptive overlinking still continued past 5th warning as this incident report is filed right now: 2 same audio Special:Diff/1235025965, (3!+1) 4 same audios 1235024108, (5!+1) 6 same audios 1235022668, 2 same audios 1235019515, 2 same audios (different version ie release ver & shorter radio ver of same audio) right now...

There are persistent WP:OVERLINK of duplicated youtube audio video: 2 same audio Special:Diff/1235025965, (3!+1) 4 same audios 1235024108, (5!+1) 6 same audios 1235022668, 2 same audios 1235019515, 2 same audios (different version ie release ver & shorter radio ver of same audio), 1235013159, Special:Diff/1235012127, 1235011774, 1235011620, 1235011351, 1235005586, 1234997681, 1234808245, 1234808110, 1234807881, 1234802113, 1234622768, 1234622363, 1234621900, 1234619361, 1234038142, 1234036469, 1234035716, 1234032931,

There are also persistent WP:OVERLINK of unnecessary youtube video irrelevant or not fully relevant to the article, such as Musical medley: 1235011774, 1235011620, 1234997681, 1234807881, 1234622363, 1234621900, 1234036469, 1234035716

Despite repeated warnings and a invitation to discuss why these additions are overlinked duplication and or irrelevant/not fully relevant link Special:Diff/1234828269, the anon IP 95.248.88.77 refuses any discussion nor explaining with good reason about overlinking edits.

There were also past anon IP all from same ISP all from same country, most are from same region of the same country, with overlinking duplicates/irrelevant links too:

• 82.51.12.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.211.233.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2 weeks blocked)
• 79.23.195.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.22.32.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.55.73.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.18.197.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.20.7.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.52.35.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.10.95.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (1 month blocked)
• 95.252.81.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

So far, all linked are anon IPs. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Anon IPs from same ISP, same country and same region of the same country. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Significant time were spent to WP:CLEANUP messy links of duplicate copies.

These overlinking links to duplicate copies & overlinking irrelevant video links, especially further more consistently re-revert these duplicates/irrelevant videos apparently doesn't contribute to encyclopedia meaningfully, which is worse than mere incompetent. Apparently this anon IP 95.248.88.77 isn't here to build encyclopedia WP:NOTHERE --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this person has been a problem for months, using multiple IPs. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually very quick and early reply before I complete another paragraph about observation. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Seemed like it's a long standing problem, a long term disruptor, eg almost a year...last year July To Love You More's history eg 1163401562 eg 1165512359. I heard there are also other remedies.--- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Anon IP 95.248.88.77 are back even after numerous disruptive warning past way beyond 4th time, even after ANI, seemed audacious to continue spam WP:ELNO duplicated audio links & irrelevant links.

95.248.88.77 are now spaming in other songs not just Celine Dion, so WP:PAGEPROTECT seemed not effective (which I only just requested 1 article semi-protection at WP:RFPP), like Whack-a-mole.

I just asking...just asking...is there a possibility to block a set of IPs from that same European ISP in the same region of the same European country? --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Aimal12345

Aimal12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• teach me how you idiot
• bro you have no mind i think your still in 3rd class....
• go fix you dangerous country iran where woman cant walk freely

These are the personal attacks Aimal12345 have made against me so far. Why? Because I've told them (countless times) to cite their added info with sources (I had already listed multiple policies they could read, but they clearly don't care. [73] Another user also told them this [74]), which they are still not doing (eg their latest edit [75]). I think this user is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

don't forget can you stay away from me 😡 i hate you. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

A clear case. An immediate block is needed. Aimal should follow the instructions given to avoid sending harassment. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:Aimal12345#Indefinite block. El_C 12:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks El C! HistoryofIran (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editor spamming promotional material

