GregKaye has a history of problematic editing with WP:BLP implications relating to Amber Heard and the Depp v. Heard trial. Among many other examples:

• 1. GregKaye wrote a lengthy post on Talk:Amber Heard entitled "How to really help Amber," in which he opined: "Cards on the table, I think Amber ~needs or could gain advantage from some level of psychological help. Sure, I know it's not Wikipedia's role to be greatly involved but, for the sake of background understandings, I thought it might be worth giving a potential prompt to people's thoughts on the subject. From what I've seen she is in denial and that's just for starters. She gathers people around her that agree with her and then her friends still leave her. Personally I think that the only way a person like this may actually seek or at least be open to help is if people, at any closeness of connection to her, are open that there at least might be issue/s. [...]"
• 2. GregKaye edited the Depp v. Heard article to read "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK," though the sources cited in his edit clearly said the opposite: "At the start of his recent trial, many legal experts suggested that Mr Depp had a weaker chance of winning than he did in the UK, because the US has very strong free speech protections."; "The perceived wisdom is that it is much easier to win a defamation case in the UK than in the US, where the enshrinement of free speech in the first amendment of the constitution is sacrosanct."; "Many legal experts doubted that Depp would win the case: The actor had lost a similar libel suit in the U.K. against the tabloid The Sun in 2020."
• 3. GregKaye added thousands of bytes of unnecessary, salacious information to the Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd article, including a (lengthy) verbatim text exchange in which Johnny Depp disparaged Heard as a "50 cent stripper" who was "begging for total global humiliation," with no secondary sources. After these additions were challenged, GregKaye conceded that "I've definitely made errors here and must certainly offer my apologies."
• 4. GregKaye falsely accused journalist Fran Hoepfner of lying (specifically referring to "commentary by Fran Hoepfner, a writer whose content is proven falacious (sic)"), all because he did not understand the difference between live chat and the YouTube comments section; he struck a small portion of his post after his error was pointed out, but even this was not the end to the saga (see bullet point six, below).
• 5. GregKaye diluted the findings of reputable fact-checkers PolitiFact and Snopes to the effect that Heard did not recite movie quotes or use cocaine during her sworn testimony with absurdly detailed in-text attribution (e.g., "Dan Evon from Snopes is among journalists with views such that"; "Nur Ibrahim of Snoops (sic) is one of several journalists observing"). Furthermore, he changed the article text to read that the former accusation was "implausible" but not necessarily "false" or "disproven," contradicting the sources (see, e.g., PolitiFact's "False" rating). On the talk page, he explained that he did this because he saw a YouTube video with 8,000 views titled "Amber Heard mimicking Rihanna," which he found to be credible, and which informed his view that "Wikipedia should certainly be wary against implying ... Heard did or didn't borrow from Rihanna's account of abuse survival." Moreover, he reiterated that his edits (and his talk page suggestion regarding Heard's testimony being likely "borrow(ed) from Rihanna") are based on things that he "heard of ... on social media."
• 6. Additionally, while GregKaye is usually careful to adhere to expected norms of civility and (as seen in some of the examples above) to at least partially walk-back especially controversial actions/statements when confronted, this veneer of civility falls apart on occasion. His edit summaries, even for copyedits and minor wording tweaks, routinely claim to be rooting out imaginary "misrepresentations" by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors (e.g., [1]). At one point, he appeared to suffer a breakdown and left the following edit summary: "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" On a related note, a few days after rescinding his accusation that Hoepfner's article "is proven falacious (sic)," GregKaye again referred to it as "provably fallacious nonsense," with no new evidence.
• 7. GregKaye's conduct has been a matter of acute concern to several editors active in the topic area, among them Gtoffoletto (e.g., [2]; [3]) and TrueHeartSusie3, who stopped editing the article in large part because of his behavior.

To be honest, I considered filing a report after just the first two examples, but instead I attempted to engage with GregKaye in good faith, reasoning that since he has the capacity for civility, it was possible to conclude that his desire to build a clean, well-written, and properly-formatted article would ultimately override his admittedly quite strong personal bias. Nevertheless, he has been given more than enough WP:ROPE and continues to prove me wrong; frankly, he does not seem to have the competence to sharply distinguish between his personal views, things that he saw on social media, and coverage in reliable sources. I am asking that GregKaye be topic banned from anything related to Amber Heard, broadly construed, to prevent further disruption and draining of volunteer resources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately some of the incidents described above by TheTimesAreAChanging have been misrepresented (assuming good faith, not purposefully) in a way that paints Greg in a harsher light.
  • For #2, this diff, made around the same time, proves that Greg changed the lede to reflect content he just added in the body. [4] Unfortunately, he didn’t change the lede’s references, and the new lede content contradicted the lede’s old references. starship.paint (exalt) 04:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see that any of the sources cited in that edit directly substantiate (or even relate to) GregKaye's statement (in wikivoice, and in the lede) that "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK." (To the contrary, as documented above, the preponderance of RS actually say the opposite.) At the very best, your defense means that GregKaye's edit constituted WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, but perhaps not deliberate source falsification. Either way, the conduct is concerning.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did say before on the talk page that Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won. Certainly, Greg needs to be much more precise. Yet, we should note that Greg may have misread content from this sources into making his conclusion - see quotes below. starship.paint (exalt)

