So alongside the works I do on WP, I create a lot of pages for Muslim and Foreign Resistance Fighters in France during WW2, I create them or improve them in French, and then I translate them in English. In this line of work, I did Abdelkader Mesli, Bel Hadj El Maafi, Yahi Saïd and Mehedine Ben Mohamed Azouz. I had no issue whatsoever on any of these pages, but only on Djaafar Khemdoudi, which (like the others) I created in French and then translated in English.

When there was no issue about their nationality or ethnicity, I had no problem listing them as simply Algerians, such as Yahi Saïd for example (that was created in French before all of that arose), just to dismiss any POV-Pushing from my part. I took contact with the family of Djaafar Khemdoudi to know if they had sources about him, and they told me about him and the fact that as long as they knew him, he never considered himself as an Algerian. Thus, I added in the English and French WP that he was a Frenchman from Algerian origins, since Algerians under colonial French rule were considered Indigenes, but not a Foreign nation, and when the country had it's independance, Djaafar Khemdoudi was in France and didn't request the passport or anything linked to Algeria. I was at that time trying to have the family to send to WP the documents and sources they had about him, which were certificates, letters and most importantly, his photography, which was the most important to me, because it's better to have a profile picture on Wikipedia.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Additionnaly, they sent me sources speaking about him, notably one from the Arolsen Archives^[6][7][1] and one from a chapter made by Kamel Mouellef about him, since he wrote extensively about Resistance Fighters that were forgotten due to being strangers, such as the FTP-MOI or from the French colonies (mainly Algeria and Vietnam).^[8] I also consulted them about an article from a site that I believed was a newspaper, but which appeared to be a blog (and blogs aren't allowed on Wikipedia). They told me that it had many errors, and some truths.

Then, I came back to the page and I saw that M. Bitton had started to work on the page as well, as I was still on talks with the family to have them approve the fact to give the rights to a free licence. He used the blog to say that he was Algerian and not French.

I promptly removed that by saying that I was in contact with the family and they had told me that he wasn't Algerian and never considered himself like that and that I waited for more sources to come to show that, but I couldn't if they weren't ok to give them to Wikimedia Commons for use. He reverted and went on the offensive, saying that it was defended in the blog-source and that it was sufficient to enforce it. I trusted him and didn't check the blog-source, that I added in the first place, thinking that indeed, it was usable, but told him that the family had told me that there were a lot of issues on that particular blog (not only on the citizenship but also on the medals that Djaafar Khemdoudi had, or stuff like that). I also tried to explain to him, since I was just finishing reading the book of Marc André^[9] about Djaafar Khemdoudi and Bel Hadj El Maafi, that former french resistants such as those two could have very difficult links to Algeria and the independence movement of Algeria. As you can see on the page of Bel Hadj El Maafi, which was his superior in the French Resistance, that he was against the independence of Algeria, and was attacked by a terror attack from independence fighters because he was collaborating with the French authorities against the independence of Algeria, and such, saying that he was Algerian was strange. I also said that I wouldn't work more on the page since all of that went bad. BTW, he didn't participate at all in the redaction of the article, all he did was use the blog to say that he was Algerian, the 99% of the article were made by me and took weeks of research and reading.

He didn't say anything, and some days later, as the family had given me the link to the Arolsen article, which stated that on their demand, he was considered as a Frenchman by the International Archives on Nazi Persecution, I decided to add the sentence : He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family which was sourced from the Arolsen article and was thus something of satisfactory. I also added in the conclusion of the article that his Algerian background created issues among the French Resistants, which didn't recognize him as a real resistant. I thought it was settled since M. Bitton didn't intervene for a little month on the page, and the nuanced approach was able to find a consensus (I also added the pictures and developped the articles on other points) + I made in French/English the page of Georges Durand, which was another resistance fighter in link with Djaafar Khemdoudi, to whom he sent people to save, it seems.

But then, earlier today, he came from nowhere and removed all the changes, which accounted for something like +10 sources and 6000 characters and then started defending again his POV in the talk page, to which I responded by saying that the source from Arolsen indeed said what I had put, he refused it, then agreed seemingly to it, but started speaking with profanity language, accusing me personally and engage in an Edit war. You can find all of that in the talk page here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Djaafar_Khemdoudi That's when I saw that the source he was using was from a blog, and when he was confronted with it, he didn't like it. Then I went to see his contributions and the articles he created and saw that he was somewhat of a WP:SPA. He created two pages, one on a mosque and one on the Memorial to the Liberation of Algeria. Since he didn't manage to give any reliable source, engaged in disruptive behavior, personal attacks and edit wars, I ask for a warning against him, to restore the article prior to the removal of content and to forbid him to engage in this article in the future.AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that he was flagged and already the subject of several notices here for the same kind of issues with Algeria and Algerian nationalism too. AgisdeSparte (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What does that make you? A French nationalist POV pusher (pushing their mumbo jumbo based on WP:OR on fr.wp and here too?? Anyway, at some point you will need to understand that you are not a reliable source. Once this simple fact hits home, everything will fall into place. As for your nice suggestions, there is no point in holding back when adding insults to injury: you might as well add tarring and feathering to the list to make it complete. M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all, I made pages and modifications on a lot of subjects, not just France, for example working extensively on pages speaking against French nationalism, such as pages on far right in France, or Islamophobia in France or French nationalist terrorism directed against foreigners, where I was attacked by POV-Pushers also that tried to change the facts. Accusing me of being the source won't help you neither ; since I added +10, that weren't me, as you could perfectly see and understand (at least I hope so).

  Returning the accusation and not responding to anything won't help your case. Also, responding somewhat to your disruptive behavior by trying a defence in the talk page of Djaafar Khemdoudi when you see yourself being reported isn't a nice method either, you should have done so since days, or even since the beginning. It's nice to see you answer more than 10 words now that you know you are flagged. AgisdeSparte (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  he was considered as a Frenchman by the International Archives on Nazi Persecution typical French nationalist POV pushing. Here's how Arolsen describes him.

  he came from nowhere this is hilarious.

  This is you removing my comment from the talk page and then disappearing after being warned not to repeat it (no point in pretending that you didn't do in on purpose, because I don't and will never ever believe you). M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't write that, you are lying, I wrote : He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family and used the article that the woman in charge of his file made, not a vulgarization attempt on Twitter (which isn't usable either, such as blogs, btw). She said : It is also important to his children that their father is listed as a Frenchman in the Arolsen Archives and not as an Algerian – after all, he fought in the French resistance.

  You said on the talk page that this wasn't what the article from Arolsen said, but it is, indeed. The sentence I wrote is exactly rendering what the source says.^[1]

  Yes, you came from nowhere, and never worked to anything on the page, except POV-Pushing about his citizenship and reverting anything what didn't suit you. You fail to adress all the other points of my report, btw.

  Now, about your accusations that I'm a French nationalist of any sort for transcribing litteraly the source of Arolsen's official communications (and not their twitter posts, sorry about that), I already defended myself of that in both the talk page and here, showing you that for the page of Yahi Saïd for example, that I created prior to your edit war, and even prior to Djaafar Khemdoudi in English (so prior to your intervention of any sort), he was mentioned as being an Algerian Resistance Fighter. You don't believe me if that suits you, but the facts are the facts. Also, as you can understand, maybe, writing extensively about Muslim Resistance Fighters or Colonial Resistance Fighters, as I did, isn't being a French nationalist. Also, defending the usage of Islamophobia in terrorist attacks against French Muslims or non-French Muslims on the talk page of "Far Right terrorist attacks" in the French Wikipedia (which btw I did at 50%), isn't a sign of French nationalism bias. Also, the fact to add "Islamophobia" (with sources) to political french movements that declare themselves as being leftist, while attacking immigrants, especially Algerians, isn't being pro-French nationalism neither. I was even attacked by French nationalists media outlets about this and the French Wikipedia, even if some POV-Pushers and other WP:SPA tried to have me cancel as an "islamogauchiste", decided that I was right.^[2][3]

  Here, the report is about you, nevertheless, and the fact that despite being reported multiple times for issues relating to the Algerian/Morrocan disputes or Algeria, or being a WP:SPA mainly contributing about Northern Africa, and mostly Algeria, you continue this kind of disruptive behavior, edit waring and POV-Pushing, don't try to revert the accusation, as I already said, it's not the first time you are being flagged for similar behaviour. Let the admins do their job. AgisdeSparte (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Stop misrepresenting the Arolsen source: if his kids wish for him to be classified as French, it simply means that he isn't (basic common sense). As for Arolsen, its official Twitter account describes him as Algerian (regardless of what the average nationalist thinks, wink, wink).

  The rest of your mumbo jumbo will be ignored as I wasted too much time with you. I suggest you familiarize yourself with our important policies and not the ones that you could use against those you disagree with. I'm done here (others are welcome to ping me should they wish).

  Here, the report is about you Wrong! It's about you too. Welcome to ANI! M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There's some oddities and complicated issues going on here, but I think they can be reduced if we start at the top.
  • @AgisdeSparte: what the family said in contact to you is probably irrelevant per WP:RS (see also: WP:ABOUTSELF). We follow what's published in reliable sources. Your interviews with the family are WP:OR. We will occasionally have debates here on whether OR as to source accuracy is a legitimate basis for the exclusion (rather than the inclusion) of content—my position has always been "no", though I know some well-established editors disagree. (Separately, I worry that you see yourself as a representative of the family in this situation, and that's a dangerous spot to be in. For example, you relied on one source that said: "It is also important to his children that their father is listed as a Frenchman in the Arolsen Archives and not as an Algerian". But, while I don't approve of M.Bitton's language, I do think that's probably not the most relevant fact. How his children want him to be remembered doesn't really count for much.
  • @M.Bitton: I think you were a bit aggressive in reverting each other. In general, a mass revert should probably be a last resort. It tends to escalate conflicts if you say, "I disagree with this portion of the edit, so I'm reverting the whole thing." That said, I think agree that AgisdeSparte's argument for removing the cited statements that they did was problematic.
  • I've only skimmed the talk page / sources, but am I correct in understanding that Khemdoudi was born in modern day Algeria at a time when Algeria was a French colony; he opposed Algerian independence; and some reliable sources describe him as Algerian while some do not? I'm not sure how clearly MOS:NATIONALITY or WP:MODERNPLACENAME address that situation; hopefully another editor can clear this up. While nationality at birth sometimes seems to control (Anatoly Dyatlov is described Soviet, not Russian), it seems to me that in situations involving colonies, we often disregard colonial status—Mahatma Gandhi is described as Indian; George Washington is described as American. But of course, both of those figures supported independence, while Khemdoudi opposed independence. So I checked out List of Loyalists (American Revolution), and I noticed, least based on the first four, that we usually don't include "American" in their bios (see John Agnew, Andrew Allen, and William Allen). I think that should at least suggest that we shouldn't describe Khemdoudi as Algerian and that we should, as AgisdeSparte suggests, call him Algerian-born.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerome Frank Disciple: opposing the independence that happened decades after what made him notable, even if it was a fact, still wouldn't make him French. The Harkis literally fought other Algerians, yet they are described as Algerians and not Algerian-born (because that's what they were to themselves, to the French and to everyone else). M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe to solve this issue we can say, as I did for Bel Hadj El Maafi that he was French-Algerian or Algerian-French, which one suits you best. AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources describe him as Algerian. Why the double standard? Were the Harkis French-Algerians or Algerian-French? Would we have this discussion if he was a terrorist? M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Harkis is off-topic, they lived in French Algeria, not in the Metropolis for all of their life ; also, what we could do is replace my message "He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family" with the beginning being "An Algerian at birth, he is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family"

This was a message that shows his Algerian background clearly AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or even "An Algerian, he is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family"

Which is even more telling AgisdeSparte (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the Harkis and how Algerians were viewed by the French before, during and after the world wars is very much on topic. Basically, they were never considered as French (even if they died multiple times for France).

I repeat: Stop misrepresenting the Arolsen source: if his kids wish for him to be classified as French, it simply means that he isn't (basic common sense). As for Arolsen, its official Twitter account describes him as Algerian.

Would we have this discussion if he was a terrorist? M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if his kids wish for him to be classified as French, it simply means that he isn't (basic common sense) ... that actually doesn't necessarily follow, especially in a case where the nationality is disputed or complex, as this one is. Gandhi's kids probably don't want Gandhi identified as British even though he may have technically been a British national according to British rules at the time of his birth. Also: I think it would be best if both of you stopped commenting here for a bit unless asked a question by another user. This section is already fairly long (and largely duplicative of what's already in the fairly long talk page section), and so far I'm the only outside party who's commented ... and this is only my second post.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If he was French, why would his kids wish for him to be classified as French? The Algerians were not French nationals (even the Harkis who fought other Algerians were not considered as such and were treated like human garbage when they landed in France). M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Algerians were not French nationals" So, as I understand the British system, "subjects" in British colonies were considered British nationals, but not British citizens. Per the sources I could find, at the turn of the century, Algerians were considered French subjects, though they were not given French citizenship until 1947. That said, this is all really beside the point (and it'd be SYNTH to cross reference like this). The question here isn't really "Do some sources describe him as French and some as Algerian?" The question is whether it's appropriate to describe him as Algerian unequivocally. That question can't be answered by mere reference to the fact that some sources describe him as Algerian; it has to be answered by considering sources on the whole and whether his nationality is a point of controversy. If it is, then there's probably nothing lost by merely noting that he was born in Algeria.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he was Algerian is important because that's the main reason he and others like him were "forgotten" in the first place. The source in the lead of the article and the ones cited in the discussion explain this in details (had it not been for the work that was carried out by the great-grandson of an Algerian tirailleur, they would still be unknown to the public... because they weren't French). Also, while we have two RS that describe as Algerian, we have none whatsoever that describe him as French. M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is he most known for being forgotten? It's not mentioned till the last section! But fair enough. I'm going to try to add back some of AgisdeSparte's non-controversial edits, and as for this discussion let's let others comment.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is known for being one of the Algerian heroes who have been "forgotten" despite what they did (the same goes for other Maghrebi heroes). M.Bitton (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no issue about the fact that he was Algerian, as I stated in every position since the first discussion, including every proposition and including the sentence that I putted from Arolsen, and which was designed to grant a nuanced approach on the page. It was also something I added in the last sentence, when I spoke about the ARM opposing him to have a plaque because he was from Algerian background, which I stated. However, the fact is that he is indeed considered French and not Algerian by the Arolsen archives after a request from his family, which I sourced, and which was, as M. Bitton even recognized (after denying that this source said that) a nuance of the fact that he was French, to show his palimpseste and difficult memory, as was stated in the book by Marc André quoted above which defended him and his memory on Montluc Prison.

Being "known for being forgotten" is a contradictory statement, btw, if I did this page (alongside others which didn't pose this kind of issues), it was to help to the memory and recognition of these kind of forgotten resistance fighters, who nobody cares about, because they were from foreign background, such as Maghrebis, but also Armenians, for example Sarkis Bedikian that I did too. However, as was stated by Marc André in his book on Montluc, the memory of a lot of Algerian fighters, such as Djaafar Khemdoudi, or Bel Hadj El Maafi, was that, being against the independence of Algeria, and being attacked by Algerians wanting independence, they found themselves being separated from their Algerian compatriots as well as from their French compatriots, which saw them with suspicion during the Algerian War, though there isn't any source about that kind of suspicion against Djaafar Khemdoudi (contrary to Bel Hadj El Maafi). Thus they were in somewhat a no man's land in terms of memory and allegiances. I also worked on the page of another collaborator of the French colonial power, Kaddour Benghabrit, which was Algerian/Moroccan/French and who found himself in a similar position, even going as far as his own family, since his son, that defended the independence of Algeria, was repudiated by him and removed from the office he had at the Great Mosque of Paris. Thus, doing, by Algerian nationalism or irredentism, of those figures and their allegiances monolithic ones is a mistake, since they found themselves in very difficult waters, and at least had several allegiances, if they didn't repudiate altogether their origins, thus not identifying themselves with the colonized nations but with the colonizers instead (who didn't consider them as such in some cases).

What I was requesting was the removal of M. Bitton from this page, since he didn't participate at all in it, except by creating problems and trying to change the introduction, all the work of research and synthesis was done by myself and all the Wikipedia page as well. By engaging in disruptive actions, repeted bad faith, refusal to compromise (even presented with sources), refusing to agree with consensual or nuanced positions (such as the sentence I putted from Arolsen), which indeed showed that he was considered French AT THE REQUEST OF HIS FAMILY, and thus wasn't French in an absolute sense, by doing personal attacks also, he evidently broke several of the founding principles of Wikipedia and deserves at least a warning.

To show you the kind of bad faith (even if +5 reports on him in the ANI didn't suffice, always on the subject of Algeria, btw), he removed the ANI notice from his talk page (a thing that he does consistently) and then flagged me for edit warring, 3 minutes only after I reported him here for edit warring. AgisdeSparte (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with your nonsense and read what the I and the other editor wrote! I have some very bad news for you: creating an article doesn't make it yours (learn to live with this fact or find yourself another hobby).

As for the request, here's mine: the admins ought to examine your nationalist POV pushing, the ownership issue and your edit warring over your WP:OR (see my comments and that of Jerome Frank Disciple).

he removed the ANI notice from his talk page (a thing that he does consistently) and then flagged me for edit warring, 3 minutes only after I reported him here for edit warring That's a lie. Unlike you, when I call someone a liar, I back it up with diffs: you were warned for edit warring at 15:46 and you filed a report at 18:22.

There is also the issue of the undisclosed WP:COI (given the admitted contact between the OP and the family). M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Want to shorten this up a bit? 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:AgisdeSparte - What I can see is that you don't like the editing of User:M.Bitton, and that you post at length, and that your lengthy posts do not explain what your complaint is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to help somewhat, Robert McClenon, as an editor completely uninvolved in this dispute who knows about some other parts of the topic area.

• • Until the Algerian War of Independence, Algeria was neither a colony nor a territory nor a protectorate, but a département of France, in other words, constitutionally *France* even though it is on the other side of the Mediterranean from what is called "metropolitan" France, containing the other départements.
  • Although France does not have birthright citizenship, if Djaafar Khemdoudi was born within the borders of the French department of Algérie, before its independence, I do not know what else we would call him. Certainly, Albert Camus, born in Oran, is considered French, but of course his family at some point were French settlers. (pieds-noirs) Thinking back, I cannot quite affirm that there was not some second-class citizenship for indigenous Algerians, but I believe that in that country, systemic racism produced something more like a class/caste system and I am fairly certain that there were separate justice systems. But if he had a passport it would have been French.
  • the discussion of the British patriality concept ("national" vs "citizen") is correct afaik but completely irrelevant, and only demonstrates that the British manifested their vitriolic ethnocentrism quite differently than the French did. There is a complete and total lack of any resemblance between French Napoleonic law and the British common law system. We're talking black holes versus flamingoes, Camembert versus blade servers.
  • I recently encountered AgisdeSparte at a completely different article on a completely different topic that I would prefer not to discuss here, as it would bring more heat than light to this section, which is cluttered enough. I found him very easy to talk to, academic in his work, and very civil with another editor whose edits would require me to provide diffs if I discussed them. I really wish he had talked to me about this article before coming here, as his post above really does show that he is accustomed to the sourcing practices at French Wikipedia, (from which I frequently translate). This does not mean that AdeS cannot work within our sourcing guidelines. I have seen him do so, recently. However the discussion we had at that article, beyond its specific content issues at the time, had to do with me asking for help with some long-standing issues I have had with Arabic-language sources, rather than me offering him help with en-wikipedia sourcing policies, which he did not seem at the time to need, at all.