Hajer-12 (talk · contribs) is promoting a bunch of well-known brands. Please block them and revert every edit they've made so that I don't have to do that manually. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you supply some diffs? Had a quick look at some recent contributions and while, they could have been better, I couldn't see anything promotional. Orange sticker (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker: Look at the last 30 edits for example. Do you not see these edits are promotional??? Polygnotus (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The most recent edit [76] is simply stating that Lewis Hamilton has been made a brand ambassador for Dior, with citations. From the random edits I looked at, there doesn't seem to be any link. Orange sticker (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

So you didn't actually look at the edits they make? The badly-sourced positive fluff, the fake/incorrectly used/very weak refs? Here are some recent examples [77][78][79][80] Polygnotus (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This does not appear to be promotional editing, it's just additions about brands. You haven't even given them time to respond to your paid editing and COI messages, both of which were sent immediately before you took them to ANI. Could you provide some specific examples that are indicative of paid editing? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the point of giving them time to respond? Nothing they can say can change the fact that undisclosed paid promotional activity is not allowed here. And its not just additions about brands. It is a pattern of systematically adding positive fluff to articles about big brands in exchange for money, without following the proper disclosure procedure. Polygnotus (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm relatively new here, do Prada and Dior generally pay third parties to add quite boring details to their Wikipedia pages? How awful. hey Prada slide in my DMs /s Orange sticker (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, marketing companies get hired to add positive fluff to the wikipedia articles of big brands. A great way to hide the labor violations and lawsuits. They follow a very familiar pattern: "positive fluff (brand did something sustainable) - brand opened store/factory- celeb became brand ambassador - adding a fake/incorrectly used/very weak ref". Polygnotus (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Public Relations is an industry, yes. Looks like lots of greenwashing to me. Prose about how Prada is working for a sustainable future? WP:UNDUE and questionable why this PR trivia was added. 107.116.165.108 (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand, but what are these comments based on? Perhaps I've badly worded some things that may give the impression that it's too positive? If you're referring to a request concerning DICK's Sporting Goods, you can see that I haven't done anything on this page. Or does it concern something else? Also, you ask me a question without waiting for my answer and 10 minutes later you're going to declare that I'm a paid profile and that I should be kicked off Wikipedia without specifying why? Please quote the pages. Hajer-12 (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok so we got 2 options, you are either someone who is super dedicated to spreading positivity about big brands by including positive fluff on their Wikipedia articles, or you are a paid editor spamming Wikipedia. I follow WP:DUCK. Polygnotus (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! But it's neither of these options. If there's anything negative in the press about the pages you suspect, I'll be happy to include it. If you think I've put information on Wikipedia that doesn't belong there, give me your opinion and I'll be also happy to improve. Besides, it is important to bear in mind that there are a lot of brands out there that have nice news or a nice story, or at least not too disastrous... Hajer-12 (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, as you know, I believe that every single edit you've made should be reverted because you keep adding promotional content. So my advice would be to find another job and stop adding promotional content on Wikipedia. Polygnotus (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

My advice to you would be to stop accusing people of UPE without evidence, and to stop making personal attacks. Telling someone to "find another job" is not productive. If you have clear evidence that this user is engaging in misconduct, please present it here. Otherwise, there's nothing for us to do here. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Facepalm Falsely accusing people of making personal attacks is frowned upon. I have provided 990 diffs of evidence. And AGF is, as they say, not a suicide pact and does not overrule WP:DUCK. Their contributions page is a list that follows the pattern I noted above: "positive fluff (brand did something sustainable) - brand opened store/factory- celeb became brand ambassador - adding a fake/incorrectly used/very weak ref". The fact that someone denies being a paid editor does not mean much. Polygnotus (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"AGF [...] does not overrule WP:DUCK"... yes it does, actually. DUCK is an essay, the opinion of the people who wrote it, while AGF is a behavioural guideline, representing the community's consensus. Also, see what is a personal attack, which includes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CONLEVEL is not based on how valid an idea is, but the level of consensus (often someone was a bit bold and no one reverted them). And of course there are major problems in that area, stuff that should be policy is "only" an essay and vice versa. I posted clear evidence, and if you look at the contribution page you'll find a lot more of exactly the pattern I described. Polygnotus (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I posted clear evidence