• • For #4 Greg’s assertion of content fallacious is not necessarily asserting “lying”, could be asserting a mistake. starship.paint (exalt)
  • For #5, actually the original Wikipedia text (Widely-shared falsehoods that Heard was passing off film quotes as her own thoughts … were disproven) could be interpreted as inaccurate, that’s why Greg made the change. Both Snopes and Politifact addressed that it was false that Heard quoted one specific film (Mr Ripley). However, Snopes also discussed different allegations that Heard quoted other films than Ripley, and Snopes stated that some social media users expanded the allegation to include lines from other movies as well … We reviewed several of these rumors and found the claim that Heard was “stealing” movie lines implausible. That’s where Greg got “implausible” from. Yet, Greg wrote the claim Heard stole movie lines, such as from the talented Mr Ripley, was implausible - which is itself inaccurate, and perhaps that is why TheTimesAreAChanging protested. This would be accurate: the claim Heard stole movie lines ... was implausible, but clearly the articles said that the Ripley allegation was false. starship.paint (exalt)
  • For #7, that diff [5] you provided of TrueHeartSusie3 is quite offensive and incivil, Dunning-Kruger effect on steroids here, esp with @GregKaye,@Rusentaja, @PizzaMan and @HurricaneHiggins […] please don’t burn yourself out in the process of trying to reason with MRAs and conspiracy theorists. Further context, TrueHeartSusie3 isn't afraid to show her POV on the matter on her user page [6] - lauding an excellently written summary [7] which had the sub-headline How a washed-up movie star, men’s rights activists, and true-crime fans duped America. starship.paint (exalt)

Response:

• I am an editor that puts cards on the table, I go by my own name without embellishment and what you see is what you get. Outside of Wikipedia one of my first reactions was to challenge harsh contents against Amber Heard on social media in fear that she might suffer a similar fate as Caroline Flack who also publicly faced accusations of domestic abuse. TheTimesAreAChanging is adept in not providing fair diffs on issues, which I give here:[8] I don't want to justify that post but it finished: Example text My thought was that content might have been removed with a bias based on views on what might be best for Amber and I rashly flagged up what I thought was an opposing view. I don't keep track of all talk page additions but it's been pointed out that editors can have opinions and still edit according to WP:NPOV which is something I fight for.
• As previously explained. "... I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article.[9] It was in those same four consecutive edits I also made a mistake by, I'm guessing, transferring wording from one side of a link, "US and the UK", directly into wording "US than the UK" on the other side of the link. The result was that I produced a link in the form: "[[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]". In my four edits, I'd amended the total wording from:
     "Many legal experts had doubted whether Depp could win his case having lost a similar libel suit in the UK."
  to read:
     "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better [[#Differences between the US and the UK trials|in the US than the UK]]", while also adding the freedom of speech material into the Differences between the..trials section.
  I was late in addressing this particular but this was in context of TheTimesAreAChanging failure to provide a contextualised diff in an intro of the previous related thread and I was busy addressing the other bullet point issues presented (which were largely shown to be my corrections of previous POV bias in article content). I previously spoke[10] of going "through the living hell of accusation, without a contextualisation presented for the edits" in a discussion on "edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja" These accusations perpetuate and still, as noted by the editor above, regarding "incidents [that] have been misrepresented".
• Yup, I admit when I'm wrong. That particular edit, if anything, made Depp look bad. It's hardly an indication of POV. The whole thing might have been sorted out a lot sooner if editors had pinged me to discussion instead of just talking about what I was trying to do. I suspect that this was part of an early attempt at WP:ROPE When finally getting notification, which came among TheTimesAreAChanging's other accusations, I added an edit[11] to the relevant page to give indication that I was "making some checks on the approach taken" which I did with appreciated response on the WikiProject Law talk page.
• Issues related to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-A article in gawker are discussed here
• The Wikipedia content presented had stated "falsehoods that Heard was passing off film quotes as her own thoughts ... were disproven." As indicated in the discussion[12], confirming that statement would take WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL mindreading. The way editors had presented the issue was as opinion and I mistakenly evoked those related rules. I made an edit with clear edit summary. It was reverted and we've now moved on to a more encyclopaedic solution.
• I've encountered lots of misleading content such as the above and worse. Though I don't think I've said so previously I appreciate TheTimesAreAChanging's reference to cabal which I certainly see could apply.
  Again, in relation to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-A article in gawker, all this was covered here. In my reply I said, "(Also, following WikiVirusC's helpful comment, and as much as anything for my own peace of mind, I downloaded 33070 chats via the Save Live Streaming Chats for YouTube app from the chrome store and found one reference to "is cooked" and one for "is a cooked" with no other cooked references. I found 31 "I love you" references but with a significant proportion about "Issac")." I'm happy for my workings to be checked. Wikipedia certainly should research ensure that article contents are WP:NOTFALSE.
• Pinging select editors who have supported your views is not appreciated. Gtoffoletto harasses me pointedly and relentlessly as can be seen through talk pages as in example here.