TL;DR: I am currently on a short wikibreak from World War 2 drama and do not want to be drawn into the particulars here, but perhaps I've given some context to what the issue is: This is definitely way too much drama over whether a French Resistance fighter was in fact French. I don't see how he could *not* be French however.

• @AgisdeSparte:, the wishes of his family carry no weight here. What you need is a solid reliable source for his place of birth and preferably his citizenship, since someone has now called that into question. I am unfamiliar with the source you are talking about, but an obituary in a French daily newspaper would be fine, for example. I can help you parse the guidelines as to your source's use in the article if you wish. Under en-wikipedia guidelines, you should not have contacted the family, however.
• @M.Bitton:, I have no opinion on the notability of this fighter, but in the topic area of the French Resistance in general, if significant assertions about a Resistance fighter can be adequately sourced (in any language, not just English) then we have been treating them as notable. Even if you suspect that they are famous for being forgotten.
• Robert McClendon, despite the red flags here for RGW, older conventional wisdom on the identity of French resistance fighters truly does have some historiographical issues. I urge you not to dismiss this question out of hand despite its rocky start. Affiliation with countries that didn't exist during World War II, either yet or any more, is a lurking problem in the topic area that may need to be globally addressed and that I have seen elsewhere in the past week My hands are very full right now, so while I will clarify any of my above remarks that seem unclear, I would ask to be excused from further participation in this dispute. Hopefully I have now pulled the thread out of the weeds a bit though?
• MB and AdeS, Jerome Frank Disciple is correct in saying that the thing to do at this point is await comment from others. Elinruby (talk) 07:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elinruby - Evidently, in saying that User:AgisdeSparte used too many words and said nothing, I used too few words, because you sort of answered a question that I didn't ask. You were trying to explain to me what the content dispute is. I wasn't asking what the content dispute was. This is WP:ANI, which is a conduct forum, and AgisdeSparte went on at length complaining about the edits of User:M.Bitton without really explaining what either the content issue is or what the conduct issue is. The point I was trying to make is that AgisdeSparte was wasting pixels and wasting the time of the community and saying nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True. I was just concerned when I saw the comments of a contributor whose help I need dismissed as "gobbledegook" and "nonsense". They are not. I would not have explained all that to anyone but you, who does deal with content disputes at DRN, where this may wind up if Jerome Frank Disciple's talk page mediation attempt is unsuccessful. Thanks for all you do. Elinruby (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if I will fully be able to understand the nuances of the colony/department distinction. I was basing the "colony" remark on the Arolsen Archives page (which is cited in the article) and says, "Djaafar Khemdoudi was born on November 12, 1917, in Aumale (today Sour El-Ghozlane) in Algeria, which was a French colony at the time." (Admittedly it could be using colony colloquially). I'm moving the content discussion back to the page's talk page and will try to get a resolution there.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is why we shouldn't put people's ethnicities or nationalities in the lead sentence of their biographies. The article could start out "...was a resistance fighter during World War II", the birthplace could remain as is in the infobox, and every reader would come away from the article just as well informed about this individual, without all these indentation levels. Folly Mox (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yep Elinruby (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The sourced content was made using a open sourced blog, that I myself thought was reliable, but which wasn't, after reviewing it and contradicts the book from Marc André.

  As I stated before, it would be best to put the two nationalities, which I proposed several times with conciliatory measures every time and consensual propositions, or to put neither of them. (Thus leaving a significant part of the memory issue void of sense)

  You can find the same points that I adressed here, in the talk page and that were repeated by Robert McClendon^[1] :During the French colonial rule, Algerians were considered indigenous French subjects – but with none of the rights that came with that name. They were in fact neither Algerian nor French for 130 years. (here though we speak about someone linked with anti-Algerian independence leaders, thus opposed to the independence of Algeria from France)

  For the COI, here it was about you, and it was not undisclosed, as I stated publicly that I was waiting for the sources in order to be added, and then I added them, using only Arolsen. However, you can see from every source by French Resistants, and even Bel Hadj El Maafi, that he was considered a French compatriot in every case where it was adressed.^[2][3] This was also confirmed in private correspondence by his son, even if I didn't put it in the WP article, since it was not a reliable source, I'll give you here a screen of his text with a translation, and thus match every source from the Resistance that I putted.^[4]

  Translation : For the record and only for you to know that some Jewish leaders in Lyon were not very keen to see a cell bearing the name of a person of Algerian origin…..and I would add that my father arrived in France in 1937 (i.e. at 20) has always been French without any hesitation. Then was very different from now and so was the nature of immigration.

  Then, you must understand that my proposals of saying that he was French andAlgerian are conciliatory measures, and that sources back only the fact that he identified himself as French. The Arolsen quote I putted was also a try to find a compromise. You didn't want that, for no good reason, and such, you enforced your view, but that won't change the facts. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

preventing my comment from being swamped by a wall of mumbo jumbo The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not undisclosed, as I stated before that I was in link with the family in the talk page and in the report here (even if I took contact with them after starting to create the page, since I wanted to have sources + the picture). I already answered that the source was from a blog, that I myself put in, which was a mistake, and should be removed, I said it to you, and you insulted me in the talk page. The report was about your disruptive behavior, your POV-Pushing and your edit warring about anything that concerned Algeria, accusations that were already made against you multiple times in ANI reports over the years. The issue of the content is relevant, since it's a POV-Pushing regardless of reliable sources (such as Arolsen and official documents from the Resistance) that considered him French, which you removed as not being reliable multiple times. Thus, it's necessary to explain the issue to the readers, so they can see more clearly the problem with any of your actions.

Now, about the content you removed, it is also sourced here^{[1] (page 172)} : Many scholars, and many French people themselves, consider understandings of nationhood in France to be “assimilationist,” in contrast to more ethnically centered concepts of national belonging prevalent in other countries. As such, France is supposed to be relatively open to the political and social integration of immigrants and other outsiders, no matter what their ethnic or cultural origins, who choose to embrace French law, traditions, and culture. In this sense, France’s “ethnic system” is, technically, not based upon ethnicity at all.

Then, speaking about someone who lived in mainland France far 80% of his life, who adopted the customs and the laws of mainland France, who didn't have the Algerian nationality, who was in link with people opposed to the Algerian independence until they got shot by the FLN for that, who was designed as a "French compatriot" by every source speaking about him and who didn't live in Algeria from 1937 to his death in 2011, when he died, saying that he was Algerian only is POV-Pushing. What I made on the French WP page was that he was French with Algerian origins, and that didn't bother anyone, and didn't create any issues. You coming on the page, destroying +6000o of text and refusing to listen to any source, to any argument is the real issue, and is linked obviously with this report. Even the conciliatory measures I made were done to find a middle-ground, but even then, you refused them, without adding any new source, or nothing. You quoted the book from Kamel Mouellef to support your point, but then I showed you that nowhere in that book he was designed as being Algerian, and you still refused to listen. This shows clearly the issue of behaviour and why I asked you from being warned, since it's not the first time that you are flagged for that, that you are a WP:SPA about Algeria, and that you engage in agressive behaviour everytime that you are reported or challenged on that. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

once again, preventing my comment from being swamped by a wall of mumbo jumbo The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you don't read my message and now engage in c/c. Wait for others to answer, as was already stated above. Also, I suggest that you read the first 10 words of my previous message, since they answer that already. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that doesn't show the kind of behaviour we are facing here with M. Bitton, I don't know what will. AgisdeSparte (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your long walls of text that end up saying very little of substance come across as rants, and I garuntee that whatever you hope to achieve by coming to ANI will not happen because of that. Explain in CONCISE language (without any extraneous crap about the content dispute) what M.Bitton is doing wrong and what you want to happen. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no interest whatsoever in what the OP has to say to me or about me, so once again, preventing my comment from being swamped by a wall of mumbo jumbo The content issue apart, AgisdeSparte brought this to ANI to try to make it about behaviour, so I would love to know what the others think about their undisclosed WP:COI issue. While we have no idea in what capacity AgisdeSparte is representing the family, it is amply clear that they are peddling their POV, going as far as to replace sourced content with their WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but two editors have now said you two should probably avoid commenting here for a bit and let other editors chip in.

Also, in general, I think each of you are making accusations and taking steps that aren't proportionate to the conduct of the other. In short, I think you're both failing to assume good faith. This should have been settled by a dispute-resolution process like WP:3O. I'm going to try to go to the talk page of the page in question and see if we can't come to a compromise in terms of article content.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their initial report is a testimony of their bad assumption, so I see no reason whatsoever not to return the favour. I left a comment for others (as I'm supposed to and to avoid filing a report about them), so they should stop swamping it with their nonsense. Also, this is not about the content, it's about their undisclosed WP:COI and the fact that they resorted to changing sourced content with their WP:OR to peddle the POV of the family that they are in contact with. M.Bitton (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I would never endorse directly contacting family, I don't know that doing so presents a conflict-of-interest issue. Honestly, the mixture of a content dispute with a conduct dispute resulted in this entire thread being really overlong. Given that we've reached a compromise as to the content dispute, I would suggest all parties withdraw their complaints here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but now that I have been dragged to ANI for nothing and given the aspersions that they kept throwing around, I will insist on keeping it open until the admins had their say. The undisclosed COI issue, coupled with them insisting on peddling the family's POV (even at the expense of other wp policies), is a serious matter as far as I'm concerned. If they were new, I would overlook this, but the above wiki jargon that they want to use against me is a testimony to their knowledge of how wp works (one doesn't know WP:IDHT, POV pushing, SPA, etc. without knowing WP:COI), so there really no excuse for them not disclosing the COI (what they now claim about it is unprovable and irrelevant as we have no way of knowing what went on between the two, who contacted whom and for what purpose; but the fact that they haven't disclosed it just that, a fact). M.Bitton (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As a disclaimer, I myself have clashed before on M. Bitton's views of nationality, but I really don't think that what AgisdeSparte is asking for here is that unreasonable. Why not call someone in such a situation French-Algerian? It's surely true they could be called any of Algerian, French, or French-Algerian, and all of them are technically true from the right angle. Just use the most expansive version. I think the example of British loyalists in colonial America is a good one - especially if they move out of the newly independent USA, it seems reasonable to call them British or British-Americans or something. SnowFire (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1) You're making it look at though that's what they asked for, it's not. What they did is replace sourced content with He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives - International Center on Nazi Persecution after a request from his family, which is nothing more than a misrepresentation of a source to push a POV (the Arolsen Archives says no such thing. In fact, it describes him as Algerian). 2) We have a set of policies that have been agreed upon by the community, so we either expect everyone to respect them or we change them if they are no longer fit for purpose. What we don't do, is apply their strict version to newcomers and let the experienced editors break them at will. 3) There is also the issue of the external relationship between the OP and the family whose POV they have been peddling. M.Bitton (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The source misrepresentation hasn't stopped. AgisdeSparte has just added this sentence to the article (described as a fact in their edit summary): first of all, that's not a reliable source (some random image that could have been Photoshopped for all we know). Second, it says no such thing. M.Bitton (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You already made some similar claims about the picture of Bel Hadj El Maafi, which was quoted by Marc André, an historian, as being a true source, and then you moved to tag it as unreliable even if it was shown that it was reliable. Stop being hypercritical, primary sources can be used if they are used to report straightforward facts.^[1]

  2. It says no such thing ? "le pillage complet de son commerce"

  3. You continued your biased modifications on that page, for example you tried to remove the category before seing that you were wrong, self reverting, and tagging every primary source as unreliable, even those who were interpreted and reported by historians as being reliable.

  4. About the Arolsen source, as was stated before numerous times, without you understanding, it seems, it was to find a conciliatory mesure. Yourself admitted in the talk page that he was French but claimed that he became so after the war (without any RS), and so it shouldn't be used on his biography. Also, what you call a reliable source is a quote from an open-source blog that I myself added when I created the page, before seing that it was wrong.

  
  

  As always on this page, you only engage in disruptive behaviour, without even adding one line to the content of the page, that's why I asked that you be removed from it, at least, and to receive a warn. AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I want to state for the record that I answer only because he is accusing me, even if we were both told to let other contributors speak alone and do their appreciation. So far, when another Wikipedian took the floor to speak, be it @Jerome Frank Disciple, @Robert McClenon or @SnowFire, all supporting a consensus that more or less was agreing, because this discussion is ridiculous (and I proposed this kind of settlement numerous times - even before reporting him), he responded by attacking me and trying to conceal the forming consensus that went against his WP:SPA views behind virulent attacks.

  
  

  That's why I asked for his removal from the page, because I think it's clear we can't count on M. Bitton to engage in constructive behaviour about it. AgisdeSparte (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately ignoring the above garbage, as I have no time for people who misrepresent the sources to push a POV (see previous comment) and lie to boot (diffs already provided).

Here's the so-called "source" to which they attributed During his arrest, his business in Lyon was looted by local residents.

1. The image that AgisdeSparte uploaded to commons is obviously not a reliable source (they or the family that they claim are in contact with could have Photoshopped it).
2. There is nothing in that image (I repeat, it's not RS) that would support what AgisdeSparte added to the article (this is another clear-cut source misrepresentation).
3. The only editor who should refrain from editing the article is AgisdeSparte, for they admitted being in contact with the family whose POV they have been peddling (at the expense of our policies). While we have no idea whether what they are claiming is true, and if true, who contacted whom, for what purpose and who ended influencing whom; we know for a fact that the external relationship has been admitted to and as such, our WP:COI should apply. M.Bitton (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of this source is indeed an issue. The linked citation, which still stands as-is in the article, does not say le pillage complet de son commerce nor does it say anything remotely resembling it or its topic. It would also be a primary source and not usable in this way even if it did, but that's less grievous (but still relevant). AgisdeSparte, do you have an explanation for why you have added During his arrest, his business in Lyon was looted by local residents with a citation comprising a link to this document? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mishap with Commons, that I named similarly with only numbers. However if you look this one, which is still in the article at the same height as the text added, line 3 above the end, it does say that. AgisdeSparte (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the question of knowing if he was French or not, it should be noted that I found new sources in the archives and newspapers of the time, that I added in the French WP (without any issue so far). I was discussing with @Elinruby in my talk page to see if this could be usable.

1. He graduated from the Ecole Indigène in 1931.^[1], ^[2] The Ecole Indigène was a type of schools in French Algeria and New Caledonia used by the colonial power to promote cultural assimilation and where the most wealthiest Indigènes who supported France were allowed.^[3][4],^[5]

2. The Khemdoudis were a family from Sour el Ghozlane (named Aumale during French colonization), where they owned at least some land and 1 building.^[6]

3. One of them, called Louakal ben Laggoun Khemdoudi was a soldier in the French colonial troops, not any troops, but the Spahis, which were the troops where the most loyal (and wealthiest, since they had to pay their own horse) Indigènes where to be found.^[7]

4. A Djaffar Khendoudi, presented as a former student of the "Cours complémentaire of Aumale" (As you can see in universitary publications about the Ecole indigène, the Ecole indigène was that) (Nobody of this name exists in French or French Algerian archives or in people who gratuated from Aumale, obv, and it's pretty usual for colonial powers to wrongly spell the names/The French archives direct to this publication when you look for Djaafar Khemdoudi) published a text in 1936 in a newspaper, supporting the senator of Algeria of that time, called Jacques Duroux, who had asked for Indigènes to receive seats in the Parliament.^[8] He said : From a Muslim in Aumale, I respectfully thank Senator Duroux for the project of representing Algerian natives in Parliament. This moral gesture brings great honor to him and the French Muslim population will be immensely grateful to him. The young will keep an unforgettable memory of it, and the elderly will be filled with radiant joy that they will cherish until their last breath.^[9] AgisdeSparte (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that File:Certificat d'appartenance à la résistance de Djaafar Khemdoudi - 2.jpg is also inadmissible as a standalone source due to its WP:PRIMARY character? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, AgisdeSparte, I know I cautioned you against using primary sources on the article talk page, but I didn't at the time realize (or remember) that you had obtained and uploaded the primary sources. The problem is that primary sources—which, as a general rule, should be avoided when possible—are only usable when they have been "reputably published" by a reliable source. WP:PRIMARY. In short, that requirement exists because we have to be able to trust that the primary source is legitimate. How can Wikipedia users, who generally lack specialized knowledge, know if a document uploaded by a user is legitimate? In short: they can't. I know you're probably thinking "well of course what I uploaded is legitimate", but the rule is prophylactic: it's a broader than necessary so that it can safeguard the encyclopedia from illegitimate primary sources.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AgisdeSparte has yet to explain why they let a misrepresented source (an inadmissible one at that) stand in the article after being made aware of the fact. Dismissing the raised concerns, casting aspersions and adding walls of text seems to be their modus operandi.