No, you really haven't. Hence the comments that you're crossing the WP:NPA line. You may think it's obvious, but it's definitely not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! You haven't answered my questions, even though I've expressed my good faith. I've asked you for the pages concerned, you haven't answered me, I've asked you what changes you'd like me to make, you haven't answered me. Now I'm reporting you for harassment to the administrators. Hajer-12 (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You are ignoring the diffs posted above? The longer I look at your contribs the more I find. Polygnotus (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The diffs you posted are far from clear evidence of UPE. If you've found something more concrete, please do share. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: Do you think people just happen to follow the pattern I described without being a paid editor? Did you not check their contributions? Polygnotus (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible they're a paid editor? Sure. Are you going to find an administrator who will block based on your evidence? Unlikely. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

So if you think that I am possibly correct, then you should treat me very differently than you have so far, right? This section already got derailed, look where we are now. You could've asked for more diffs if you didn't want to click open 100 diffs yourself and I would've done the work for you. Do you not see the pattern I've described? I know you are a goodfaithed wikipedian but you've clearly made a mistake here based on incomplete information. So its probably wise rethink your approach. Polygnotus (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that you are accusing someone of UPE without sufficient evidence. You need to find diffs that show clear evidence of UPE, sockpuppetry, or repeated disruptive editing, not just diffs that show they added something that could be considered promotional to articles. Maybe they just enjoy reading news about these companies and updating articles. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the problem here is that someone reported promotional editing and instead of looking into that people reacted sceptically and then started to dogpile and a false accusation was made. And those are goodfaithed people; imagine how things would go if they weren't! A pattern is more difficult to show because its not one or two or three edits, it is hundreds of them. All following the same pattern I've described. And if you would've checked you would've seen that and then you could perhaps ask for more diffs but you can't attack a goodfaithed person who is just trying to help. And no, there is no plausible explanation that does not involve ducks. If someone reads the news, like I do, they don't see an endless stream of positive fluff about big brands (and the rest of the pattern described above). Polygnotus (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I have, actually, been looking into their edits. And I have quite a bit of experience investigating both UPE and sockpuppetry. I have not yet found clear evidence of anything. In the absence of clear evidence, you need to stop the accusations of bad faith editing. —Ingenuity (t • c) 16:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: If you have been looking into their edits then I accept your apology. You can revert those edits; I'll go grocery shopping. Good luck. Polygnotus (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to report @Polygnotus for harassment as well as unjustified allegations and aggressive behavior towards me ("I believe" or "So my advice would be to find another job"). I asked him, politely and in good faith, to tell me what was bothering him and provide me with constructive feedback but he's lashing out at me without giving me the slightest justification or explanation. It's making me really uncomfortable and unnecessarily exhausted. Hajer-12 (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hajer-12: Per the notice at the top of this page. You must leave the a notice on talk page of any user you are starting a discussion about. I have done this for you. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I've combined this with the above thread as they are about the same topic. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus you are linking to diffs with no explanation, and I also see you have flagged a page that Hajer-12 created with the WP:COI template, but there's nothing in your edit summary or the talk page to indicate why you've done this? Instead of just presenting their edit history, you need to demonstrate why you believe this editor is a paid PR person with an incredibly impressive client list. Orange sticker (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

See your talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

As I told you on my talk page, discussion of this subject is best done here. So far you have not presented any evidence that Hajer-12 is a paid professional and that their edits are promotional. Is there a link between all the article subjects? Are they all represented by the same PR company? Is there a precedence for major global names who can have articles written about them in Vogue and Harper's Bazaar to also pay someone to ensure the most banal details also end up on Wikipedia? Without that evidence this is just series of content disputes. Orange sticker (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt. Drop this. I've reviewed the edits and I am not seeing anything in the way of promotional editing. I also have experience in investigating sockpuppetry and UPE, and I'm seeing no sign of this at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Are we approaching WP:BOOMERANG territory here? All I see is an editor aggressively disregarding AGF for a case with dubious merit. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