The sheer level of spin in all the issues presented above displays clear POV bias and, if anything, it should be TheTimesAreAChanging facing the topic ban. GregKaye 07:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that TheTimesAreAChanging needs a topic ban. I assume good faith and think that TheTimesAreAChanging needs to describe issues more accurately. I wouldn't say the above by Gtoffoletto is harassment either. I just feel that there doesn't need to be a war here between any editors of this topic. My analysis of the above incidents of Greg: #1 is problematic and unneeded, #2 is a mistake of overreaching analysis and carelessness, #3 is a mistake of using only primary sources, #4 is a mistake of research, #5 is a mistake in writing (Ripley fragment), #6 'breakdown' is also problematic, as for #7 ... personally I feel that Gtoffoletto may have overreacted regarding this topic, from what I quoted above, TrueHeartSusie3 should assume more good faith (or, if she cannot, at least, not be incivil). Context, I acknowledge that TrueHeartSusie3 has been harassed by an IP over their editing in this topic. Overall, Greg has certainly made several mistakes, and it is up to the community to decide if these are worth a topic ban. Personally, the mistakes do cause concern and I would support a warning for Greg. He has to be much more careful going forward. starship.paint (exalt)

• Oppose any action against GregKaye. I've not contributed much to the Depp v Heard article, and don't believe I've edited it at all since the trial concluded, but the page has been on my watchlist since day 1. I've been following the talk page discussions the whole time, and I find nothing eggregious with GregKaye's contributions. He's made a couple of mistakes, but has apologised and corrected them as soon as they're pointed out.
  I concur with starship.paint's analysis that the diffs presented above don't exactly match up with the actual version of events once you click on them. I would've been more than happy to support a topic ban for GregKaye based on #6 alone. Then I clicked the links. GregKaye has never in any way "routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary 'misrepresentations' by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors", or anything of the sort. This is a clear-cut case of WP:SANCTIONGAMING#1. Also, saying that Greg "appeared to suffer a breakdown" is downright insulting. I'll leave it to others to decide if this requires boomeranging. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 16:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"GregKaye has never in any way 'routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary "misrepresentations" by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors', or anything of the sort." In just the past month, we have seen edit summaries/comments from GregKaye including:

• 1. "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" (06/06/2022);
• 2. "The Broadcasting live should only have been relevant for the viewerships - unless editors are wanting to tenaciously (sic) suggest something without evidence." (06/08/22);
• 3. "Not sure why we're quoting Guardian journalist opinions but PLEASE GET IT RIGHT. even per this cite, the case was always trial by jury. pls, pls cut the WP:Tendentious editing." (06/22/22);
• 4. "rmv: 'in the stream chat' from WP:Tendentious editorialising on claims NOT made in cited articles. The 'stream chat' at Sky News shows 'Comments are turned off.'" (06/23/22);
• 5. "WP:NOTOPINION 'Although some topics, ... tempt people to "climb soapboxes", Wikipedia is not the medium for this.' (we'd at least need secondary refs to primary ref to journalistic opinion)" (06/24/22);
• 6. "chg to: 'the great majority of Depp's alleged assaults' editors keep misrepresenting content in citations." (06/29/22); and, of course,
• 7. "Though I don't think I've said so previously I appreciate TheTimesAreAChanging's reference to cabal which I certainly see could apply." (07/02/22).