Worse, they attributed He is considered as a French, and not as an Algerian fighter by the Arolsen Archives to this source (which says no such thing). In fact, the Arolsen Archives describe him as Algerian. What's their excuse for misrepresenting the Arolsen source? M.Bitton (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AgisdeSparte: I have been defending you because of the inordinate and unexplained vitriol displayed here and elsewhere by M.Bitton, and also because I have seen you do good work elsewhere. As far as I can tell this is a squabble between arrogant academics but since you brought it here the burden is on you to make your case. He should not be dismissing your well-founded concerns as nonsense, but I have to say, you are validating what he in turn says about you. Whether the man was French is not a question for this board. I personally feel that M.Bitton should at least be warned for his evident failure to assume good faith, and you need to be trouted for failure to read the reliable sources policy even when this was recommended to you in no uncertain terms. My advice to you is that you clearly acknowledge that you now understand that primary source documents should not be used in articles. My advice to M.Bitton is that he apologize for the accusation that you would falsify them. I now wash my hands of this dispute. Ugh. Elinruby (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what to say after reading this textbook bad faith assumption, other than you owe me an apology. The only diff (from 2020) that you could come up with to support your accusations, tells me that you've been holding a grudge ever since, because I reverted your WP:OR (which would also explain why you're willing to overlook all the "inordinate and unexplained vitriol" displayed first by AgisdeSparte). M.Bitton (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is an attempt to explain the incomprehensible to someone who is also himself wrong. As for some hypothetical grudge against you... You keep telling yourself that. I don't even know what you are talking about, and don't plan to investigate, because it's irrelevant. Please process that people can edit an article with no particular agenda, and have observations about behaviour with which it would be pointless to engage. Have a nice day. Elinruby (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to investigate, the textbook bad faith assumption is self-explanatory. Have a nice day! M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe sure. I explicitly suggested that you might be correct about something, but the man casting aspersions lashes out accusing the wikignome of OR ;) it won't work this time. Elinruby (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice of you (after accusing me of all kind of nonsense). Anyway, all I want to know now: are you going to apologize for your baseless accusations? M.Bitton (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reiterate my suggestion that everyone here walk away, for a few reasons: First, the main dispute that started this discussion has been resolved on the article talk page. Second, while there are remaining issues (most notably AgisdeSparte's use of primary sources that have not been reputably published), those issues were, at least initially, secondary, and they have not previously been discussed outside of the shadow of the main dispute—resolution outside of ANI should be attempted. Third, it seems extremely unlikely to me that this thread will actually yield any action, partially because it was, at least initially, so focused on that initial content dispute. That's partially because—genuine read—both of the involved parties have been, at various times, less-than civil, and, frankly, this conversation has been bludgeoned. If a problem continues, then I would endorse a new section here. But I don't think many editors are going to be willing to wade through this giant wall of text (not to mention the fairly giant wall of text on the article's talk page, which provides important context). I understand that both editors feel aggrieved or still want action taken, but, at some point, I would really encourage everyone to weigh the amount of time they are devoting to this thread and the likelihood that action is taken. At this point, the only proposal that I would support is a proposal to archive this thread.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

eh, if AgnisdeSparte's response to the primary sources issues is inadequate I would support sanctions. If this were a CTOPs topic I would have already issued a topic-ban upon seeing the initial misuse of sources and the failure to retract and correct their use of sources. That having been said, at this point there is no good reason for M. Bitton and Elinruby to keep sniping at each other, and will not result in a sanction unless one of the them decides to shoot themselves in the foot with an indefensible personal attack. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: despite multiple pings and being active on the site, AgisdeSparte has yet to even acknowledge the raised concerns, let alone reply to the admin's question. M.Bitton (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their contribution history for the past month, I'm noticing what appears to be a similar, troubling misuse of sources at Talk:Ukrainian syndrome. In a similar vein, this week they created 2023 Battle of Moscow, about the anticipated Wagner march on Moscow. Now, they tagged it for speedy deletion following the abrupt conclusion of the Wagner mutiny (and in the interest of full disclosure, I carried out the speedy deletion on WP:G7 grounds), but the creation of the article in the first place suggests a disconnect with how Wikipedia uses sources. As such, I'm undecided on what sanction would be appropriate to suggest: if AgisdeSparte continues to fail to communicate a proper understanding of WP:PRIMARY, this starts to look like grounds for a block, as the misuse of sources is not limited to a single topic, but rather seems to be a repeated pattern across controversial topics. I'm tempted to suggest closing this with a strong warning that further misuse of primary sources will result in a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issues on the page of the Battle of Moscow is different, since there were secondary sources (including by Reuters) that Wagnerites had reached the outskirts of Moscow and were fighting regular russian forces there. However, when they reached an agreement between themselves, I was the FIRST to ask for the speedy deletion of the page, since it wasn't relevant anymore. For the Ukrainian syndrome, before creating the page in French and then translating it in English, I looked at the creation of the page of the Gulf War Syndrome, and it was somewhat similar, because as I stated, sources are still being brought as we speak, moreover since the start of 2023. However, I didn't intervene there in the discussion page, because I was mostly letting the other users speak about it, after having stated my points in the talk page. However, we are speaking of 7% of the pages I created in the English WP that are subject to discussions (one being myself who asked for the deletion) and 0,8% of my total creation of pages on any WP project that are subject to this kind of talks. (1,2% if we include Djaafar Khemdoudi)

Asking for a block at this point is somewhat irrelevant, I feel like.

I want to say also that 99,8 of my edits are live in the English WP and 98,3% of my edits are live in the French WP. AgisdeSparte (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yae4 is currently involved in a conflict with me and a few other editors over Libreboot. Instead of accepting their opinions do not hold consensus, they are now increasingly resorting to disrupting the normal editing process by:

• Repeatedly tagging an opponent as a WP:SPA: Special:Diff/1160298043, Special:Diff/1160302499, Special:Diff/1160303915, Special:Diff/1160387206
• Opening a frivolous sockpuppet investigation against everyone who disagreed with them on Talk:Libreboot: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Libreleah
• Collapsing active talk page discussions where consensus is heading against them: Special:Diff/1160565668
• Reopening a recent AfD in connection with the content dispute: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libreboot (2nd nomination)
• Making a plainly unfounded accusation of edit warring following a WP:BOLD edit they didn't like: Special:Diff/1160724278, Special:Diff/1160724386

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should start declaring Libreboot a contentious topic by now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yae4, to start with an easy decision: Your "3RR" (edit warring) accusation in [1] is absurd; the cited part of the policy against edit warring is meant to prevent exactly your type of argumentation. Making multiple edits, no matter how much text they delete, consecutively, is one single revert that could have been done in one single edit without changing the result. Maddy from Celeste has never edited the article before, so they can at maximum be at "1 revert" objectively and without this being subject to discussion. As a first step, I'd like you to acknowledge that your accusation was incorrect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, look at this page too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open-source_firmware

This is more evidence of Yae4's non-neutral editing. He repeatedly insisted that libreboot.at be present on the Open-source firmware page, and other editors disagreed, saying that there should just be 1 link to the main libreboot article. This, also despite the fact that there was no grounds under wikipedia sourcing rules for doing so (the article is not specifically about Libreboot, instead it is an aggregate of links to other Wikipedia articles pertaining to the subject of the article in question).

PhotographyEdits recently changed it back to only linking the Libreboot article, but the difference now is that Yae4 is under investigation and thus under more scrutiny. Yae4 responded by subjecting that article to AfD, without proper justification (EDIT: initially wrote "with", meant to write "without"). Accordingly, almost every editor on that page has voted Keep in the AfD.

Correlation does not equal causation, but other people in *this* ANI page have noted the same pattern, whereby Yae4 responds on a personalised and even vindictive basis when he doesn't get what he wants. (while using specious arguments and tactics seemingly to drive away "competing" editors).

I was advised by ToBeFree not to submit to this ANI unless I have something useful to contribute to the discussion. Indeed, I believe the above contribution may shed some light on the matter. Libreleah (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that same Open-source firmware page was created by PhotographEdits, who Yae4 has frequently warred with on the Libreboot article. Again, correlation not causation, but look at the pattern. Yae4 seemingly has "enemies" and uses such crude methods against them. The speed at which Yae4 operates, and the general tactics used, seem to suggest an intent to intimidate other editors, though in a way that would not be so obvious to admins without sufficient context given, as has been provided by the contributors to this ANI. Libreleah (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Username Yae4 engaging in persistent disruptive editing of the Libreboot article –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had that in mind when I wrote "contentious topic", but I didn't link it because the wall of text there mostly distracts from the concise, clear list provided by Maddy from Celeste above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after that, this looks like forum shopping.

I was preparing some suggestions for Talk:Amateur radio. That literally has been disrupted by this.

Words above like "conflict" and "opponent" succinctly illustrate the complainer's attitude and behavior.

@ToBeFree: WP:3RR is to discourage a lot of quick or frequent back/forth changes, and encourage editors to resolve differences and reach "consensus" before making major or controversial changes to an article. Over about two weeks, from 24 May 2023 (6,530 bytes) to 8 June 2023 (14,339 bytes), I spent a lot of time methodically expanding summaries of citations, most of which had been cited in the article previously, but deleted, as PhotographyEdits maintained the article as a stub billboard WP:SPAMPAGE, i.e. "Advertisements masquerading as articles", as it was for years. In one quick swoop, the complainer, appearing as a proxy for Libreleah, undid most (~50%) of those numerous expansions and rewrote the article to a preferred, biased version. That sure feels like a bunch of undoing another editor's many changes quickly. If you want to say technically that was only one revert, OK fine. My revert of all those changes was only one too (I was concerned about that), but the warning was sincere. If you'd also observed how many times the complainer has quickly undone other trivial things like collapses of ridiculously long walls of Talk text, and accurate SPA tags, you should understand why a warning seemed appropriate. It was a warning and revert, not ANEW. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why the sudden rush to this article, after a few previous RfCs and failed attempts to stimulate methodical discussions? This is a pattern in some barely or not-really-notable articles. A small business owner, in this case Libreleah, fears their income will be reduced, or their reputation diminished, or something, and gets associates to rush to "their" article. What happens next is the WP:MEAT puppets who have gathered to support Libreleah and Libreleah's biased WP:SPAMPAGE, will each say they support the complainer's changes, or take turns reverting.

My edits at Libreboot: Nemo_bis said

"recent edits by Yae4] are prima facie an improvement in terms of sourcing. Given there are some ongoing developments, it makes sense to have sections focused on the past tense, as we don't necessarily have good sources for the events of the past few months. When more and better sources appear, we'll hopefully be able to describe Libreboot's connection to GNU/FSF, mention any relevant forks etc. We don't need to decide that now..."

That gives me a little too much credit, because I retrieved and summarized deleted sources from previous article history.

SPI of "everyone who disagreed": False. User DFlhb, who said "Wait, Maddy, you're not an admin yet?", was not on the list, but probably should be for WP:MEAT. User:Cruzdoze, another SPA that participated in an RFC at Talk:Libreboot and disagreed with me was not on the list. It does look a lot like User Libreleah, however. SPA Edidds (mild disagreement at AfD) is not on the list.

SPI and WP:MEAT: If there is a better place to take WP:MEAT issues than SPI, let me know. On 24 May 2023, I did a talk page RfC; there was minimal involvement (included SPA Cruzdoze). On 26 May 2023, PhotographyEdits did a talk page RfC; There were a couple new commenters. On 28 May 2023, I started a Talk page "AfD or Merge" discussion. Minimal involvement other than (significantly) Nemo_bis, and a self-declared connected user Arzg, and an IP that writes similar to User Libreleah. Libreleah user page self-describes as a "passionate nut". 92.40.218.255 said "I think Leah's nuts...", sound similar? 9 June, the article gets attacked by a couple SPA or Socks, and IPs get blocked... 15 June Libreleah account re-activates. The complainer becomes involved by reverting a SPA tag: "this does not appear conductive to a constructive discussion". Same day User Rlink2 becomes involved. Next day User DFlhb becomes involved (after discouraging a related RfC at RSN on 13 June). Random coincidence? Doubtful.

SPA tags were accurate, and the complainer reverted all or nearly all, falsely claiming Pointy or other excuses. The WP:SPA tag informs readers like admins of the facts of the account's activity up to that time - few or no edits outside the topic. User Libreleah account's first edit in 5 years, or ~8th edit since account creation, was a 22 000 byte treatise criticizing me and my expansion and changes of Libreboot. At my last look, User Libreleah had 33 edits at Talk:Libreboot, more than anywhere else, three times as many as the 11 edits at the #2 article.[2]

Apologies for length. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yae4, I'm currently not worried about "the complainer's attitude and behavior"; please don't use it as a tu-quoque-style argument.

You spent over 200 words on something that boils down to "okay, technically, fine". Not technically, though: People are encouraged to be bold; they don't need an edit warring warning and far-fetched references to the three-revert rule when being bold. It is also inappropriate to personalize the dispute with accusations of meatpuppetry-like behavior ("proxy for Libreleah", "WP:MEAT puppets") at minimum when referring to Maddy from Celeste's type of edits. You're casting aspersions in a discussion about your behavior.

Where did you take "small business owner" and "income" from? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to "explicitly refute the central point" of who began disruption, at Talk:Libreboot: The complainer here, and user Libreleah are primarily responsible for disruption and aggression at Talk:Libreboot.

Complainer first edit at Talk:Libreboot: reverted a valid SPA tag with comment "this does not appear conductive to a constructive discussion". User Libreleah had few edits outside Talk:Libreboot at that time.

Complainer 2nd and 3rd edits were aggressive and inaccurate regarding my efforts at the article and its talk, saying "Alright, @Yae4 and Libreleah: cut this bullshit." and "And Yae4, disrupting this discussion isn't going to help. Both of you need to stop casting aspersions at each other. Attacking each other like this is not going to help you. Wikipedia articles are built using consensus, not by whoever can throw the most shit at the others." With this introduction, who wants to read the rest of the "advice"?

Complainer Next edit at AN: "I'll translate: There are two versions of the libreboot software project, and three editors are at each other's throats fighting over which one gets to be the legitimate one. I've told them to stop it and given some advice on the content dispute..." Mis-characterization, vague, insulting, demanding; see next.

There were seven, recent, open or unanswered discussions at the time Libreleah posted a 22 000 byte, out of place, disruptive "Persistent vandalism, or otherwise disruptive, non-neutral editing with clear conflict of interest for those involved": "AfD or Merge?", (scroll down from there) "LWN.net", "Libreboot.AT, again", "Name of the project", "Discussion of FossForce.com as a source", "ItsFoss, TuxMachines, and FSF and GNU as sources", and "Official Links". While there was disagreement, it was nothing like what followed. IMO, a non-disruptive editor would give opinions on open, un-resolved discussions, not be demanding and try to take over and control (disorganized, rambling) discussions, starting with their own aspersions casting (see above).

@ToBeFree:

I thought I saw a warning along the lines of: when someone brings a complaint like this, they should expect their own behavior to be scrutinized.

> Where did you take "small business owner" and "income" from?

Account Libreleah is the first connected user listed at Talk:Libreboot (pre-dating my involvement). The "declared" link goes to where user Libreleah said "Hi. I'm Leah Rowe of the libreboot project. Wikipedia article "libreboot""... "I need you to unlock the libreboot article, and/or allow me (user account libreleah) to edit the libreboot article, so that I can change the author name back to Leah Rowe." More recently, at Talk:Libreboot user Rlink2 asked for proof "that you are Leah Rowe", and user Libreleah responded "Yes, I certainly can prove it..." followed by a claim of proof. Based on bits and pieces in cited, previously cited, or potential sources, Rowe operated a series of non-notable small companies, websites and brands selling computer hardware with Rowe's versions of Libreboot included, and argues aggressively to maintain a link from the article to Rowe's version of Libreboot, which links to Rowe's company for sales. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so Libreleah seems to have a financial conflict of interest. I don't think that has been properly disclosed yet; the connection from non-financial to financial seems to be unacknowledged at least on their user page so far. This can be remedied. And while this is no direct payment for editing, WP:COITALK does pretty much apply: "No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them."

It's also clear that describing others' actions as "bullshit" is inappropriate.

Both said, my primary concern in this discussion here is still your behavior, Yae4, and your accusations towards others distract from a few issues you haven't properly addressed yet. For example, you have described DFlhb and Maddy from Celeste in ways that imply or even directly accuse them of meatpuppetry. These two are experienced users with thousands of contributions. Describing them as meatpuppets just because they agree with each other on an issue is inappropriate; you accuse them of misbehavior without proper evidence of misbehavior. Your proven-wrong accusation of edit warring (or a 3RR violation even) towards Maddy from Celeste brought us here in the first place.

Yae4, I think the issue can be summarized as "unnecessary personalization of content disputes", and it has been demonstrated in this discussion here by your own messages already. I agree that you should be blocked to prevent this from continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As outlined with dates above, and seen in Talk:Libreboot history, near simultaneous arrival of a group of supporters of user Libreleah, shortly after the 22 000 treatise, is unlikely to be random coincidence. User DFlhb explicitly discouraged RfC at WP:RSN, and this subsequent exchange at DFlhb user Talk looks like recruiting or canvassing for support by PhotographyEdits. Looks like it worked. I can only show the pattern; I can't make you see it. With all due respect, it's obvious what's happening here. -- Yae4 (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When told to stop making baseless aspersions, it's a good idea to stop, not double down. DFlhb (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My initial post on Talk:Libreboot represents my first reaction at the whole situation there. With hindsight, I do agree a more civil choice of words couldn't have hurt. As for Libreleah, I considered bringing her editing up here, but it seems to be explained by her being not yet being familiar with how we raise concerns over content here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree

so Libreleah seems to have a financial conflict of interest. She isn't paid to edit Wikipedia. She owns an open source project, which would mean WP:COI applies and not the paid version. Rlink2 (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rlink2, a financial conflict of interest does not necessarily imply compensation for editing itself. You have a financial conflict of interest, for example, if you completely voluntarily and anonymously, without any hope of ever getting rewarded for this, clean up your employer's Wikipedia article from what you perceive as libel. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, hi: I said I wouldn't engage here, but I only came to say this one thing: yes, I declared my conflict of interest for libreboot.org and thought that was enough; it did not occur to me to also mention financial interests. I assure you this is not an intentional "deception" on my part, and I've now written about it in full on my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Libreleah

That said, I'm not the only person who has complained about Yae4's behaviour. Many other people editing the Libreboot article, and indeed other articles in the past, have complained in the exact same ways.

One thing people need to know about me is that I do actually try to be neutral about my own work. Most businesses have a sort of monopoly-like pride about their business, but my business model literally is giving away source code and knowledge for free to the public; I've actually helped my commercial competitors many times, for example, helping them fix bugs, because besides getting paid I also care about the quality of the software I release. When I first started Libreboot I didn't even have a viable company at the time; people noticed what I was doing and it just sort of accidentally happened from there.

I digress. None of this is relevant to Wikipedia policy. I apologise for the lack of foresight on my part. I hope the changes I've made to my user page are enough and if you have any feedback on it, I'll happily take it. Libreleah (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People sometimes think I'm naive because of that, but it's never steered me wrong. Some of my commercial competitors are even listed as contributors to Libreboot, on the Libreboot website. I support freedom, that's why I do free software. If I didn't have Libreboot I'd just do something else. Libreleah (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, there is one more fact that I feel is important to mention: the editors on the Libreboot article (and the talk page) are all intimately familiar with who I am, and about my company; both are, or have been, written about prominently on the Libreboot article.

This is also evident in what they've written about, both on the article and the talk page, indicating that they knew my connection. So I don't think the discussion may have been skewed or perverted in any way. The updated entry on my own user page just removes any such possibility in the future.

Once again, I apologise for this oversight on my part. That's why I never mentioned it so explicitly before, because I knew that everyone there knows who I am. (I *did* mention my connection specifically to libreboot.org, in the talk page, from the very moment I first posted there recently) Libreleah (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Libreleah is working in good faith here. One of the issue heres that Yae4 will take words and policies out of context to support his viewpoint. Rlink2 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libreleah, thank you very much. The additional disclosure now made in [3] looks very well done to me; it clearly describes that there is a financial conflict of interest, and even explains where it comes from. This resolves my concern. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry again. Although I did register my account in 2016, I only used it briefly back then. I'm still learning the ropes. If you spot anything else that I need to sort out, please don't hesitate to let know. Thanks! Libreleah (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad this could get resolved the right way. Sometimes we need to take a step back and realize what a waste of time arguments like this can be. Life is short and precious, and people spend way too much time putting energy into what are essentially power trips on here. Sometimes we just need to put our egos aside and let go. If someone takes the time to add genuine information to a page, removing it is disrespectful. Talk about errors or inaccuracies, but this hill wasnt worth climbing. Hopefully we can just use this as a learning lesson for the future. XD3vlLx (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone who thought that making software free would make everyone nice and friendly and cuddly will be seriously disillusioned by this discussion. Can't you people (and that is directed at everyone involved) just thrash things out on the talk page like we do for articles where there is real disagreement, such as those on Middle Eastern politics? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't about disagreeing but about "disruptive editing" by User:Yae4. Having undergone a similar experience with said user/editor on the Elive page. Clearly this editor's modus operandi is one-sided edits, repeated deletions/undos and threats of blocking when meeting any resistance. Accompanying disdainful and condescending comments clearly aren't very helpful if it were about setting errors straight. On the contrary, this kind of behavior will scare almost every aspiring editor/submitter away from Wikipedia which I presume isn't what WP is about in the first place. Triantares (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Replying to myself as I noticed I wasn't as explicit as others posters here about the unsavory behaviour @Yae4 has.