We should wait and see if they "drop this" as advised by RickinBaltimore before deciding if a boomerang is warranted. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand and substantially agree with the consensus about Polygnotus' approach here, but I am going to say this as well: if we were able to prove the truth or falsity of their suspicions about Hajer-12 with the flip of a switch, I wouldn't bet good money against their suspicions before said switch was flipped. Some of the wording in the few diffs that Polygnotus did supply certainly read more than a little like typical commercial PR dialect. And it's kind of hard for me to imagine that the typical editor would take an interest in the image-furnishing of companies in such disparate industries. If nothing else, in reviewing a few dozens of Hajer's edits at random, I am seeing a lot of them that are of dubious WP:WEIGHT value as additions to an understanding of these companies, and a non-trivial number of edits that cite sources which seem like they could be the type of industry news aggregators that present themselves as independent media, but which are in fact backed by associations funded by the same companies covered on those sites.

Again, I don't disagree with the point that the community clearly wants Polygnotus tot ake on board here. In fact, I'd go even a little farther and say it's not just that they are pushing too hard for an immediate sanction and reversions on insufficient hard evidence. There's an even deeper problem than that when someone, in a posting here at ANI, outright demands a severe course of action from the community against another party (without first attempting to discuss the matter with the reported editor, no less), and then gets as hostile as Polygnotus did here when they get pushback against their proposed course of action. The attitude underpinning their response to disagreement seems like a big issue in the making, imo.

But...do I think they have he wrong read here? Honestly, I'd kind of be surprised if it turned out conclusively that they did. And at a minimum, any necessary discussion warning Polygnotus to be wary of WP:ASPERSIONS in pushing so hard on such limited evidence should not also preclude us from giving a further critical eye to Hajer's edits. Even if they don't have a COI, they are still introducing a lot of content that might reasonably be considered puffery. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Arial Bold and Rogers Plaza

I strongly suspect some WP:COI is afoot with Arial Bold (talk · contribs) and 74.204.120.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who may be Arial Bold logged out.

Recently, Rogers Plaza has undergone a lot of promotional edits, including additions of many photos and a directory, which violates WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. The IP user keeps reinstating the directory, claming it's "sourced" (to the websites of the businesses therein).

Furthermore, if you check their Commons page, it seems they have uploaded a ton of photos they do not actually own, including a map I drew of the mall about 20 years ago, and claiming them as their own work. Two of their images are currently up for deletion on Commons. When I confronted them about the map, which I proved by linking to the old Angelfire account where I had first made it, they falsely claimed the link was dead and that I had no proof of ownership.

It's clear they've got no idea what image rights are, or what belongs on Wikipedia. I think some blocking and deletion may be in order. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer The Arial Bold account is stale, so it may be hard to do anything with that one. (Unless I'm missing some deleted contributions.) The IP, on the other hand, I just courtesy-reverted them over the 3RR issue. If they revert again, I'm prepared to block them. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Their commons account may need to be blocked too, as they're using it to harass me over there and make false claims. My map has been put up for deletion there too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer That's an issue for Commons, though. —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:Mosi Nuru

I first encountered this editor while working on Project 2025. Their first comment directed at me on the talk page contained a personal attack: [81] "I also notice that the user in question seems to be obsessively editing the Liber OZ page--he's responsible for 49 of the last 50 edits on this page."

Since making this personal attack, the editor in question has followed me to three article which they have never edited before based on my contributions. First to the article mentioned in the attack, which they have (IMO) defaced several times now, doing more damage each time I revert them. They have also followed me to Human rights inflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and to Template:Thelema, where their comments on the talk page show that they really have no knowledge of the subject.

It would be nice if some admin had a discussion with them about what hounding is, because they are - as new editors usually do - pretending this has nothing to do with our disgreement at Talk:Project 2025. Wasn't going to report it, but they have since insisted on escalating this. Skyerise (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This editor has also stalked me to Tyrannicide and removed a relevant link I added there. These actions are clearly intended to harass. I have other things I am working on, and I can't work on them due to this harassment. Perhaps a short block is in order. Skyerise (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I would also appreciate input from Admins.

Here is my version of events:

1. I visited the page for Project 2025, and noticed that the see also section included a link to Liber OZ. I found this inappropriate, and deleted.

2. Skyerise reverted my edit.

3. I created a talk subject on the page. Another user deleted Liber OZ as well. Skyerise reverted that user's edit too.

4. Later, Skyerise acknowledged that a consensus had been met, and deleted the link.

5. In the process, I noticed that Skyerise had made the same "see also" link to Liber OZ in Tyrannicide and human rights inflation. I believed that these were similarly inappropriate, pointed to the consensus from Project 2025 and deleted. I also noticed several parts of the Liber OZ article that could be improved, and made edits. Skyerise has reverted most of these edits.

6. Skyerise has accused me of incivility and harassment. I believe this is wrong, and that Skyerise is behaving in an uncivil and threatening manner to me (see my talk page, and our discussions on the talk pages of Liber OZ and Project 2025), and is reverting my edits in violation of "revert only when necessary" and "encourage the newcomers."

I would also respond specifically to Skyerise's points:

1. I have made good only faith edits, no vandalism.

2. I have not hounded Skyerise. I have followed a pattern of (what I consider to be) bad edits from the Project 2025 page, I have not followed Skyerise. Unlike Skyerise, I have never reverted Skyerise's edits or posted on Skyerise's user page

3. Although Skyerise accuses me of incivility and personal attacks, I believe that a review of our interactions will show that this is simply not the case. In contrast, Skyerise has been uncivil to me: writing "Try me" on my talk page, and "Don't worry. I will. But not at your demand." when I repeated a request to involve admins.

4. In the spirit of disengagement, I have stopped responding to Skyerise. However, since opening this dispute, Skyerise has posted several times on my talk page and the talk pages of the articles in question. Mosi Nuru (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I have never reverted Skyerise's edits

Not exactly true. This edit to Tyrannicide is a manual revert of Skyrise adding a See also link to Liber OZ. —C.Fred (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean I have never clicked "revert" or "undo" in response to Skyerise, nor have I set out to find and specifically undo a change Skyerise has made following an interaction with me.

I have made manual edits to pages, and when reverted by Skyerise have taken it to the talk page, rather than reverting back. Mosi Nuru (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Relevant talk pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_2025#See_Also_section_contains_only_irrelevant_links_such_as_%22Liber_OZ%22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tyrannicide#Liber_OZ_is_not_an_appropriate_see_also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_rights_inflation#Liber_OZ_is_not_an_appropriate_see_also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liber_OZ#Article_is_far_too_long_for_subject

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mosi_Nuru#Warning_about_stalking

Mosi Nuru (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a nothingburger to me. Skyerise, honestly I understand why the consensus was to remove that link from the initial article, and seeing as the follow-up edits regard an identical small bit of content, placed in the same section in multiple articles, I would consider all of those edits as being substantially related to the same editorial dispute. If Mosi Nuru had followed you from article to article after your initial interaction thwarting unrelated additions (which your filing here rather implied, btw, by omitting the key detail that it was the same content being deleted on each article) then you would have a clear-cut case of hounding, by my view (though note that some would argue even that is permitted if the edits were good faith improvements). But here, with MN just eliminating the same content in multiple articles...not so much.

Mind you, technically MN needs to be careful of running afoul of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; afterall, just because there was a consensus that the link was inappropriate for one article does not mean the same automatically holds true for all of the others, needless to say. However, in my opinion, if you make them have a talk page discussion in each of these cases, I expect they will win on all of them, so I'd save yourself the trouble and let the matter go. In any event, no behavioural violation here that I can see. I recommend you two attempt to part on good will here, since the issue is so limited and I don't think either of you should have good reason to expect getting under eachother's skin again any time soon. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, Snow Rise.