  In short the Elive page has been edited, undone and revised so often by said editor that there are only 2 sentences left of the original text. Every positive review has been consistently removed or in one case, cherry picked to show only, out of context notes of criticism or replaced by quotes from critical reviews that are either extremely outdated or almost impossible to find in any other way than the direct link provided there. Any edits of mine to try and restore some sort of balance there were immediately undone and accompanied by threats. Just going through the history there is cringe-worthy in itself.

  In relation to "condescending and disdainful" I preferred asking @Yae4 on his talk page to stop these actions (opposed to starting an ANI) and quoted some of his previous remarks in that sense. The bland denial as answer to the plea (and the quotes) says it all. Triantares (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block for neon-bright WP:CIR and incivility, which is persistent and worsening.

• These aspersions and sockpuppet/COI accusations against opponents aren't new. Warned by El_C in Jan 2020 (then did it again) and by Mr. Stradivarius in Sept 2020. It continued: diff diff diff diff diff diff diff.
• Also not the first frivolous SPI against opponents: 2020 (result: "Unrelated"), 2022 ("Ostensibly unrelated").
• Edit wars at Libreboot to add an FSF press release, diff diff diff. Blocked for edit warring to add primary-sourced WP:OR about GrapheneOS licensing, diff diff diff diff, blocked, then resumes days after the block expires, diff diff. Edit wars to misuse a secondary source: diff diff diff diff diff diff diff (later consensus to remove). Edit wars to add primary-sourced info about Libreboot.at: diff diff diff diff diff. Edit wars to add coatrack, diff diff diff diff (against 3rd opinion, diff).
• WP:CIR, aptly-described back in April 2020 (which led to a climate change TBAN, but only shifted the disruption to FOSS articles).
  • After Yae4's failed edit war to add 'negative' WP:OR to GrapheneOS, they decided to add comically POINTy in-text attribution (diff diff), remove various secondary sources because they parrot Twitter (diff diff diff diff diff), misuse sources (section), add negative BLP info sourced to junk sources (diff), and act phenomenally pointy about citing the official site (diff).
  • For products Yae4 likes, we see the opposite: user-generated content is reliable, and a forum has editorial oversight (section), dozens of primary sources are not actually primary (diff diff), an FSF press release email is due (RSN discussion), reddit, "alternativeto.net" and user forums are fine and dandy (diff diff), and unlike at GrapheneOS or Libreboot, the official site is fine (diff diff).
  • This diff is representative of the overall quality of Yae4's edits. Yae4 misunderstands sourcing, as others noticed time and again. Doesn't understand COI (as Mr. Stradivarus said), or MEAT (which they accuse me of for being nice to Maddy), or 3RR, or NPA. The bludgeoning walls of text you're seeing above should surprise no one, since El_C already noted it in August 2022 (WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT [...] I found them to have been exhausting to deal with). Yae4 drove away two editors just this past week, diff diff.

DFlhb (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only checked the last statement. It is questionable at best.

> Yae4 drove away two editors just this past week, diff diff.

This is un-justified hypothesis. User Arzg was irritated because "the edit warring and namecalling and someone pinged me on my talk page?! are testing my patience." (not me) and was irritated by 92.40.218.255's preceding insults and diatribe (similar to user Libreleah, IMO). Also said, "I have a COI, having been involved with the project briefly in 2017". Maproom could equally well have been satisfied with the discussion and not particularly interested. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DFlhb: Yes, it is a struggle to follow Wiki-rules. They are convoluted, or "nuanced". The presentation of diffs above is misleading and biased, but that won't matter, because you can get away with anything, if no one looks too deep, and they usually don't.

> only shifted the disruption to FOSS articles

No. My first edits in August 2019, at /e/_(operating_system) - another contentious "FOSS article" because of similar issues as here - led me to write on my user page

Tries to be neutral, but dislikes advertising and popularity contests driving Wikipedia. Will support deleting advertising, and adding criticism. The truth shall make you free.

> sockpuppet/COI accusations against opponents [your word, not mine] aren't new.

Partly true, but you conspicuously did not list the first one in 2019 when two sockpuppets were blocked. It's at the top of my Hall of Fame list; how could you miss it? Yes, meat and sock puppetry, and biased editing, and flocking together to a friend's or hero's article, is common in barely or not-really-notable articles, like this one, and that causes disruption. I accept responsibility for getting involved. I've primarily focused on article content, asked for outside help with RfCs, and only secondarily, asked for help dealing with the group with common cause(s) at the article, who targeted me here. "Patience is a virtue" you said. Between the lines, unstated, we'll get that editor. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost a year ago (June 2022), I blocked Yae4 for 3RR on a different open source software article, GrapheneOS. I remember it having been especially challenging to deal with them at the time and not for the first time (AN3 archive). I just looked up their complaint against me in that AN3 report, which seems centred on my warning to them against noticeboard and user talk tag misuse two years earlier (User talk:Yae4#Harassment template on JzG's talk page). As I said back then (Jan 2020): these are more than just procedural mistakes — they are mistakes that are rooted in an overly-aggressive approach to dispute resolution. It's disappointing to see that not much has changed, with WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLUDGEON remaining a problem. El_C 21:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry to see bad feelings persist. Since you mentioned GrapheneOS, would you have an opinion on whether Louis Rossmann's video [4] that prompted Daniel Micay to "step down" should be excepted from WP:RSPYT and allowed under WP:YouTube to be summarized? -- Yae4 (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have "bad feelings," I have an articulated critique. Nor do I have an opinion on the content (though I do like Rossmann). But I do have an opinion about you deflecting from what is actually being discussed—your repeated misconduct as raised by multiple persons. And that opinion, I'm sorry to say, is not great. El_C 10:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to be here, partly because of still mis-understanding 3RR; the previous block was a simple, careless mistake of mine, and I accept responsibility. Climate change is a whole other story; I learned that lesson and have avoided the topic after being un-banned. People who flocked together to support their friend's or hero's version of an article, and here, is a different thing, but thanks for your articulated critique. Not to deflect again, but I'd appreciate an answer to this question on 3RR. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(sent in [5]) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed the above text that I wrote, text that is now adapted for WP:COIN report against Yae4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Suspected_COI_by_User%3AYae4_on_Article%3ALibreboot Libreleah (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment by Yae4 (hopefully) Mostly @DFlhb: It's not about "products Yae4 likes" or not. I don't like, dislike or use Invidious software, but I am constructively participating in its AfD, where I also appropriately tagged another SPA without any knee-jerk objections, or summary rejection of my suggestion on WP:IAR. I usually enjoy finding sources and expanding articles that were barely or not-really-wiki-notable when I first saw them; lists are at my user page. I am proud of legitimately helping save several articles from deletion. I respect and follow constructive, impartial suggestions like AtD or sourcing or whatever. I respect consensus process, when legitimate. I do not respect, and will object and ask for help against illegitimate consensus (of friends or hero's), as at Talk:Libreboot. I don't care or take it personally that DFlhb took CalyxOS to AfD then withdrew it. I'm not going to collect a misleading dossier with other mistakes DFlhb may have made. I would ask ToBeFree if consideration was given to whether all that by DFlhb is also "unnecessary personalization of content disputes" or too much attention to another editor's activities? I don't know where the wiki-line is between building a case and stalking, but it feels like DFlhb has some kind of grudge against me. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm primarily surprised by the amount of words used to sugar-coat "DFlhb seems to be stalking me". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Throw enough shit at the wall, see what sticks? DFlhb (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Library suggestion. It didn't work for me. I don't remember why. Probably my error. I understand some people like getting thanked, so I hit the Thank button now and then. I do not care about being thanked. I care about article content. Thank you for when when we've interacted productively.

A central point, again: 14 June: PhotographyEdits says "Thanks for your comment on WP:RSN. I was getting a bit annoyed by everthing." DFlhb says "Patience is always a virtue. I'm also not familiar with that particular dispute." and then becomes involved. Looks like recruiting to Libreboot.

> I didn't know there was any beef.

> I could tell you didn't like me, and I stayed out of your way.

> Despite seeing Libreboot on May 31, I stayed away.

A 2nd central point: ^This is "unnecessary personalization of content disputes".^

I do not like, dislike or feel anything about DFlhb. We've agreed. We've disagreed. You've misled in your presentations above, but I understand you're making a case, and are not being neutral or objective. I'm sorry you felt personally offended when I said your earlier positions looked biased to me; nothing personal was intended then. Nothing personal is intended now. It looks like you and a few other Libreleah supporters converged on Talk:Libreboot, to support cutting the article in half to a billboard again, while ignoring WP:RS, "WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP issues" in the process. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yae4, may I try to reassure you re "Libreleah supporters", meatpuppets, socks and whatever? WP:RSN is one of our highest-profile boards, and by opening an RFC there (which unlike merely raising a query there, caused a bot to alert opted-in editors) and by notifying about 14 article talk pages and 2 projects about that, you inevitably attracted attention not only to that discussion but also to the article you identified as at issue. It is common, even desirable, that in such situations editors will look at the article disputes and consider whether they can help resolve any of them, possibly engaging there on other aspects rather than at RSN on your particular question. They may turn out to agree with you or someone else in some ways; this does not mean that they arrive as supporters or puppets, or that anyone but yourself is responsible for drawing them to it at that time. WP:AN is even higher-profile and editors reading it will often look at the article(s) concerned and even do more to resolve matters there than they could at WP:AN. The timing of their arrival doesn't indicate that they are doing so in bad faith; please don't worry about that and indeed, please don't keep making such accusations. NebY (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, but it's not just timing. What would you think when 3 newly involved, relatively experienced editors all support, in essence: ignore reliability of sources, defend a financially connected editor who has few or no edits outside this topic, let them be heavily involved in discussing what the article should say, and include (biased) BLP info citing one of the most questionable sources. Then, let's go see if we can crucify that one editor who won't go along with all this? -- Yae4 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I agreed with those characterisations, which I would fear to be the product of seeing editors as a malicious gang and thus of circular reasoning, I would not deduce a conspiracy from them. The guidance in WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:DROPTHESTICK can save us from ourselves (and if we have enemies, from them too). NebY (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NebY: Good advice. I remind myself of AGF and not-a-battlefield fairly often. I should remember DropTheStick more. Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curious that repeated personal attacks over mere disagreements are "nothing personal", yet leaving you alone to avoid these personal attacks is "unnecessary personalization". DFlhb (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break

One more thing I don't know if DFlhb used: 12-13 June: At Helpdesk I sought uninvolved advice on resolving differences. It's long, but about article issues, not editor(s). Feedback included "your discussion is already in the correct place, the Talk Page" and "I tend to go for the Project route unless there is some real drama and lack of WP:AGF evident in the discussion, which doesn't seem to be the case here." I went about posting neutral RfC notices... Crux: Libreleah started some real drama. This caused the disruption. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did no such thing. I simply raised objection to the disruptive nature of your editing, whereby you demonstrate a clear pattern of disregard for other editors; I regard you as a bully. Such has been corroborated by numerous other people here, and elsewhere, over many years. Detailed analysis of your history reveals a clear tendency on your part to harass and intimidate other Wikipedians, to reduce any challenge to yourself; this too has been articulated by other editors on Wikipedia.

No, what you call "drama" is simply accountability. You are being held accountable for your misdeeds. If I didn't challenge you, someone else would have done so at a later date. It's simply that you stepped on too many people's toes, over the years, and it's finally catching up with you. Sooner or later, the chickens always come home to roost.

I think you deserve to be banned from Wikipedia, but I'll leave that up to the admins. Libreleah (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to admins to ban, in the sense that WP:BAN ≠ WP:BLOCK. A topic ban (WP:TBAN) is a restriction from a specific topic area, but the user remains unblocked. Since this topic area is not formally a contentious one (WP:CTOP), a single admin does not have the authority to impose a TBAN singlehandedly. It requires a separate proposal, like in a subsection of this thread, usually open for a minimum of 24 hours until a WP:CLOSE by an admin on whether there is WP:CONSENSUS or lack thereof among participants. And it likewise can only be rescinded by an WP:UNBAN appeal to the community. A community ban (WP:CBAN) is decided and appealed similarly (though open for 72 hours instead of 24), but by contrast, it is a site ban, that includes an indefinite block from the entire website. This is contra a regular indef block that any admin may apply, but also any admin might in turn undo following an WP:UNBLOCK request. There is also an article ban (WP:ABAN), but it is used seldom since the advent of the partial block (WP:PBLOCK), since the latter allows up to ten pages to be technically restricted (unlike ABAN and TBAN which are adhered to on faith), and which any admin may impose as a regular block (block-lite, even). But, either way, I don't think either ABAN or PBLOCK would be that useful here, so as an aside.

So that is as far as the range of sanctions that might be pertinent here. But the problem is two fold: first, the material seems rather technical, certainly for me. And secondly, it is always easier to sanction more egregious misconduct that happens once or thrice than that which merely skirts the line, but does so repeatedly, for years. As well, those problematic users of the incremental variety usually trend towards the long-winded, which is an immense barrier for review (the inability to condense, to be concise), though, you haven't been particularly concise, either, to be fair, Libreleah. Of course, the extra length may also be a product of the incremental featuring many more components than the singular. I am also aware of the irony seeing as this very post isn't that brief.

That isn't to say that Yae4's WP:TENDENTIOUS editing isn't also terse at times either, though. But by an immense barrier for review, I mean that many (most?) reviewers on this noticeboard, myself very often among them, when encountering a lengthy, WP:TEXTWALL thread that isn't clear and succinct, are likely to just <skip>. Which isn't unique to Wikipedia necessarily, but to be clear, there is no requirement for a thread on this board to come to some conclusion; there isn't even a requirement for nominal engagement. So threads here often fizzle out for a variety of reasons (some of which I alluded to, some I didn't, some are even random). Anyway, regardless, hope I was able to educate you on the reality of the situation. Because who knows how this thread will be concluded, if at all, so it's perhaps best to temper expectations with these procedures and processes in mind. El_C 04:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it's hard to go through. The bulk of the case is in Maddy's opening post and my first reply, which shows a history of incessant aspersions and failing to understand policies to the point of CIR. DFlhb (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DFlhb, by all means then, feel free to propose any sanction or sanctions you deem suitable. El_C 17:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy wowzers, what a gigantic section. My personal experience with user is at a couple of recent AfDs, for libreboot and open-source firmware. In both of these discussions there appears to be some great personal investment by Yae4, who is making many long comments that do not seem to make sense (referencing a consensus at WP:RSN was claiked to be WP:WAX for example). I don't have any opinion on whether or not this person should be blocked or banned. However, unjustified or vexatious AfD filings are a serious issue that wastes time, destroys content and stresses everybody out. I would like for them to not do this any more. jp×g 18:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yae is being disruptive, bit its troubling that Libreleah, who is the very definition of a COI editor is being given so much leeway here. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Libreleah has declared their conflict of interest and has never edited the article directly. If anybody has suggested that they violated our COI guideline, I've missed it in the enormous walls of text above. Do you have any evidence of Libreleah doing anything troubling? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like Yae4 has seemingly quit Wikipedia, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yae4&diff=prev&oldid=1161304913 . No telling if its a temporary or permanent retirement. Rlink2 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to fill this page with a load of text, but everything related to the incident can be found of the talk page page of the article can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Professional_wrestling#This_whole_article_has_become_ridiculous RedWater14 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RedWater14, administrators don't judge content disputes. Try the options at dispute resolution. Schazjmd (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling? Ridiculous? No, really?! --JBL (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RedWater14: You did not notify Kurzon, the editor you are ostensibly reporting, to this discussion, as it says you must do at the top of this page. I have done that for you.

I have to go into work and then I have a date tonight. If I'm sober enough tonight or have enough time in the morning tomorrow, I can look over their editing as an uninvolved editor with enough knowledge of professional wrestling to hopefully grasp an idea of what's going on. I see @Czello and LM2000: are also potential parties here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a neat glimpse into your life. Let us know if you get lucky tonight — Czello ^(music) 19:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm lucky every day, though! :] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Thank you though. I believe the editor is clearly abusing several Wikipedia guidelines and no one has called him out on it for months. Good luck hahaha. RedWater14 (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RedWater14 is out of line to call my work vandalism. His entire argument is that I draw too much attention to the fakeness of wrestling, as if that denigrates it. Maybe I committed some minor excesses in the course of my work, but he can comment on those in the Talk Page without wholesale reverts.Kurzon (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As both editors are well beyond 3RR at this point I recommend Kurzon doesn't revert the latest edit and instead RedWater14 self-reverts. I think that's the only thing that'd stop blocks being applied. — Czello ^(music) 19:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see my suggestion didn't do much good — Czello ^(music) 19:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I won't be making anymore edits until Wiki admins reach a consensus. I hope they can see for themselves how, for a lack of a better word, foolish Kurzon's edits are. RedWater14 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, both partially blocked for two weeks. Kurzon is experienced enough to should have known better, but even a red warning didn't stop them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(for the record, I'm here from a WP:RFPP request, permanent link.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting little tidbit; smells like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to go to both RFPP and here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think malice was involved, and starting a conduct discussion at ANI after noticing that RFPP might not be the best noticeboard for this isn't bad either. It's okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RedWater14: Don't you know how Wikipedia works? WE are supposed to reach a consensus, not the admins. Kurzon (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) As you were told in the very first reply to your posting here, admins have no more rights than anyone else, including you, to reach a consensus about what reliable sources say about the subject. Follow the link to dispute resolution you were given there, and, everyone, just stop editing this article until everyone, admin or not, reaches a consensus on its talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was also explained to them by 331dot in the linked discussion three days ago. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in since I was tagged. The two week blocks for both parties seems just. Kurzon's battleground behavior has been going on for months at this point and RedWater14's involvement turned up the heat way higher than it should have. General sanctions (WP:PW/GS) were imposed on this subject years ago to stop silly conflicts like this but that has not really changed anything. LM2000 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

About battleground behavior, I guess you're referring to [6] or similar edits. A diff or two wouldn't hurt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that both Kurzon and RedWater14 are at fault here. It would be good to get outside parties to assess the state of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has been watching this play out for a few months now, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I think Kurzon has done a very thorough rewrite of the article and has cited a lot of sources. On the other hand, there does seem to be somewhat of an WP:AXE to grind on Kurzon's part in delegitimising wrestling (one example of something I spotted a few days ago). I'm going to try to spend the next couple of weeks reading through the article and checking that the sources support what's represented in the article. I may rewrite a few sections to be a bit more neutral. — Czello ^(music) 07:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's been my whole point essentially. It's an axe to grind, there's bias and it's very opinionated. He claims to be "knowledgeable" on wrestling but uses no wrestling terminology. He uses "faked", etc, instead of "worked" "shoot" "over" etc, as should be used in the article. He even went on the WWE 2K series page, which is a factually sports series of games and he changed the genre to "spectacle" and some other ridiculous phrasing. He's gone out of his way on other articles to diminish the medium. He himself even said he doesn't consider themselves wrestlers, using the example of Hulk Hogan, who's one of the biggest wrestling stars in history, just because he has whatever problem he has with him.