I agree that this is (or should be) a nonissue, and am happy to disengage. However, since we're here, I would like to mention that Skyerise is still not disengaging. Their most recent comment to me on a talk page came 4 minutes ago: "I'm sure you know by now that Wikipedia doesn't care about your view... It's too bad you feel the need to dissemble about your true intent here."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Thelema#%22The_Rights_of_Man%22_should_not_be_its_own_section_or_the_top_section_in_this_template Mosi Nuru (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

And again just a minute ago on the same talk page: "I think you just pulled is out of your [...] to [...]." [censoring in the original] Mosi Nuru (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Um, if you didn't want a reply, why did you post on that talk page? Anyway, I've reverted that comment, now that you've found an old shoe that apparently fits. Skyerise (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I posted on that page before you created an ANI about me.

And the point is not so much that you replied (although I think the appropriate thing to do after creating an ANI is to disengage in other forums, and I wish you would), it's the nature of your replies. Mosi Nuru (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

And what about the nature and reason for the threads you've opened, all on pages I've edited recently, just after having a conversation about me on User talk:Redrose64 in which you failed to ping me. You do know you are supposed to ping an editor when you talk about them with a third party, right? Skyerise (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

And again Skyerise continues to engage off of the ANI that they created, now on Redrose64's talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redrose64#c-Skyerise-20240718001300-Mosi_Nuru-20240716205000

Two things I'd like to point out about this one:

1. This is far more clearly a case of "hounding" that anything Skyerise has accused me of

2. I am a new editor. I went to Redrose64 for advice from a recently active administrator. It is disturbing that I can't even ask for advice on the issue without being confronted by Skyerise. Mosi Nuru (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mosi Nuru: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that opening an ANI thread means I have to stop replying to the threads you opened on articles I am interested in, or that you opened about me. There is no such prohibition. If my replying to the threads you opened feels overwhelming, how do you think I felt when you opened multiple threads on multiple talk pages clearly directed at me? You invited a response by making those posts. I did nothing to invite you to open those multiple talk page threads. Skyerise (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Good grief. Skyerise, however overwhelmed you feel here, you know better than to make comments like the one you thankfully self-reverted and "I'm sure you know by now that Wikipedia doesn't care about your view." Making these kinds of uncharitable comments at another editor while you have a thread open accusing them of harassment is like begging for a boomerang. All the more so because this is not the first time you have almost eaten one for incivility recently. But on that topic, Mosi, while I'm going to assume this is all just a weird coincidence, there's a reason your choice of admin to raise concerns with Skyerise about would be perceived by Skyerise themselves in a certain light.

But the crazy coincidences don't stop there, and Skyerise, it's actually quite apropos that said discussion should become tangentially relevant here, because that's also the last time you started a thread here that very nearly lead to your getting boomerang sanctioned (and less than two weeks ago, mind you). Indeed, there was a run-away train effect in that thread of literally every other involved editor seeming to be prepared to take action against you on the civility concerns. Until a certain someone interjected at the last minute and pointed out some procedural irregularities in how the dispute had played out which then stopped that train in its tracks. (Add in the similarities in our names and we're really heaping ironies on ironies here).

But here's the thing: while I don't regret acting as I did in those circumstances (it was the right thing to do), I also made it abundantly clear that my support was not without some caveats, and that you desperately need to learn to control your most aggressive impulses in your discussion and interaction style here. And you seemed to concede the point at the time. Please don't backtrack on that. Because there won't always be a technicality that will bring someone in to advocate for you at the 11th hour. And I don't think anything you've said in this discussion or the related disputes is likely to get you blocked, but you've already had your fair share of both community and admin blocks on civility grounds. And people are starting to associate your name with acrimony. Again I ask you: please take it down a few notches, even when you feel you have reason to feel justified in your frustration. Please? If only because I have this lame joke I really want to make about our names, and it doesn't work if you're being all surly... SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Sure. I guess my point has been made and I don't want to beat a dead horse. But I am curious why someone following me to five articles or templates I've recently edited via my contribs is a "nothingburger", but apparently if I check someone's contribs and find a conversation about me on one single user talk page in which I wasn't pinged and chime in to make a note of that is somehow a "somethingburger"? And if I point out, quite rightly, that in a matter of content, an editor's views don't take precedence over what the sources say and request a source for something that seems to be an opinion made up on the spot without any basis in any sources just to start an argument, that's also a "somethingburger"? It just seems so inconsistent.

That said, I will stay out of MNs way if they will at least not pretend they are operating in good faith when they aren't - I would say "stay our of mine" but that's doesn't seem reasonable. But anyone who looks at the edits to Liber OZ (replacing short concise headings with long quoted passages) and the made-up "problems" with the articles which aren't really problems on Talk:Liber OZ and Template talk:Thelema, can easily see that MN's claims of good faith can reasonably be doubted. Skyerise (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

In any case, I've reverted all of my responses to MN on article talk pages that had not yet been replied to. They might want to consider removing any talk page sections that they started if they were not made in good faith and there are no replies to them. Or not, as they will. But I will join the conversation if the threads become active... Skyerise (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I appreciate the time you have taken dealing with this already. If you're willing, I would like you to weigh in on one more time while we're here.

It is clear that that Skyerise and I do not see eye to eye. I have stated my grievances, they have stated theirs, I think a neutral party can judge which among us is "hounding," "stalking," uncivil, etc.

I would like to walk away. I have remaining concerns with the subject matter that was the source of this controversy, the article Liber OZ and its links on other articles.

-Skyerise has been good enough to remove "See Also" links to Liber OZ from Project 2025, human rights inflation, and tyrannicide. Thank you for doing that, Skyerise

-However, Skyerise has added a whole new paragraph about Liber OZ to tyrannicide. I do not want to edit war, but I would respectfully ask that that be removed. I would also respectfully ask that Skyerise quit adding links or references to Liber OZ to other articles.

-Skyerise has left most of my changes to the article Liber OZ itself reverted. Again, I do not want to edit war. I continue to believe that the article Liber OZ as currently written needs significant work for tone and conciseness. I am willing to stop editing Liber OZ, but I would ask that Skyerise stop editing it as well. There are surely other editors on Wikipedia who can work on Liber OZ if I and Skyerise both agree to leave it alone from this point on.

Snow Rise or other admins, would you weigh in on this proposal? Mosi Nuru (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

There is one further discrepancy I would like to point out: Mosi Nuru claims to be a "new editor", giving this as the reason for discussing me with Redrose64 without pinging me. This seems to be supported by their current edit count of 211 edits. However, their very first edit was to open an RfC at Talk:Eyferth study. I'd like to see disclosure of previous accounts happen here... Skyerise (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Continuing to look at this, it seems they've been playing the "new editor" card - while citing various policy and guideline pages – since the very begining of editing here: "I am a new editor noting what I believe is rude and uncivil behavior by a more senior editor, in a reply to the specific comment that I believe was rude and uncivil." [82]. The RfC itself was full of suspected sock and meatpuppetry, and MN eventually weighed in on the WP:FRINGE side [83]. Since this issue regards race and intelligence, perhaps all is not what it seems with this editor? I don't edit in that area, but I am sure there must be some admins and regular editors who are familiar with the SPA and LTA players in that field around Feb 2023. Skyerise (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

User:GoodEditsOnly fabricating interview quotes

• GoodEditsOnly (talk · contribs · logs)

This user has been received talk page pushback for some years for adding details to biographies and film articles which don't appear in the sources they're citing. They were told in August 2023 that they appear to [be] making stuff up. They're on a level 3 warning but a level 4 is likely to be too nuanced for AIV, so I'll raise it here now.