One of the sections of the article he puts quotes around "professional" as in calling it professional is somehow inaccurate, when he doesn't realize the term professional by definition means someone who was paid. Amatuer wrestlers were not paid for their matches, while professional wrestlers were. That's where the names come from. He himself acknowledged that, yet he goes and calls "professional" a misnomer, as it's somewhat inaccurate to call it "professional." And then he goes on another rant calling them stuntmen, etc, not athletes, which again, IS VERY OPINIONATED and has no sources or hell, even common sense, to back that up. Even the biggest detractors of professional wrestling will call them athletes, and respect their work ethic.

Anyway, I hope a solution can be found to it soon, but there's so many abuses to Wikipedia's guidelines here, it's not even funny. Honestly, the pro wrestling article has always sucked and has needed improvement for a long time. All this guy did was just make it worse and more illegitimate. RedWater14 (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with a lot of this - I've fixed the scare quotes he added. — Czello ^(music) 16:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know who's right and who's wrong here overall, but if Kurzon is helping push our coverage of "pro" wrestling away from the ridiculous in-universe treatment our articles largely give it now, I'm behind him or her. EEng 17:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really the case, as in-universe treatment is more of a blight on BLP and event articles. — Czello ^(music) 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it can be complicated as pro wrestling blurs the lines of reality and fiction a lot, so using wrestling terms in the article is the best way to go about it. You could literally make an entire dictionary of pro wrestling specific terms. Hell, there's an entire article on it: Glossary of professional wrestling terms.

  Using terms like "faked" is inaccurate, and in my opinion, insulting. Not to even mention the fact that the word "theater" means some sort of staging or performance is included. In the same line, he insists on adding "mock" to the combat, which is a contradiction in the same phrase and by calling it "theater", you already know there is a performance aspect to it. It's like me saying on the John Wick movie article "This is a movie where there is mock combat." Of course it's staged/choreographed/performed, whatever. You don't need to add that in as it sounds ridiculous. That's just one part of it that's ridiculous. I've already mentioned several above. RedWater14 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Faked" is 150% accurate. Articles routinely say stuff like ...

  Cena then sought the WWE Championship, held by Brock Lesnar. He entered a number one contender's tournament for the title, gaining upset wins over Eddie Guerrero,[44] The Undertaker[45] and Chris Benoit.[46] At Backlash on April 27, Cena failed to win the title from Lesnar.[47] On May 18 at Judgment Day, Cena and The F.B.I. (Chuck Palumbo and Johnny Stamboli) defeated Benoit, Rhyno and Spanky.[48] At Vengeance on July 27, Cena lost to The Undertaker.

  ... as if these are actual contests between actual competitors, instead of faked, fixed-outcome performances. Articles on novels and movies narrate works' events in-universe, but that's in clearly labeled "plot" sections. "Pro" wrestling articles, including BLPs, freely mix the stories of faked "contests" in with birth, education (if any, of course), marriages, death, and other real-life events. EEng 23:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How about "Character biography" sections? (Superhero articles have "Fictional character biography" sections, but we needn't insist.) NebY (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah but any article describing the plot of a movie, game, etc, does the same thing. It doesn't say "But it in the script, he beat..." etc. Anyone who knows anything about pro wrestling will automatically know it's part of the storyline. RedWater14 (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, I'm not at all certain that more than 50% of fans of this idiocy do know it's fake; there are a lot of truly stupid people in this world -- witness those who think Trump lost the presidency because of Jewish lasers controlled by Nest thermostats. And there's no other topic area in which we make flatly false statements in wikivoice with the expectation that our readers will know that we're actually spouting bullshit. EEng 07:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I know you're not a fan, EEng, so take it from people who are: yes, we all know it's fake. That said WP:INUNIVERSE is a perennial problem and some of us on the Wikiproject are working to fix this. — Czello ^(music) 07:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I could believe that y'all editing here know that; but for the general fan base: ^{[citation needed]}. If you could try harder on the INUNIVERSE front we'd all appreciate it. EEng 07:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the general fanbase knows that too. (I'm always continually amazed when non-wrestling fans think they know more about the industry than actual wrestling fans, amazing.) Thank you for your suggestion EEng, it's very helpful and I'll get right on that. — Czello ^(music) 08:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  the general fanbase knows that too – You keep saying that, and I keep saying ^{[citation needed]}. But even taking that as true, I think there's another problem. Even fans who know (in some corner their brains) that it's all faked still enjoy the kemosabe, and don't like to see it pierced. Thus they want this in-universe garbage preserved in our articles. EEng 00:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ... do you fancy that your repeated snark is doing anything by way of lowering the temperature here? Ravenswing 11:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, we'll go with that for the sake of argument (my wife's pro wrestling-loving elementary school students would vehemently disagree). But truly, is there any other area of Wikipedia where no distinction is visibly made between a real-life person and their stage persona? Articles on historical religious figures, for instance, are riddled with language like "X reported that" and "According to Y," rather than phrasing miracles or legends as objective fact. Those articles describing the plot do not do so in the main body of an article, but are plainly labeled "Plot."

  The bottom line is that we're a factual encyclopedia here. I'm unsure why we need to preserve kayfabe. Ravenswing 03:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. With the help of fans editing here, WP has become an extension of the pro-wrestling industry's fanzsites and other promotional apparatus. EEng 07:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See, I'm unsure why you're resisting so hard here. I get it: I've been a wrestling watcher since the days of Sammartino, Stasiak and Morales; living in Springfield, a frequent tour stop for the WWF, I'd write match reports for Online Onslaught. I get kayfabe, and you can't write me off as a clueless outsider. I'm also sympathetic to some of your complaints; I agree that calling other kinds of wrestling "authentic" is a bit bizarre, and I've always been partial to Dwayne Johnson's line that while he agrees that pro wrestling is scripted, it ain't "fake."

  What I do not get is why the likes of you and Czello are digging in your heels over this. However much you might think all moviegoers and novel readers get that they're dealing with fictional works, those articles still have "Plot" sections; no one's claiming to be insulted over that. However much you might think that all comic book readers get that superheroes aren't real, those articles still have "Fictional character biography" sections; no one's claiming to be insulted over that. You cannot possibly imagine that you'd have more resistance towards pushing through some clear section heads and phrasings taking scripted wrestling plot out of factual voice than there must have been (and still is) in religious topics over Wikipedia's ongoing refusal to certify the miracles of Muhammed, or Jesus, or the Buddha (etc etc etc) as inerrant fact. What exactly is the holdup here, if it isn't "We don't want to come out and openly concede that it's all scripted, because there are a lot of fanboys reading the articles who'd be pissed?" Ravenswing 11:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't speak for RedWater but I have no issue with reducing the amount of plot sections / WP:INUNIVERSE fluff that exist across the wrestling sphere of Wikipedia. I have no issue with the description of wrestling as fake. That doesn't mean there weren't NPOV issues with some of Kurzon's edits (though, to be clear, I believe the good of his work on the article in question considerably outweighs the bad). I'm not in favour of undoing their edits, I'm in favour of improving them. — Czello ^(music) 11:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not reduce, ELIMINATE. NOW. IMMEDIATELY. ON SIGHT. WHAT'S THE WAIT? EEng 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For some with less capslock, two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  FTR, I NEVER USE CAPSLOCK. I DEPRESS <SHIFT> FOR EACH LETTER INDIVIDUALLY. EEng 23:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're welcome to help us out in this endeavour, as I can see you feel very passionately about it. — Czello ^(music) 07:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You might regret suggesting that. EEng 05:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not even joking about this EEng. The biggest issue we face is that the number of editors who recognise the problem and are willing to put the time in to fix it. We're vastly outnumbered by drive-by IPs (or even other editors) who want to turn Wikipedia into FANDOM. There are years, even decades of content to sift through which is being added to daily, across thousands of articles. The issue by far is manpower.

  All sarcasm aside, you do recognise the issue that exists, and as you clearly have no love of this corner of Wikipedia (you've expressed it plenty in previous discussions, too) you would be able to take a more objective approach to culling content. What I'm saying is, put your money where your mouth is: I can even suggest some starting places. — Czello ^(music) 07:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I implore you to fix Kurzon's calling of other wrestling forms as "authentic" as those aren't the dictionary terms, and is more opinion/bias based. Even so, I think that whole section is ridiculous, irrelevant, and much of what is stated is stated several terms throughout the rest of the article. There is no need for a delineation there. RedWater14 (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to suggest we close this discussion as 1) it was the wrong venue for this topic in the first place 2) both users have been p-blocked from the article and 3) further discussion is going no where. — Czello ^(music) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Suggestion rejected. EEng 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to ask what good you feel can come from re-opening this discussion? — Czello ^(music) 07:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure. But what I am sure of is that you should not have been the person to decide it's suddenly over. EEng 09:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems needlessly bureaucratic if no one can say why it should remain open (WP:IAR and all that), but fine - we'll wait for someone else to inevitably close it again shortly. — Czello ^(music) 09:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a matter of being "needlessly bureaucratic." It's a matter of it being quite improper for an involved editor to unilaterally decide to close a discussion down. How is it you don't know that? Ravenswing 17:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "mock" in "mock combat" means to fake something without intention to deceive. It does not mean mockery. When I was in high school, they made us sit mock exams to prepare us for the real things, and we took the mocks very seriously. RedWater14 should consult a dictionary once in a while.

Also, it's absolutely necessary to emphasize the fakery of wrestling in the history section so that we can understand why it became what it is. If pro wrestling is theatre, then it is a very unconventional kind of theatre. Pro wrestlers at first (early 20th century) were deliberately deceiving the audience, particularly the carnival wrestlers who were duping visitors into challenging a champion they couldn't beat (the equivalent of pool hustlers). Eventually the public realized it was fake, but some if not most fans quietly accepted it. And just as quietly, the wrestlers acknowledged this by making their performances more outlandish and adopting personas.

Pro wrestling is not to my taste, but that doesn't mean I can't keep my personal bias out of the article. That would be like saying people who hate Nazis are not fit to edit the Nazi Party article. Note that nowhere in the article do I denigrate pro wrestling or its fans. If I ignore kayfabe, that's because of my commitment to the truth. If anything, we need more non-fans editing this article to filter away the fancruft. I edit this article not to trash wrestling but because I'm a history nerd and I love learning about how the world works. Kurzon (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question:' Who decides what is a contentious topic? Is it totally based on ArbCom decisions? And don't I recall that there's a community-based equivalent to CTOP, created back when they were called "Discretionary sanctions"? What I'm getting to is that it seems to me that pro-wrestling (and beauty pageants) should be under some kind of general sanction, and if ArbCom hasn't declared them as such, the community ought to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And here they both are, under Community-authorised general sanctions, which, as far as I know, have never been changed or de-authorized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• To simplify, there are two ways a sanctions regime could be mandated on the English Wikipedia: either by a successful community !vote on a proposal submitted to AN/ANI; or as decided by by ArbCom. The ArbCom ones are better streamlined, so are easier to navigate, both from an editorial and an enforcement prespective. Which is why sometimes ArbCom subsumes community-authorized sanctions regimes, either at the request of editors and admins, or at their own discretion. Resulting in either a new ArbCom sanctions regime being created, like for example with WP:GS/IRANPOL → WP:ARBIRP; or straight into an existing one, like with WP:GS/IPAK → WP:ARBPAK. That's really the crux of it. HTH. El_C 12:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I just found out that WP:GS/Wrestling exists. Seemed to have only been used a few times in 2018, and then, forgotten? El_C 16:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone really consider that professional wrestling is an authentic sport? Or that Olympic wrestling is not? If so then they have no business editing Wikipedia. Accepting the obvious facts is not opinionated, but simply accepting that the sky is blue. We should describe things as they are, not as fanboys claim them to be. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raymarcbadz continues to recreate Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics, after being warned multiple times to not do so. The latest discussion being here [7]. I think there maybe some competence issues here among other pieces of editing I have had to discuss with this editor. Just bringing this here to the wider community because clearly they are not understanding they shouldn't be repeatedly creating this article (among others). I propose a creation ban on Olympic related articles, because this editor also has issues with citing sources in articles that have nothing to do with the article, here is my chain with them discussing this [8]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raymarcbadz seems to be repeatedly harping on "why Eritrea???" and not a similarly created Algeria at the 2024 Summer Olympics. While an editor of his longevity and edit count -- not to mention his long history of editing disputes over Olympic articles -- should not remotely be ignorant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I've taken the liberty of nominating the latter for deletion, and hope that eases his mind. Ravenswing 23:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing a creation ban. How will you enforce this rule? I've published over a thousand articles about the Olympic athletes throughout a decade-long experience and you will impose me such rule of a creation ban. Isn't this a violation to the right of freedom? I also left a section on WT:OLY about this matter. Raymarcbadz (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of something an editor with your longevity should know about ... first off, you know -- or you ought to know -- that with this being a private website, all editing on Wikipedia is a privilege. You have exactly three "rights:" your right to copy Wikipedia content to an independent encyclopedia, your right to a copyright of your own work (which is automatically licensed to Wikipedia as a condition of editing), and your right to leave Wikipedia. There is no "right to freedom" here.

As to how a topic ban works, you should review WP:TBAN. Should such a ban be imposed, either by admins or the community, there are various avenues of appeal. With that, were you to violate such a ban, you would be subject to more severe sanctions, up to indefinite blocks. Seventeen years in, if you aren't aware that Wikipedia has rules of the road which you are as liable to follow as any other editor, it's time and past time for you to better inform yourself. Ravenswing 01:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if I already created an article and cited a reliable source mentioning the Olympic athlete on several parts of the content? Are you planning to file a deletion or rule violation? Do you want to assign somebody else to create an article? Raymarcbadz (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Were you to receive a tban from Olympic articles, then it would be up to others to maintain, edit, defend, source or delete (or not) as they saw fit such articles that you created, much the same as if you'd left Wikipedia altogether. Ravenswing 01:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never received a WP:TBAN from the administrators. Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CIR problem is slowly coming into clearer focus. EEng 08:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Seventeen years and 90,000 edits in, it's not merely the startling ignorance of several key policies and guidelines (judging from his comments in that AfD, it seems that for someone whose activity is in creating articles on Olympians, he's unaware that simply being an Olympian was deprecated from being a presumptive notability pass, two years ago) that's an issue. Ravenswing 19:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"simply being an Olympian was deprecated from being a presumptive notability pass" – Why do these users intend to develop a strict policy on the article creation for the Olympians through the presumptive notability pass. Raymarcbadz (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raymarcbadz WP:NSPORTS was updated as a result of WP:NSPORTS2022. It might be worthwhile checking if there are any relevant updates that effect your work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose topic ban: They did not recreate the article, they created a redirect to Eritrea at the Olympics. Based on the pages listed at Category:Nations at the 2024 Summer Olympics, it's a possible search term, so I don't see an issue with this redirect creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The log shows they recreated the same article directly after it was draftified by AfD. It was deleted again, and then they created the redirect. I don't think a topic ban is required here, but Raymarcbadz needs to accept consensus and use the proper channels (WP:DRV/etc) if they disagree. An editor that has been here as long as Raymarcbadz, and has done such good work in that time, should be aware of such things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @ActivelyDisinterested. I hadn't noticed that history and initially interpreted this report to be about the redirect creations. I've struck part of my above comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck part of my comment as the issue appears be continuing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're wishful of knowing more, take a look at Raymarcbadz's comments in this AfD discussion generally, and these in particular: [9] [10]. I'm not sold myself on whether his actions are worthy of a topic ban. I am increasingly concerned as to whether he has the competence to edit Wikipedia at all, and his habit of acting as if his edit/article creation count immunizes him from scrutiny does not ease such worries: [11] [12] [13] Ravenswing 02:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've struck my above comment opposing a topic ban. I initially opposed because I thought this report based on the creation of the redirects, not the attempts to re-create the articles, which I am now fully aware of. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support either topic ban or article space p-block. The latter might be more helpful in lieu of progressive blocks since Raymarcbadz appears interested in quibbbling why the articles are not acceptable per current guidelines. Star Mississippi 16:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC) because I have declined an unblock, I don't think I should weigh in here. Star Mississippi 20:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. User:Star Mississippi do you mind elaborating on what a P-block is? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  sorry @Sportsfan 1234. That's a Wikipedia:Partial block which allows editors to be blocked from a page (such as ANI) or a section of the site. What I suggested was main/article space leaving them free to edit elsewhere. Star Mississippi 17:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (When in doubt about the meaning of a Wikipedia term named "P-block", enter "WP:P-block" into the search bar. It often works; it does in this case). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sportsfan 1234, Because you favored to support TOPIC BAN, does this mean that you will contact the administrators to remove me from the list of contributors in WP:OLY? Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban; Raymarcbadz's apparent inability to grasp OR accept that notability guidelines apply to his own work is something I'm somewhat startled had never come up before. Ravenswing 17:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you support topic ban? If this happens effectively, do you expect me not to edit any articles related to Olympics indefinitely? Are you attempting to threaten me as someone who wholeheartedly contributes to the WP:OLY? Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  YOU GUYS STRESSED ME OUT OF THIS NONSENSICAL ISSUE. YOU ENDLESSLY REVERT MY EDITS WITHOUT MERCY AND RESPECT. You support TOPIC BAN and worse, you're threatening my status as a contributor to the WP:OLY. Sportsfan 1234 seriously DESTROYED MY REPUTATION AS A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR AND AN AVID OLYMPIC FAN; and LOVES TO PISS ME OFF WHENEVER I EDIT AN OLYMPIC-RELATED ARTICLE. You're all wasting your time CREATING UNENDING ISSUES AND DRAMA about my contribution to the Olympics. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY EDITS ON THE ARTICLES THAT I CREATED BEFORE, GO AHEAD AND ASSESS THEM FOR GNG AND NOLYMPICS guidelines. I'm TIRED of THIS INCIDENT ALREADY. THANK YOU! Raymarcbadz (talk) 07:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You have been here for seventeen years. You should know by now not to shout at people. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I know. But I’m already fed up with this nonsensical issue and the incident perpetrated by the person involved. This makes me feel stressful and agitated. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The intent to support topic ban towards me is unjustifiable and prejudicial. I’ve worked so hard on the articles, then they will impose such rule that prevents me from editing any Olympic-related article. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think its pretty clear a topic ban is needed at this point, especially after this latest outburst, accusing editors of 'destroying their reputation'. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow. Why are you so defensive about this matter? Are you trying to convince others to support and win your case? Clearly, you don't want me to edit any Olympic-related article ANYMORE. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this topic ban indefinite? By any chances, you would refrain me from filing an appeal. Am I right? Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently, you deserve me to be permanently removed from the member list on WP:OLY because of this issue. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no prejudice involved. You refuse to stop your disruptive editing, which means the topic ban is the next step. You're currently skirting the edges of a larger block so please keep that in mind as you're participating here. Star Mississippi 17:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Per above issues. JoelleJay (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since London 2012, I have had the moral obligation to help clean the mess and improve the content of Olympic-related articles. I have created and published over a thousand articles with appropriate content and proper citation sourcing, I have committed millions of edits for the past decade, and I have overcome innumerable barriers to endure edit wars and endless reverting battles. You have mentioned in our previous discussions that policies gradually changed especially on the article guidelines. Effectively, monkeys and trolls spent their time at the guideline, policy, and article talk pages playing with their own mess through reverting powers, criticizing my edits with harsh summaries, and filing blocks without any further reason, instead of adding, expanding, or contributing to the content. Some of them disagree with my edits and stick to their own grit to maintain the desired table and description format, thereby putting me in a heated discussion. Lately, I have created two articles: an NOC article and an athlete competing at the previous Olympics. You ordered a deletion discussion and convince others to support your case. Now, you impose and suggest a topic ban on me. Why? You accuse me of re-creating the articles, of disruptive editing, and worse, of my emotional outbursts in the discussion. I have the right to voice my sentiments because I deserve to contribute to the WP:OLY and edit the content appropriate to the Olympic coverage. I do not understand why you need me to suffer from these consequences. Because you favored supporting WP:TBAN, will I ever get the opportunity to edit any Olympic-related articles, realizing that the Paris 2024 qualification stages are currently running? Who will clean up all the "messes" in the articles? How will I update all the NOC and qualification articles? What will happen next? Will I ever contribute to the WP:OLY after this case?

To those who support WP:TBAN, I wish you the best of luck. Just like what Lugnuts said from his arbitrary case last year, the mess is now your "mess" and the burden falls with you to fix it. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the screeds Raymarcbadz posted in this thread, for which they've already been warned, a topic ban will not be sufficient. I have therefore indefinitely blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good block. They just kept digging a deeper and deeper hole. Ravenswing 23:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur. Their comments on this thread was probably going to lead to that anyway. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have declined their unblock pending consensus here even before I saw the Lugnuts comment above that led to the block. Continuing the battleground behavior about protesting the topic ban while trying to be unblocked was not a path that was going to be conducive to consensus or productive editing. If anyone feels merit to copying input here while this discussion is ongoing, I have no issue with that, but don't see a need to unblock them at this time when they have more than said their peace regarding the proposal. With respect to my prior !vote, I still remain undecided whether a topic ban will fix the issue or a broader block is needed, but striking it now as I've acted on the unblock. Star Mississippi 20:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried to help them on their talk, but the IDHT is strong. Headed offline and offline most of tomorrow, so pardon any delay in responding on my end. Consider me in favor of whatever consensus develops.

  Star Mississippi 02:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no reason not to keep the indef block in place. Raymarcbadz has clearly demonstrated on their talk page either a lack of understanding of the reason they got blocked or just pure WP:ICHY. Either way, for an editor of such tenure, neither is acceptable. They would likely continue the exact same conduct that got them blocked if they return to editing. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Like Star Mississippi, I took one last swing at it on their talk page. It's spitting into the wind, I judge, but can't help but try. With that said, I agree with you: I've seen nothing suggesting he has any intention of following any guidelines or policies he doesn't feel like doing, I've seen nothing suggesting he is capable or willing to work collaboratively with other editors, and I've seen nothing suggesting he would be an asset to the encyclopedia going forward. Block or no, I remain convinced that a community imposed tban is appropriate and necessary. Ravenswing 06:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just an observation but it takes more than 2 or 3 editors' weighing in to impose a topic ban. Like in some other areas of the project, I see that we have lower participation at ANI than in the old days. But I would expect it would take an actual proposal made and at least half a dozen editors' supporting it to impose a topic ban on an editor of Raymarcbadz's tenure (meaning, not a brand new editor). I think an unblock in the near future is unlikely so that is the major concern but if you believe a topic ban is necessary, then it must receive more community support than the idea so far has generated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic and community ban proposal

• Alright, then, if people like Liz need to see a formal proposal, here is one: I propose not only a topic ban for Raymarcbadz from all Olympic and Olympic-related articles, broadly construed, but a community ban as well, given not only the somewhat appalling battleground behavior displayed above and on his talk page, his persistent inability/unwillingness to understand most everything people are saying to him in addition to pertinent notability guidelines, and to top it off, he's now socking to evade his block: Special:Contributions/The_Olympic_Archives. Ravenswing 09:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I support your proposal. I am genuinely shocked that an editor of such tenure would resort to socking to evade their block. If they had any chance of returning to editing on Wikipedia, they've lost it now. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think a topic ban is going to work, because of the tendentious IDHT/I'm not listening because it's not what I want to hear. There's no way an editor of their tenure just learned about sock puppetry, they think the rules don't apply to them because of their tenure, and they similarly would try to evade a topic ban. That said, I'd support one so that this doesn't get closed without action as there's no way allowing him to edit Olympians if unblocked is going to be productive as they appear to think they're the only one capable of editing in these areas. Star Mississippi 11:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Change to support block, editor essentially said they can't confirm if they'll honor a topic ban. Star Mississippi 15:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star Mississippi: Can you please clarify whether you are supporting a community ban? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bbb23 yes, unfortunately. I don't currently see a path back to productive editing right now since their opinion is so far off from community's on sports/olympians. However, if editors such as @Liz don't think there's enough for even a topic ban at this stage, I don't want to hold that up, although I don't think it will work. So I guess support anything up to and including a community ban. Star Mississippi 15:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't read Liz's mind, but I think she was only pointing out that a topic ban needs additional support before it can be imposed, not that she opposes a topic ban or thinks a topic ban is unreasonable in the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Mm; the fact of the matter -- and being active on ANI, Liz has seen this as often as the rest of us -- even community bans have been imposed on the strength of an unopposed consensus of as little as three editors. (I don't myself think that right, but it has happened.) Ravenswing 21:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Topic ban and a community ban. Should the title of this heading be changed to topic/support ban proposal? @User:Ravenswing. As for the topic ban, anything under the Olympic or Multi-sport event banners. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Alizade
• 90AA123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

90AA123, has been incessantly bludgeoning (with his signature of ETIBARMEMMEDOV and logged off) and canvassing in the abovementioned AfD. They shouldn't be creating articles in the topic area at all since it is under community restrictions, and they have thus far only created articles of entrepreneurs. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user has indicated on the AfD that they won't be replying anymore. I don't know if this is appropriate after they have agreed to stop. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin had asked them to stop a week prior. They didn't listen then and suggest a p-block to allow the discussion to reach consensus. Star Mississippi 17:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. This [29] looks like canvassing, and the whole of that particular AfD is bludgeoning start to finish. It is impossible to conduct a sensible AfD discussion in the face of behaviour of that sort. I would support a complete ban from AfD, but that's the tip of the iceberg. They are stretching my good faith to breaking point, and I find it very hard to believe there is no CoI editing going on. They are not a net positive to WP. Elemimele (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I managed to miss that, apologies for that. A p-block is moot now that the AfD has been closed. I would be more supportive of a ban from deletion discussions if they continue the same conduct on other AfDs. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, we can't keep up.

Feel free to flag any further problematic participation from this editor. Star Mississippi 14:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user filed an undeletion request for Farid Alizade, which was declined by Jay. I don't know if this editor is finished with this yet. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is editing and reverting my user page across different Wikipedia [30]. I did this complain previously also [31]. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[32], [33] ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 13:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really give this too much of a look right now, but I have notified Ajeeb Prani of this discussion. A quick glance looks like the previous AN/I thread didn't really go anywhere (and nor did the related SPI). It might be worth both users leaving each other alone (and stopping whatever this is.) — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 14:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime I am not doing anything, but this guy is editing my userpage constantly across other Wikipedias too. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 14:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this started with Ajeeb Prani's suspicion that ZenDrago X was a sock puppet. See this exchange, subsequently deleted, where Ajeeb Prani grilled ZenDrago X about copy-and-pasting material from a hi.wikipedia user page to use on his user page here.

Ajeeb Prani later issued a spam warning to Zendrago X.[34]

Subsequently, Ajeeb Prani asked a question; the diffs they cite doesn't work, so I don't understand it. It seems to do with copying something from Ajeeb Prani's user space. This continued until Ajeeb Prani blanked the thread and told ZenDrago X: "Nevermind, don't revert back this topic on your talk page".

Elsewhere, Ajeeb Prani has accused Zendrago X of being a sock of Amanheheh337:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amanheheh337/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amanheheh337
  • Note the comment by Spicy; somehow the topic of Indian cartoon shows apparently draws sockpuppets, Joe jobs, intrigue and hard feelings. Checkers have a hard time sorting this out.

Here's a thread about Amanheheh337 who may or may not even have anything to do with any of this.

• • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1099#Reverting edits

On Zendrago X's hi.wikipedia user talk, there was a discussion about User:Yuugone, Ajeeb Prani's previous user name. Ajeeb Prani blanked this thread with the comment "व्यक्तिगत हमले को हटा दिया". I do not know Hindi.

3 weeks later, A.P. left a message there again.

Zendrago X left these messages on Ajeeb Prani's hi.wikipedia user talk page:[35] and [36]

I have wasted too much time trying to sort this out. I think this pair of editors needs to stay away from each other.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Translate, the Hindi phrase quoted by A. B. translates as "removed the personal attack". Narky Blert (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't know Hindi, let me tell you what happened on Hindi Wikipedia, firstly Zendrago X gave me a barnstar here then on Hindi Wikipedia he asked me to vote for him in exchange of that barnstar. DESIULTRA one of the blocked sockpuppet of Amanheheh337 personally attacked me on Hindi Wikipedia on Zendrago X's talk page (I don't know why DESIULTRA wrote that on Zendrago X's talk page; maybe they know eachother off wiki), then I complained about them to an admin after they got blocked I removed that personal attack towards me from their userpage. Also Zendrago X is copying me here on English Wikipedia, he is creating same user sub-page as me [37] [38] [39] [40], that's why I told them to not copy me. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Ultra was thinking that I am Yuugone, don't be so smart he abused me because he thought that I am Yuugone. anyone can se what is written there. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 09:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DESIULTRA came on my talk page [41] and he writes that (Tu zarur Yuu hai hena mc) Means You are Yuugone isn't? you @#%. He thought me Yuugone which tells that they are connected with other as they were fighting. I am ready to end fight with Ajeeb Prani but he is creating mess. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 09:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zendrago X: Leaving DESIULTRA topic apart, why are you copying everyone on English and Hindi Wikipedia? Ajeeb Prani (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am just coping user templates from other userpages, those all templates all already available on Wikipedia, anybody can use it. So why are you reverting my page? You can also copy my userpage I will not say anything. Its just an userpage not any article.

Secondly those pages were sandboxes every Wikipedian Account can create own sandbox, so it is not copied. So please don't revert my page again. If you wanted your userpage too look good, I can help you. ✠ ZenDragoX✠ (contact) 10:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clear that the two of you don’t like each other. It’s not clear how this bickering helps us build and maintain and English-language encyclopaedia.

Just leave each other alone and we’ll all be happier. Drop the stick.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user User:Harushiga is just a really rollback button abuser. Please indef block him so I can rest in peace. 88.229.247.248 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need diffs to look at this. Also, if you use useful edit summaries you're far less likely to get reverted. — Trey Maturin™ 17:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the filer for block evasion, but I lack competence to understand whether their edits in the articles are good. Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And they are somehow related with the topic just above. Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long term issue. I don't remember the sockmaster off the top of my head. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the contribution history, the IP had exactly ONE edit reverted by Harushiga, and that edit was posted without edit summary or explanation. The block evasion aside, the OP complaint is spurious. Ravenswing 18:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They've had a lot more reverted on a lot more IPs. They're good for a few spurious AIV reports daily too. They also make accounts with Harushiga's name included. They've done this with other editors as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 15:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyundai Harushiga and Turbo Harushiga among others. The car theme is common too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget this account with two REVDELed edits and an offensive username! QuicoleJR (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related Turkish IPs (Istanbul) editing the same articles earlier:

• 88.235.137.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • Blocked yesterday by Discospinster
• 85.97.46.201 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • Briefly blocked by Ponyo for block evasion.
• 88.237.21.118 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • no blocks or warnings
• 88.243.174.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 95.15.74.101 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • one warning, no block
  • created Draft:SEAT IRyS
• 85.101.203.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Like Ymblanter, I don't know enough about cars to tell which edits are valid.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Their IP range is too dynamic to block effectively, but they stick out like a sore thumb due to trolling and general incompetence. Just block (with talk page access revoked) and roll back their edits.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexhepburn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continued to edit the pages related to Alex Hepburn after multiple warnings, but I was willing to try to help until this legal threat. --Muhandes (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats and a username issue, too. Blocked under NLT. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you were trying to help, this wasn't a great way to go about it. 86.3.219.123 (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the IP. I think Muhandes needs a trout slap, and would recommend that they read WP:DOLT carefully. When subjects complain about their own articles, they don’t give two hoots about Wikipedia policy, they just want potential libel fixed. Now you’ve wasted the time of Wikimedia Legal who’ve got to deal with this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: As you know, I always welcome a trout slap if I err, as noted on my user page. I also welcome any constructive feedback such as yours, although I do tend to ignore it when it comes from an anon IP who can't even bother to open an account so we can continue the discussion properly. I also think the place for constructive feedback is my own talk page rather than ANI, but since you gave it here I will respond here. In this particular case, I took the initiative to clean up the article first, addressing the issues pointed out by the COI editor. Only after that, I initiated a discussion, which I believe aligns with the principles of WP:DOLT. Subsequently, I attempted to engage in dialogue with them. However, they quickly escalated the situation by persistently making unsourced COI edits, including the inclusion of dubious data. I made efforts to reason with them, but unfortunately, they remained unresponsive. In hindsight, it might have been more prudent for me to disengage and escalate the matter to ANI instead of continuing the back-and-forth exchange. I will certainly take this into consideration for future situations. In the end, it is an admin's choice whether to address the WP:LEGAL with a block or not. Anyway, thanks for the feedback and have fun editing. Muhandes (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...an anon IP who can't even bother to open an account so we can continue the discussion properly – Editors should not be looked down upon for not registering an account. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the edits that Alexhepburn made, that Muhandes reverted as vandalism, were technically indistinguishable from vandalism. The account does have an air of a joe job around it. Still, they're blocked now, so that's a moot point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin want to review the contributions of ‎StopSayingMyth (talk · contribs) to see if they've run out of rope yet? See posts at Talk:Hindu mythology, Talk:Yama (see also the section after the one linked), and at their talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I've been saved the trouble - thanks @Abecedare. Here are some choice diffs for any passing interested parties. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now this. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My points have yet to be refuted. If they are not warring then I am not warring. If there are synonyms which do not discriminate then Wikipedia guidelines would suggest to use the synonyms which cannot be used for discrimination. I have yet to hear a reason against using a synonym (which is my entire point), and therefore it is not warring. All I have heard is misrepresentation, gaslighting, and attempts to intimidate and control me and the others who have posted the same topic. I am not as easy to push around I suppose as I know that I can continue to speak the truth even if the majority is biased StopSayingMyth (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"myth" and "story" are definitely not synonymous. Also, how can "myth" be discriminatory and its alleged synonym "story" not be? 2600:4040:475E:F600:C0CD:D925:37AA:E455 (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the page Synonym. Then please refer to the pageMyth. Then you can compare it to the pages Story, Tradition, Belief, Narrative, Anecdote, Epic, Tale, and many others because you are much smarter than me apparently and therefore would know many more synonyms than even I know.

But why defend only the one discriminatory word above all the others? That my friend is warring StopSayingMyth (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is the word "myth" discriminatory? --2600:4040:475E:F600:C0CD:D925:37AA:E455 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for trying to understand my perspective better. Myth is commonly used to mean something which is false in every context. If you've seen the show Mythbusters they try to determine if a theory is either true or a myth. So because there are many many synonyms which do not include this false meaning it makes more sense to use those. I will try to give clearer example maybe.