I've just cleared out the John Carpenter and John Carpenter's unrealized projects articles after finding that a recent edit contained attributed quotes which simply didn't appear in the sources, or had been embellished; Carpenter does say A Dracula movie would be nice. in a cited interview, but he does not go on to say And a movie called "John Carpenter's Dracula" would be nicer. Maybe we'll find out here soon. to the point where Dracula can be listed as an "unrealized project". He does not say that a character in one of his films was flying like Interstellar or Ad Astra, he says that they were flying interstellar. In this edit to Carpenter's biography the cited source does not say anything about Carpenter speaking about racism in rural Kentucky or how a meteor came out of the screen and blew up in my face - and that phrase only appears once elsewhere online, in a July 2024 magazine article that post-dates the edit and may have been taken in good faith from the Wikipedia article.

Some of this could be sloppy editing where they've pasted in the wrong cite URL, some could be writing from memory without checking that it's all in the source that they've chosen to cite, but in many cases they do seem to be actively fabricating quotations. Belbury (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Last year I reverted a number of GoodEditsOnly's edits for "embellishing" and explained each revert on their talk page.[84][85][86][87] I didn't continue to watch their edits, but they received several explanations about source-text integrity at the time. If this problem has continued, it may be a case of WP:CIR; it's simply unacceptable to fabricate content while citing sources that don't support the text. Schazjmd (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The user edits sporadically. They don't respond to warnings; they don't talk at all (one time on another user's Talk page back in August 2023). It's highly unlikely they will respond to this complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely. Adding fabricated content, especially after receiving so many warnings, is unacceptable. —Ingenuity (t • c) 15:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

AfD spree by barely active user

User:LusikSnusik opened a spree of unfounded and unresearched AfDs. These take 2-3 minutes to create and potentially will waste tons of valuable community hours. He also contributes to erasing information from WP in 0-1 minutes. Admin intervention is appreciated. gidonb (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

They made four AfDs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar Chibaka – 10:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kungu Al-Mahadi Adam – 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erigo (2nd nomination) – 10:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any.do – 10:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

They also withdrew the third nomination. While they could have been more careful, I wouldn't call it an inappropriate number of nominations (or even a spree). As for "erasing information", can you link to where they were doing so @Gidonb? I'm not seeing anything from their activity yesterday, and prior to yesterday they were last active in August of 2023. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone who started out on an AfD spree, I feel more than a bit of sympathy for this user. He's clearly new and just learning how to AfD, a little feedback might help put him on the right track. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The only edit they've made that actually removed anything was from here, which I believe was a good faith edit on their part even if they removed an entire bibliography section. Procyon117 (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Also I do believe OP should have talked to them about it at least before bringing it straight here. Procyon117 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

user:2001:7D0:81D0:D00:CD84:83DE:4E5:4913 espouting conspiracy theories

Not much more to say here, User:2001:7D0:81D0:D00:CD84:83DE:4E5:4913 has been espouting conspiracy theories about hollywood, masonry, etc on their talk page. I've asked them to stop, and they have not. Gaismagorm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Range blocked for 31 hours with talk page access revoked. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

alright thanks! Gaismagorm (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

also is there a reason why it's so common to block people for 31 hours instead of 24 or 48 hours? Gaismagorm (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It's the default setting for the block tool. Many admins treat that as the usual starting point for blocking disruptive editors unless there are unusual circumstances. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

ah okie, just curious Gaismagorm (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll generally start at 24 hours for registered accounts and 31 hours for IPs. 31 hours is good enough to dissuade the current user and allow the address to cycle if need be. I prefer it to 24 hours for blatant disruption as it means they don't just come back the next day at the same time and try again. Canterbury Tail talk 18:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

ah okay, that makes a lot of sense. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no hard rule. Each admin uses their own judgement based on the circumstances. If it's obvious vandalism, I typically start with 60 hrs unless it's really egregious (racism, porn image vandalism etc.) in which case I typically go higher. For less obviously malicious stuff like edit warring I will start with either 31 hrs or sometimes 24. In the case of recidivists, I often drop a month or longer depending on their record. I prefer original mistakes. And of course, if it's a registered user and their behavior is screaming NOTHERE, then it's usually best to just indef them and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)