Story about lemons means Story about lemons

Myth about lemons means false belief about lemons

This is the issue of me and many commenters and many many more readers who did not feel like they would be heard if they were to comment. Please its a simple thing just use a synonym that doesn't put people's closest held beliefs down StopSayingMyth (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Myth" has also been used in a far more neutral sense - and is still far more often used that way today in re belief systems and religion - to describe parables, tales, and the like intended to be accepted by a belief system. Context matters. And citing Mythbusters is an incredibly horrendous take that assumes none of what they examine is true or even possible. Are you taking the piss? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 23:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you really had a point you wouldn't need to try demeaning me as a person. There's nothing neutral in that word and I gave an example. Please give an example then where myth is more neutral than story. I don't believe you'll be able to do this StopSayingMyth (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope one does soon, since they're continuing their crusade here now. Their contributions, particularly at Talk:Hindu mythology, indicate that they've made up their mind and aren't going to let go of this stick, no matter what any other editors say. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"crusade" is demeaning. If someone responds to me I have the right to respond. Please be kinder to those you disagree with StopSayingMyth (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A simple inspection of the titles of the sources used in the Hindu mythology article readily demonstrates that this is an argument with scholarship in general, rather than Wikipedia. We go by the sources, and that is really all that needs saying here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a position that can be discussed. Thank you for your reasonable perspective. I don't believe that just because a book is insulting or demeaning it means it is always okay to do. The sources also use other synonyms so we should use those words instead. Do you understand what I am trying to say? Let's use the non-demeaning source material not the opinion based parts which are hurtful and do not belong on an objective site. StopSayingMyth (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Picking and choosing which parts of reliable sources to use based on our personal opinions would violate neutral point of view. WPscatter ^t/_c 00:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using opinion based terminology would violate neutral point of view. Using only factual and unbiased terminology is the definition of neutral point of view StopSayingMyth (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. On Wikipedia, neutral point of view means giving due weight to reliable sources. If an "opinion" (or the use of a particular word) is shared by a majority of reliable sources then we are obligated to adhere to it. WPscatter ^t/_c 00:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an opinion to call certain aspects of religions "myths"; that has been a widely used term in religious studies for many years. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you username suggests that you are a single-purpose account with the intent of subverting Wikipedia's long-standing consensus on this subject. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have started this account with the intent to discuss this specific topic. I am not a very creative person, please don't attack me personally. If the majority of people read the word myth as untrue story then this is what the word means. This is why the word gender has changed definitions in recent years because the definition of a word is how it is widely used. 99.99% of people who read "Hindu Mythology" would interpret that as ancient false beliefs on par with leeching people for health. This is my issue and the issue of many commentors StopSayingMyth (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term "myth" means different things depending on the context. This has been explained to you many times. We are not going to stop using an accurate term because it might be interpreted negatively by certain people. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StopSayingMyth blocked indef

See details @User talk:StopSayingMyth#Indefinite block. El_C 00:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-opened the thread since they are appealing the block, which some might wish to comment on here (ANI) rather than there (their talk page). El_C 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In their ban appeal they accuse others of saying things that no one did at any point (people were saying things like "shut up and accept you are wrong" and "stop pretending like you know anything") and misrepresent your block message (Even the message I received for this ban showed that the person banning me knew I am a logical and reasonable person), which in particular is especially funny considering you basically called them incompetent. I don't think anyone is considering reverting the block, but just in case, I'll point out that their motivation for becoming unblocked seems to be to continue beating the same dead horse that their whole account exists to beat. WPscatter ^t/_c 05:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a more polite comment explaining why their ban appeal won't work. I find it unlikely that they will be unblocked, but at least they will have a chance at composing a semi-decent unblock request. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with StopSayingMyth. From a neutral perspective, this looks like a person that is simply asking for people to be more respectful with their use of words, but the people they're asking seem to be stuck on a power trip of sorts. I also find it very unnecessarily offensive to refer to religious beliefs as "myths", and this is coming from something that is agnostic. XD3vlLx (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing on that talk page which leads me to believe there's an asset to the encyclopedia lurking in their subconscious, and with exactly TWO live mainspace edits, it's not that there's any sort of track record to the contrary. Ravenswing 07:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A case of WP:RGW with WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR issues — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They think that Wikipedia's policies are anti-religion, that anyone who upholds them is anti-religion, and that they must tilt at whatever anti-religion windmills present themselves in response to such attacks. They can be polite and reasonable under other circumstances, as their Teahouse posts and post-block talk page posts show, but they show no sign of abandoning their quest, or of understanding why they can't go about it this way and still remain a part of the community. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no compelling reason to contradict the exercise of administrative discretion by either El_C with regard to the initial block, nor Daniel Case with regard to declining the unblock request. This user is unambiguously WP:NOTHERE, by way of an extreme case of WP:RGW and WP:SPA (for a very dubious principle/semantic interpretation of a term of art, no less). This would be a big problem to their prospects of acclimating, understanding core policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT, and becoming a more generally productive editor, even if it were just a matter of doggedly returning to attempting to enforce their perspective on all content that they perceive to fall afoul of the hated term. But when you add in their pretty liberal use of invective to accuse their rhetorical opposition of all manner of failings, moral and otherwise, in a pretty paradigmatic refusal to WP:AGF, the argument for giving this user additional time and WP:ROPE is uncompelling. Certainly there's not enough here for the community to override the admins in question. In short: support block. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A user who says they are the lawyer of John Anthony Castro raised a serious concern about the use of a possibly illegally obtained document in the article: Talk:John_Anthony_Castro#Request_for_Assistance_-_Unlawful_Upload_&_Abuse_of_Power_on_Wikipedia. (I'm not sure this the right noticeboard for this, feel free to tell me if it is not.) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the talk page in more detail, but that is a public document. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a 'public document'. Or at least a publicly-available one. It clearly shouldn't have been cited in the article though. Not just because we don't cite court documents in general, but because the submission of a document to a court as evidence is in no shape or form proof of its authenticity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not meaning to change the subject, but Mr. Castro's notability as a BLP subject seems dubious. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They should probably email legalwikimedia.org as this sounds beyond what the community can deal with. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is clearly a content issue, but why I posted here is because really it's turned into an edit-war from the page history at Elstree, page history you might see what I mean. Also at Borehamwood which EternalTempest has edited, I don't see how the cite links he added are viable or useful cites. They seems rather irksome to use. I tried to be patient here, but really don't want to deal with the issue or upset people. There maybe issues with lots of other articles he has edited, but I haven't looked at those. Maybe someone else can deal with EternalTempest and stop the silly edit-war, thanks. Govvy (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slow edit war, I think is the name for it. There’s no 3RRs within 24 Hours, but definitely more than 3 revs for both Tempest, and Mike. Everything else on this, reeks of WP:DR territory. Talk page appears to be in use by both parties, so good start. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but the links go to the 2021 Census data, which is, obviously, better than the 2011 Census, which is the reference you seem to prefer. If you're not able to access the data that's fine, but I have explained how and where it's located. It is openly available to anyone. You just need to go to the link I have provided and download the relevant excel file. Then, ctrl+K 'Elstree' (much faster than scrolling down). I just put a slightly different page number so hopefully accessing the data will now be very easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalTempest (talk • contribs) 00:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to verify any of the links that EternalTempest proposes. They lead you to what appears to be valid sources but none of the data they cite is in the sources. No amount of Ctrl-Ks (creating hyperlinks) or Ctrl-Fs have been successful. I would have to conclude that there is no competence here. Inomyabcs (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 census data for religion at that ward level is obtainable from https://www.ons.gov.uk/datasets/TS031/editions/2021/versions/4 but only by changing settings, downloading a ~24 MB csv file and filtering. EternalTempest then calculates percentages to 0.01% (1:10,000 for populations of eg ~5000) and presents those, not the downloaded ONS counts, tabulating their comparison to national percentages. They then editorialise about the results as at Potters Bar#Demographics, As of the 2021 census, Potters Bar still had a Christian majority, making it more Christian than both England and Wales as a whole and the rest of Hertsmere. Potters Bar has a significant Jewish community and an Orthodox synagogue, but as a percentage of the overall population, the Jewish community, which numbers over 600, pales in comparison to every other settlement in Hertsmere, the most Jewish borough in the country. NebY (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can you call a link where you do something like ctrl-k a citation? I am honestly myth'ed by EternalTempest editing. It makes it hard to know if you're trying to be legit or not. In the end it just feels disruptive. Govvy (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to but the openly available data is long (and comprehensive) and it is easier to ctrl+k it. Just my advice.

Btw this is you admitting that the links provided DO include the statistics, which was your original bone of contention. You are now arguing that because it's a bit difficult to find (though pretty intuitive! it's the official Census site!) it... shouldn't count? I'm perplexed, honestly.

Just take the L and move on rather than suggesting I'm 'not being legit' for defending edits that I worked on about the place I grew up in and that you have - finally! - admitted were accurate and based on recent data. EternalTempest (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EternalTempest: Nope, I didn't see any stats on those links, they don't work for me. I also accused you of edit-warring on Elstree, which you did do. Govvy (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they work for other people in the thread, so clearly the issue is at your end.

I merely reverted changes to *my* edit where the reason for the revert given was 'link doesn't provide stats.' Link was altered to be more direct, thus solving the problem from where I stand. It takes two to edit-war. EternalTempest (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More fundamentally, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, how is this obsessive detail even remotely encyclopedic? It reads to me as WP:advocacy. In the example cited, it is potentially antisemitic; in others, as feeding the Great Replacement conspiracy. The text that Neby reports is clearly a WP:synth violation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said that, since the content dispute is repeated in a number of articles, the place to resolve it is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Religion at ward level, not here. If there is still a behavioural issue, then that is more for ANI to consider. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just absurd. For one, I am Jewish. There are also plenty of mainstream and Jewish press articles commenting on this very phenomenon albeit not going into the same level of detail for other religions. For example:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021#:~:text=The%20areas%20with%20the%20highest,2021%20was%20Enfield%20(3.1%25).

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/barnet-continues-to-have-largest-jewish-population-census-2021-confirms/

https://www.jpr.org.uk/reports/jews-britain-2021-first-results-census-england-and-wales

https://www.thejc.com/news/news/number-of-people-identifying-as-ethnically-jewish-doubles-in-last-decade-6cETDkVRTDwslmqyAC8NK5

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-723634

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/boundary-changes-could-see-significant-changes-to-seats-that-are-home-to-uk-jewish-communities-1.517495 EternalTempest (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you. It seems as though User:JMF couldn't think of a way to logically refute your comment, so they've resorted to using an ad hominem response. This absurd modern convention where people that begin to lose an argument feel the need to resort to using words meant to intimidate, such as "racist", "Xenophobe", "bigot", etc, really needs to stop; It has no place in a forum like this.. Unless there is a VERY clear motive for their use, we should avoid their use entirely. XD3vlLx (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said already, discussion of what content is appropriate for UK settlement articles belongs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography and I will not continue a debate about content here at ANI. But just so that a world-wide audience can see what the fuss is about, may I draw attention to this map (published 1901) of "Jewish East London" and the anti-semitic legislation that followed?

"A salutary reminder to approach maps with caution: those that claim a statistical basis are not necessarily neutral. This map illustrates the density of the Jewish population in London's East End in 1899, but by focusing on a narrow area of the capital and using heavily nuanced colour-coding, it contrives to be alarmist without actually distorting the underlying data." Bryars & Harper 2014, 22.

— Cornell University Library, Digital Collections[42]

Analysis of wards by Jewish population is probably unlikely to lead to an outbreak of overt anti-semitism but I doubt you could say the same about the same analysis by Muslim population.

I will copy this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Religion at ward level, where the content dispute can better be resolved. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, that was 1901. As you yourself say, this is not going to be the case in 2023. I appreciate your concern on our behalf but as demonstrated, we are publishing this data in our own periodicals.

As for the 'what is appropriate for the UK,' I cede to your expertise. EternalTempest (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EternalTempest; what we anonymous editors declare about ourselves doesn't really matter. We could claim anything, and false-flag claims are as feasible here as on Twitter. Saying you're Jewish can't justify phrasing or give anyone the authority to speak for Jews here ("on our behalf", "we are publishing", "our own periodicals").

On Wikipedia, we avoid editorialising and framing; see for example MOS:EDITORIAL (persuasive writing approach is also against the Wikipedia:No original research policy (Wikipedia does not try to steer the reader to a particular interpretation or conclusion) ... editorializing can produce implications that are not supported by the sources) and WP:SYNTH. There are plenty of good reasons for that, including the avoidance of potentially "dog-whistle" or provocative phrasing such as "As of the 2021 census, Potters Bar still had a Christian majority", from which the reader can take "so far, but under threat", and pales in comparison, which can be read as an adroit reminder of the "swarthy jew". NebY (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So reword the editorial.

Yes, I'm aware I could be anyone, hence why I posted 5 or 6 detailed Jewish news articles with the same stats. You don't have to take my word for it, but we (Jews) do care and are interested. If the Jewish News is happy to post this data, which it is, and no one complains, which they don't, perhaps it is demonstrable that, Jewish or not (and I am), I am correct that this is not something the Jewish community sees as worrisome and is in fact something the Jewish community finds fascinating and revels in publicising.

But again, please, reword at your discretion. IIRC no one has thus far tried to. EternalTempest (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Jewish or not, it is 2023, and that was 1901, and as the OP admitted, it's simply not a likely outcome today. EternalTempest (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute. Take it to WikiProject UK geography. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Has done canvassing on AfD's about paintball, such as the AfD's for Bob Long Intimidator or PGP (paintball marker). Invited Reddit users from r/paintball to Wikipedia to mass vote Keep, as shown here. Also harassed @Ajf773: and others via the Reddit thread. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 09:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GameGod doesn't seem to recognise how serious the actions they have taken are. Going to a social media site and attempting to canvass votes is very poor conduct, and they have completely ignored that. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GameGod also seems to have zero understanding of the word bias or how Wikipedia notability guidelines work. According to them, Wikipedians are biased because we want to delete these articles (based on WP:GNG), but they are totally fine to post on Reddit and demand people vote with them? The fact that comment starts with The reason why canvassing for topic experts is necessary means they know they're canvassing, they know it's not allowed, and they are still going to do it anyway. I did request semi-protection of these AFDs to mitigate the canvassing issue, but this was declined by Scottywong (not saying they're wrong to decline it, but it would have prevented some of the bullshit accusations by canvassed editors that are continuing on those AFDs). Gamegod is looking like not here to benefit the encyclopedia, just to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And probably all the canvassed, harassing IPs and new editors should be warned/blocked too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how the vast majority of posts by him aren't even paintball-related. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 12:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I saw an article on something historically important and that I thought was notable was proposed for deletion, and when I looked at the discussion, I saw a bunch of yes votes with no dissention, so I had a kneejerk reaction here and posted on Reddit because the situation seemed ridiculous. Unfortunately, I did not know about the canvassing policy (and neutrality bit) nor that we only had 7 days, so when someone in that Reddit thread pointed out these same editors had deleted other paintball articles without contributing actual constructive edits, it looked like some sort of coordinated ill behaviour.

In the deletion pages, the editors involved informed us about the notability guidelines and the result of the canvassing was mainly that we got research done and people interested in contributing to those articles. Sure, we had a few anonymous commenters chime in and disagree, but that's par for the course and they don't count as votes anyways. As I just wrote on [my Talk page](User talk:GameGod), there was a much less combative approach that you all could have taken which would have defused this situation early on and lead us down a more constructive path. For the record, I didn't know there was a canvassing rule at the time I posted on Reddit, I only used the term in a reply after I was accused of breaking the rule, so that quote is not evidence that I knew what I was doing was wrong.

People on Reddit or on deletion pages disagreeing with what you write on the internet is not harassment, sorry. You're a Wikipedia editor, I know you have thicker skin than that. If you're experiencing targeted harassment outside of people disagreeing with you, then that's completely unacceptable and I apologize for any part I had in setting that in motion (and I'm happy to delete the Reddit post if you think it will help).

Perhaps a way forward is for you all to chime in and let me know how you would have preferred this be handled from my perspective, or what an to get external contributions to Wikipedia is. Thanks. GameGod (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and I'm happy to delete the Reddit post if you think it will help Yes, the reddit threads should be deleted ASAP, if for no other reason than to prevent further disruption to the AfDs. — Czello ^(music) 13:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done. The post on Reddit is now deleted. If there's anything else I can do to help resolve this, please let me know. GameGod (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt your capability to assume good faith. On your talk page, after NinjaRobotPirate nominated Rocket Streaming Audio Server, which you had created, for deletion, you accused them of WP:HOUNDING. Assuming good faith is a core behavioural guideline here, and you have completely failed to do so. They are allowed to look through your edit history, and just because you are the centre of a discussion at AN/I is not an excuse to tell them to not delete your article. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How I would've handled it from your perspective? There's a fundamental principle at work, which is that in a consensus-driven environment such as Wikipedia, sometimes you'll be on the wrong side of consensus, in which case the only thing to do is to lose gracefully and move on. Seeing a bunch of yes votes with no dissension doesn't mean "How can I pull a fast one to get my way?" It means (presuming that proper sourcing sufficient to save an article cannot be found) that you're on the wrong side of consensus, and it's time to lose gracefully and move on. Odds are, after all, more in favor of everyone else being right and you being wrong than in favor of everyone else being wrong and you alone being right.

I also want to address your "coordinated ill behavior" line. This is a riff we see pretty frequently on Wikipedia, and it's almost always bullshit. Do you genuinely believe that there is an organized cadre of people on Wikipedia who hate and fear paintball, and strive to eradicate mentions of it from the encyclopedia? What is in fact the general case is the following sequence: (1) some editor sees a suspect article, and (2) nominates it for deletion, and then (3) looks over the creator's contribution history and sees several -- or in some cases, hundreds more -- other sloppily created articles, and (4) nominates them for deletion. This can be an ongoing problem, and there've been editors who've created thousands such articles. One such editor was community banned from new article creation eight years ago, and we're still cleaning up his messes. Ravenswing 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to decide where to spend my time. Is paintball more or less important than professional wrestling? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you concentrate on beauty pageants. Narky Blert (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns with the actions of HJackson77 (talk · contribs). They used their userpage to create an article on themselves, which was deleted at MfD. However, they appear to have recently created a new account (PeterOR1 (talk · contribs)) and recreated this article in the sandbox of that article (editing it from both accounts).

On top of that, the editor in question also appears to be a coach at FC Romania, an article they have regularly edited. I have twice requested that they stop editing the article due to a WP:COI, but they have continued to do so. They have also told me to "stop poking your nose in where is isn't wanted".

I was tempted to block them for sockpuppetry/gaming, or specifically block them from the FC Romania article, but given my previous interactions with them, would probably be considered involved, so seeking others admins' opinions. Cheers, Number 57 11:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked PeterOR1 as a clear illegitimate sock. Will warn the master against further shenanigans. Star Mississippi 15:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've also deleted the sandbox of the blocked user under G4. Cheers, Number 57 16:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi, do you really think that’s enough? I’m much more inclined to just indef the master now. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles I haven't had time to fully dig into the COI issues @Number 57 referenced and didn't want to block without doing so. If you feel there's enough, I have no objection. The second account was a bright line block for me without digging. Star Mississippi 16:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A user named BangaloreNorth is attacking me personally by saying I have lost shame and self respect. They are also falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet, when the investigation has not even concluded. They have violated WP:NPA. Please take action against them. Here is the link of the discussion where they attacked me: Wiki discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinephile4ever (talk • contribs) 13:44 23 June 2023 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I didn't see any personal attacks in that conversation from the user you mentioned. This noticeboard is for intractable issues, and you may want to consider withdrawing this before others click that link and review your behavior in the conversation. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider seeing the personal attacks in that conversation. Cinephile4ever 17:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a WP:BOOMERANG for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Very Average Editor (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice support Cinephile4ever 17:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BangaloreNorth filed a checkuser request on Cinephile4ever:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MovieBuffIndia

That one talk page section, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Technical Fact Finding, is over 2500 words long - a great gray text wall of vexation and dispute.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was after these two edits ([43], [44]) that @Cinephile4ever stated they were attacked so one can assume that either they feel attacked by @BangaloreNorth stating they will be blocked in a few days because of the SPI investigation or because @BangaloreNorth accused them of twisting other editors words. --ARoseWolf 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit of their own words they updated one of the above diffs with "Have you lost that last bit of shame and self respect?" and then proceeded to call the OP by the name of the suspected master/sock they are accusing them of being. I do think this constitutes an attack on the editor but I understand @BangaloreNorth's frustrations with the OP who may have been WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Either issue could be left up to interpretation. --ARoseWolf 19:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for seeing and acknowledging that user's personal attack on me. Cinephile4ever 00:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How did this user personally attack you? By pointing out an investigation? Or saying that you arent worth their time and energy? I think the real issue here seems to be that you weren't able to resolve the issue the way that you wanted, and instead of just putting your ego aside and going about your day elsewhere, you decided to go on a power trip to try and get him "punished" in some way. XD3vlLx (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider using your eyes. "Why are you twisting the words of other people to suit your agenda? Have you lost that last bit of shame and self respect?" is a personal attack by any definition we employ. Ravenswing 22:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cinephile4ever 01:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Cinephile4ever, you need to inform BangaloreNorth about filing a report here. This is mandatory. Lourdes 10:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iwao24 has been acting in bad faith on the Korean influence on Japanese culture page. They have removed tens of thousands of bytes of sources content without consensus, and reverted repeatedly without discussion and very poor explanations.[45][46] I then left them a warning in their talk page.[47] They then left the weirdest racist-sounding message on the arcticle's talk page,[48] which I reverted.[49]

They said, "Google have to explain the reason why this article is being protected. For what reason this article is being protected?"

"Only those poor Japanese who cannot accept the fact that they were taught by Koreans before, is distorting the history. This nasty characteristic of Japanese is not new as a matter of fact. You keep doing distorting the history from your funatic nasty nationalism and you will only get bad reputation for that."

"When I deleted it, I was told to "discuss" and the article was revived

Who am I supposed to argue with on this empty board?

This is the claim of the person who wrote this article.

Wikipedia, editors

are we monkeys".

At this point, I just can't take more of their crap. They are obviously are inserting their own stupid bias into the article and claiming a conspiracy that doesn't exist. They have obviously every read WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY, or WP:EDITWAR.

I left them a warning for their talk page comment, but I am concerning this behavior may continue. I am calling upon Iwao24 to explain themselves, and for others on here to see the evidence and give their thoughts. Professor Penguino (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they were initially reasonable on the talk page but quickly deteriorated. I'm surprised this is at ANI though with how he's only made like 9 edits. I figure a short term block might be good. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds WP:NOTHERE to me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I want to note is he has seemingly made a lot of ip comments and edits. This is not abnormal on Japanese wikipedia as I understand it and shouldn't be held against him. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we wanna give them any more AGF, how about we give ‘em a template:welcome-foreign and see what happens? ja for Japanese, ko for Korean. Depends what we think this user’s home language is. If they keep being a pest after, then that’s the noose of the WP:ROPE. Thoughts? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 08:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. They continued to be a bit of a nuisance after I put the edit warring template on their talk page, but they didn't listen until I gave them yet another warning. My concern was that this behavior would not be confined to just this one incident, and might happen again in the future if the rules are not properly explained to them. Professor Penguino (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i remember you.

I explained to you in detail why Japanese swords, magatama, the emperor, and politics are not of Korean origin.

You suddenly changed the subject and said, "Yakiniku is made in Korea," right?

Yakiniku is a Korean dish. Similarly, Japanese swords are also Japanese. Iwao24 (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I was reported as a nuisance user, so I will write a counterargument. The person who wrote that article discriminates Japanese against monkeys. The article that pointed it out was also deleted.

I am not a revisionist historian. I have no intention of denying the sins that the Japanese empire did to Korea. We must apologize again and again for the comfort women issue, colonial rule, and discrimination against Koreans living in Japan.

But Japanese swords, politics, magatama, the emperor, laws, and ancient tombs are not from Korea. Iwao24 (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most aren't. But some of them are. You can't just go around deleting reliably sourced material. Also, what do you mean by "discriminates Japanese against monkeys"? That doesn't make any sense. Do you mean that there's some racist element in the article? Professor Penguino (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you seemed to imply before that there was some anti-Japanese conspiracy. "Only those poor Japanese who cannot accept the fact that they were taught by Koreans before, is distorting the history. This nasty characteristic of Japanese is not new as a matter of fact. You keep doing distorting the history from your funatic nasty nationalism and you will only get bad reputation for that." I am not Korean. I am unbiased on this topic. You also refer to "the author" of the article, yet don't seem to understand that dozens of different editors have worked on the article. There is no single author. I think you need to read WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY, and WP:NPOV. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the words left by the former editor, not mine.

The person called Japanese people M, a discriminatory term. Iwao24 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what your point is. Yes, calling Japanese people monkeys is racist. Can you provide a link that shows the person typing such a statement? Professor Penguino (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people who wrote that article discriminated against the Japanese by calling them "monkeys."

Can I paste that statement here?

I use a language translation program. Sorry for the poor English Iwao24 (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just remember to put it in quotes. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/782520269 Iwao24 (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted the URL. There is a sentence in this

"This is the answer.

Japanese monkeys gave some money to Google, and make them protect this article that has distorted history produced by Japanese monkeys.

Poor Japanese..." Iwao24 (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that comment is racist, but it was a comment from 2017 by an IP who's only edits to articles was to Taekwondo. Assuming it's still relevant, you it's likely you could revert whatever the IP did to Taekwondo. But otherwise, what relevance is it to our article Korean influence on Japanese culture's current content or your disputes with various accounts in the here and now? Nil Einne (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editor of the article contains an obvious racist. At least he was involved, right?

And if the article is correct, why is it different from the specialized page?

For example, the Japanese sword page on Wikipedia does not say that "Japanese swords came from Korea."

Could it be because the page where the racist was involved is skewed?

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not a historical revisionist. I think that the crimes committed by the Japanese Empire, such as the comfort women system, should be atoned for. But Japanese swords are not Korean Iwao24 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese swords are not Korean, yes. But a few swords do have their roots in Korea. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Could it be because the page where the racist was involved is skewed?" But how was the racist involved? They didn't make a single edit to the main article. Professor Penguino (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at their edit history, they haven't edited the article once, and just left that talk page message. That's right -- they never touched the main article. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we conclude that there is only one user account? A person who "calls Japanese monkeys" has appeared, and there are articles that are clearly wrong.

For example, the article states, ``Swordsmiths were kidnapped by Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea, and their skills improved the technique of Japanese swords.''

Japanese swords have existed since before the 16th century, right? It is also used for trade, and Ouyang Shu, a politician in the Song Dynasty of China, wrote a poem called "Japanese Sword Song" and praised Japanese swords highly.

Other errors and inconsistencies are noted on the discussion page of the article.

Penguin, I can't speak English. The only way to fix the article was to delete it. I apologize for bothering you

Could you please correct the article? Iwao24 (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that Japanese swords, magatama, law, emperors, and burial mounds are of Korean origin. Why don't you ask if you came from Korea on each specialized bulletin board? Iwao24 (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you think I came from a specialized bulletin board? I don't. Also, the article doesn't state that all of Japanese culture came from Korea. It talks about how Korea has influenced Japan... because it has. The same thing goes for the other way around. If you're still upset, then cite the specific parts you have an issue with. My main problem was that you deleted an entire reference section and damaged a few templates. Whether that was a mistake or not, it damaged the article. I'd be willing to close this discussion nd we can discuss this further on the article's talk page. Professor Penguino (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese sword

Japanese swords were not brought in by immigrants. The curved sword is inspired by the Ainu people of Tohoku.

law

Japanese politics and law are modeled after the laws of the Sui and Tang dynasties in China, and have been modified to suit the climate of Japan.

Katakana

Katakana is directly derived from Kanji

magatama

In Asia, jade, which is the source of magatama, is found only in the westernmost part of China (Tibet) and Japan. According to the latest inspection, the Korean magatama is also derived from the ruins around Itoigawa in Japan. The Japanese have been making magatama since primitive people in 5000 BC

ancient tomb

More than 5,000 have been excavated from Japan. If burial mounds are of Korean origin, why are only a few dozen burial mounds unearthed from South Korea?

emperor

Although the mother of the 50th emperor is of Baekje descent, the imperial family itself did not originate in Korea. The king of Korea also had a Japanese spouse, but the first king of Korea will not be Japanese.

Finally, as a Japanese person, I do not intend to deny crimes against Koreans. We must apologize repeatedly for the comfort women issue, colonial rule, and discrimination against Koreans in Japan. However, Japanese culture and history are not Korean.

Please delete the article or at least correct it. Iwao24 (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite racking up two Contentious Topics notices, multiple warnings for POV editing, and a warning for edit-warring, Leke23 (talk · contribs) has again reinstated (for something like the dozenth time) their POV edit to List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements, where they assert that Simon Ekpa is a "prime minister of a government-in-exile" on the same level as the Prime Minister of Hungary. Yet none of the sources the user has put forward even remotely back up their claims that Ekpa is some kind of official elected politician; they merely describe him as a "self-styled" leader of a movement that considers itself an exiled government.

This user's Wiki career to date has consisted pretty much exclusively of this edit-warring, coupled with miscellanous POV-pushing while attacking others for supposedly failing to remain neutral. There's also the small matter that they are very likely a sockpuppet of a blocked user.

I submit that Leke23's SPA behaviour is very much a net negative for Wikipedia, and therefore suggest they be blocked indefinitely. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 08:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as I would also like to note that their first edit on Simon Ekpa and that they have not edited anything other thing except for Simon Ekpa. PS: They’re probably going to talk about neutrality here. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, disclosure: I started a section on that talk page trying to seek a compromise. I actually think there might be a good-faith confusion issue here ... because I was a good-faith little confused! Now, as to Leke23, while I think his edit warring should be addressed, I am a little hesitant to throw the WP:SPA at him and indef. To be clear: I'm not disputing that all of his edits so far have related to Ekpa. But he's also, aside from a few talk page edits in February/April, only been editing for a month. I don't feel particularly strongly on this, but I want to at least suggest that an appropriate remedy would be a short term block to address the edit warring issue and an indef topic or page restriction limiting or prohibiting Leke's edits related to Ekpa (and, assuming Leke can abide by such a restriction and demonstrates interest as to other areas, an appeal would be appropriate). Frankly, we could use more editors interested in Nigerian history, and I think the resolution I propose would, while certainly not guaranteeing success, make it more likely that we ultimately end up with a good editor.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In case anyone agrees that the edit-warring should be addressed: they're now at 4 reverts on List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements in less than 48 hours. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 14:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I reverted and left a message on the talk page detailing WP:3RR and suggesting that the 4 edits in 48 hours will likely be found in violation of it. (I actually missed a date yesterday and originally thought that the user was in violation of 3RR at the time this notice was posted—sorry if I indicated that!)--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Editor had already received an initial EW warning and a final EW warning; reported to AN3. Schazjmd (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bbb23 @SuperMarioMan this is probably a return of the Ebuka19 (talk · contribs) / Seok jimmy (talk · contribs) / Odinaka1 (talk · contribs) / Anyinchukwu (talk · contribs) sock farm who were dedicated to writing spammy promotion about Simon Ekpa. I suspect 1st Contributor (talk · contribs) is also a sock/meatpuppet, based on their creation of a draft on the "exiled government" [50], their upload of Simon Ekpa's "official portrait" and the addition of it to the article [51] and their copyediting of content on Simon Ekpa added by User:Leke23 [52] [53]. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Welp I definitely take back my "let's give some rope" suggestion.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fwiw, that pic has been online since 2017:[54]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  l have no idea who those people are. This is 1st Contributor, a different contributor. 1st Contributor (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of their contributions:[55] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps admins should consider WP:BLUELOCK for the Simon Ekpa article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, haven't done this before so apologies if I mess something up, but I just noticed this IP address is vandalising a bunch of pages by putting a speedy delete template at the top with some nonsense reason. Could their edits be reviewed and the IP address' access be reviewed please? See below for a few examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazelwood_West_High_School&diff=prev&oldid=1161699174 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Gucci&diff=prev&oldid=1161698706 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Wick:_Chapter_4&diff=prev&oldid=1161698416 Cautilus (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d suggest AIV, if there’d been appropriate warnings on the talk page. Unless someone is willing to throw WP:IAR to the wall here, grab a few Vandalism Templates (1, 2, 3, 4, possibly this one too), and well, have a blast! Ehheh! MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 13:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the IP, deleted the vandalism draft. When you publish a draft like that, warning templates are unnecessary. Courcelles (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The user is not extended confirmed and therefore may not edit articles related to Russian-Ukrainian conflict. They have been given an alert and after that warned. (I warned them for the second time now since they were edit-warring in Oleg Sentsov). They never reacted (in fact, I do not think they ever used a talk page), and recently they turned to very doubtful moves without any discussion. They apparently have an opinion, which was introduced on Wikipedia by a bunch of now blocked socks, that everything related to Ukraine should have a name which conforms to WP:UKR and not to WP:COMMON. Moves of artyicles like Mykola Khvylyovy is disruptive and should not be performed without discussion. A block is probably needed. Ymblanter (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like you’ve done your homework on this already, so WP:AE might be the venue you’re after? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need AE for a user with 112 edits? Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very possible that I don’t know something in policy, but to my knowledge, if it’s restriction violations in an area that ArbCom’s pulled the rug around (so to speak), can’t an admin throw sanctions? And would it not go to AE, if you’re not a mop-holder (or, in your fair case, recluse from dragging yourself into a mess, by pushing sanctions in that area)?

At the risk of me sounding like The fresh prince of Bell-end, I can only improve my knowledge, if I know what I’ve got wrong, yes?

My lack of knowledge aside, and to keep the ANI on track, Toollabs pulls 136 edits for Khalepa, so he is, indeed, not ECP, as Blanter correctly notes. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking these are community-imposed general sanctions (not AE sanctions), though I can probably make a case for AE imposed sanctions in the area of Eastern Europe. Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that Vasiliy Lomachenko had a RM and it was not move, but the POV pusher moved it anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vuzorg (talk · contribs) has been warned many times on their talkpage but continues to edit in a disruptive manner. Its NOTHERE at this point. Semsûrî (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this might be better for WP:DR or WP:AIV, but if you want the discussion here that's fine. Could you give more context on the situation? Thank you. Professor Penguino (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every now and then they disrupt articles and remove info that is based on RS. Their main edits pertain to Zazas and removing any connection this group has to Kurds. This edit and its edit summary illustrates it well [57]. Beside the personal attack, they did not even bother to check the reference or just removed the info because they didn't like it. They've also deemed all references that I've used on these topics (which in most cases are academic references) as "Kurdish sources" which is absurd. [58] Semsûrî (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see. This does seem like it could be a long-term behavior issue. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Triantares (talk · contribs) almost certainly has a conflict of interest with Elive as both a forum administrator and contributor to software for Elive. Unrelated to this however since that topic should be brought to WP:COIN (which it was), the user comes off as both super defensive and combative on anything relating to this topic.

The user seems insistent that I'm trying to slander them or Elive because I missed a comment they made on Elive's third deletion nomination relating to the fact that an admin mentioned that the page was copied from another wiki; they corrected said admin stating that it came from Simple and not the wiki in question, however I missed this comment and mentioned on Elive's talk page about the wiki, which they then responded mentioning the original comment they made. I then apologised for this multiple times (see [59] and [60]) but the user is still, for some reason, acting quite uncivil (at least in my eyes). I decided to look into this and it seems they have been uncivil towards others too and (as far as I'm aware) they don't seem to be exercising WP:AGF at all; quotes mentioned below (of which the last 3 were directed towards me).

(diff 1157177913)

As to you marking multiple references with 'self published?': You are so obviously wrong that I wonder if you even made an effort to open and look through them. Adding a question mark does not remove the responsibility for the suggestion made there.

What I do with my time and when, is none of your business and it is certainly not up to you to use that as any sort of argument or qualification.

(diff 1157266559)

I'm Dutch so unlike German, English or French speakers, I don't politely beat around the bush and I don't mince words.

(diff 1161684848):

BTW This looks like an obvious ploy to move away from the previous slanderous comment of yours in regard to a "ripoff" of another text.

(diff 1161765751):

Believe me, I'm totally calm and certainly not angry, combative or vindictive in any way but I would recommend that you yourself read that WP:AGF a tad more carefully than you did the mentioned AfD and stop throwing dirt around in the hope that it will stick.

(diff 1161605971)

I'm not saying you should've read my statement but that you should at least do simple homework before slandering others. It makes you look biased at best or stupid at worst.

As far as I can tell, they seem quite uninterested in being civil (after being apologised to and being made aware of AGF twice [see above links 1 and 2], they're still under the idea that I'm under an attempt to "slander" them) and given that they've had this behaviour towards multiple users, I felt that it'd be worth mentioning here. Dawnbails (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be short, pointy and blunt here so as to avoid a wall of yes/no arguments:

1. Half of the above comments were in reply to an editor who's been reported here Disruptive editing by Yae4 and has since resigned.

A role @Dawnbails apparently has taken on to to continue on in regard to the Elive article and my person.

2. "appreciating information" is rather flimsy as an apology, especially where the allegation was very clearly worded with "ripoff", never corroborated and never explicitly retracted.

3. The COI notice ("unrelated" but mentioned anyway) was a nomination by the same resigned disruptive editor @Yae4to whom I've stated my stance on COI several times.

I find the practice of simply throwing some uncorroborated WP:XYZ labels at someone as a threat and then expecting an effort to prove innocence, quite annoying and a waste of my time. Triantares (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user, who based on their history appears to be affiliated with the fraternity, has persistently reverted and removed information (all published in credible news sources) that report negatively on their fraternity Alpha Kappa Rho (including well documented cases of hazing, murders, abuse and interventions by the police and local government.) The user has already violated the WP:3RR in undoing the edits/reverts made by myself and two other editors in a short period of time.

Recently, this has escalated to posting legal threats against me both on edit summaries and on the article itself, a clear and blatant violation of WP:THREAT.

• This is the last revision of the article I edited, where it should be evident that I have also been trying to improve the overall quality of the article to balance the lengthy controversies section. All edits, positive and negative, were reverted unilaterally.

• In this edit, the user actually writes on the article itself that I've been "reported" to Wikipedia and warning that their organization will threaten me with legal action if I don't cease my editing. Earlier legal threats have also been included in the edit summaries through the specific use of the word "libelous." For context on why this is serious, "cyber libel" is considered a criminalized offense in the Philippines and therefore a serious accusation.

• Latest revision of the article as of writing. User continues to unilaterally undo edits by other editors from WP:FRAT, and does not seem to be open to discussing about it in the article's talk page. I've reclused myself for now to avoid violating 3RR myself until this matter is resolved.

As for full disclosure, I am not a member or affiliated with any fraternity or Greek-letter organization. The edits that I've done on Alpha Kappa Rho was no different from the edits I've done on other notable fraternities in the country such as Tau Gamma Phi, Alpha Phi Omega (Philippines), Upsilon Sigma Phi, and Lex Talionis Fraternitas. PritongKandule-✉️📝 05:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Tomlara219 for violating the policy against making legal threats. The editor can be unblocked if they unambiguously withdraw the legal threats, and promise to edit in compliance with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The behavioral issues aside, if you want to read an absolutely eye-popping article, take a look at [61]. EEng 08:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Going off topic, I've never understood the point of hazing, or the allure fraternities have to North Americans. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The organizations in question are in the Philippines. Cullen328 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, of course. But the Filipinos are only copying the Americans. We gave up such nonsense in Europe a long time ago, except among future prime ministers. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Chancellors of the Exchequer. The one associated with the Cambridge spy ring may no longer exist. Narky Blert (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And the American are only copying the Europeans. I would also note that while it may be true in the UK that fraternal organizations are in decline in Southern and Eastern Europe it is an entirely different story (also note that if we're being technical they are also in rather rapid decline in the US). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good grief. If the user was branded while chanting "I will protect the name of Alpha Kappa Rho" then WP:3RR isn't going to put them off.DeCausa (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]