Others should evaluate the diffs above to make their own determination, but to my mind none of GregKaye's allegations of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing or deliberate "misrepresentations" were properly predicated: #1 concerned text from a secondary source which accurately quoted The Sun's original article, as opposed to a later revised version (GregKaye replaced the secondary source with a link to the updated article on The Sun's website, implicitly conceding that the previous text flowed directly from the secondary source and was in no way "misrepresented" by any Wikipedia editor—if there was any "cherrypicking," it was by GregKaye himself, who did not like the coverage in secondary sources); #2 concerned text that simply noted the U.S. trial was "broadcast live" and that this "was a major difference between the two trials"; #3 involved GregKaye changing "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian referred to the case as 'trial by TikTok'" to "Journalist Amelia Tait of The Guardian said that Heard v Depp had turned into 'trial by TikTok'," which is a minor wording tweak, not a desperately-needed correction of an egregious distortion; #4 appears to have been another misunderstanding by GregKaye; #5 is civil on its face, but radically misconstrues policy to suggest that opinion sources are unusable unless they have been commented on by other opinion sources—an interpretation so novel that GregKaye once mused "there's a chance it may change the entirety of Wikipedia" itself—and implied that editors who refuse to accept this misinterpretation are engaged in WP:SOAPBOX behavior; #6 involved GregKaye changing "[Nicol] found that Depp had lost his case as the allegations against him had been proven to a civil standard and were found to be 'substantially true'" to "[Nicol] found that Depp had lost his case as the great majority of Depp's alleged assaults had been proven to a civil standard and were found to be 'substantially true'"; and #7 is probably not the tack that GregKaye should be taking in this forum.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are we discussing Amber Heard's mental state and "How can we best help Amber Heard"? That is not our concern. We build an encyclopedia by reporting reliable third party research, we do not play armchair psychiatrist on BLP articles. Full stop. Wikipedia isn't therapy for editors and it's not therapy for your favourite celebrity either. Darkknight2149 05:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Totally agree with Darkknight2149 above: Wikipedia isn't therapy. This is exactly the issue here unfortunately. I've been pinged several times in this discussion but I don't care enough to be dragged into this. I think this thread was just a matter of time as I've told Greg several times. A lot of time and energy has been wasted already. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did (mistakenly) discus Amber Heard's mental state. I was notified rapidly that I was incorrect to do so and I have been in agreement that I was wrong in my action from that point on. I made a good faith edit on something that I thought was for the good. I stand (and have stood) corrected that my actions did not conform to policy. It's not a mistake that I've repeated. It's certainly a valid question why we're discussing this now. GregKaye 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying you have made several mistakes and I agree you are improving over time. However this article is WP:BLP and does not allow such mistakes. Wikipedia must get the article right. and must Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. This is why my suggestion has always been to "slow down" and be extremely careful with your edits. You are still too WP:RECKLESS and making massive edits to the article several times a day. You can't make mistakes and just say "my bad". We can't afford those "mistakes" on a WP:BLP page. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Gio. This was information that was certainly right in a Testimony in Depp v. Heard content and was certainly up for debate to remain in the main article and was something I raised in a talk page.
Your main article abuses, despite instruction in WP:BLP that "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects", include adding content on wife beater even claiming consensus regarding a previous discussion with one policy based argument against inclusion and one subjective argument for. All issues had been previously covered but you still pushed "leading"[13] In just one defiance against MOS:INSTRUCT we "Simply present sourced facts with neutrality and allow readers to draw their own conclusions" and in claim of "the High Court in London rejecting [Depp's] claims" even though, as had been previously noted, Nicol had recognised that Depp had "proved the necessary elements of his cause of action". And you persist seeking to add your instructional "rejecting" again[14] this time under the supposed guise of "stating clearly that Depp lost the case". If you considered this necessary you could have said something like "Depp lost the [London case]" but, in context of the already stated findings of the judge, seems tangentially relevant to an article of Depp v. Heard. Your abuses of rules like MOS:INSTRUCT are huge[15] and don't seem to be by "mistake". You wanted to present select references to differences between the trials and, in example provided below, fought against inclusion of additional content providing WP:Balance. GregKaye 06:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg you have completely lost me. I have no idea of what you are referencing here and have not understood what you are complaining about. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gio, this isn't the first time you've given a "didn't understand" response when others managed readily.[16]
You've a history of harrassment[17] and I suspect you know exactly what you're doing. It's just now you've also extended your harrassment to WP:BLP personalities. GregKaye 04:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever... godspeed {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment by TheTimesAreAChanging

The continued misrepresentations in talk page discussions and here in a waste of time to other editors and a source of distress for me. I appreciate previous comments made above:

• by starship.paint to say that "Unfortunately some of the incidents described above by TheTimesAreAChanging have been misrepresented (assuming good faith, not purposefully) in a way that paints Greg in a harsher light."
• and by Homeostasis07 to say "Then I clicked the links. GregKaye has never in any way "routinely claim[ed] to be rooting out imaginary 'misrepresentations' by a cabal of WP:TENDENTIOUS editors", or anything of the sort. This is a clear-cut case of WP:SANCTIONGAMING #1. Also, saying that Greg "appeared to suffer a breakdown" is downright insulting. I'll leave it to others to decide if this requires boomeranging."

I mentioned going "through the living hell of accusation, without a contextualisation presented for the edits" and this kind of thing is continuing on repeat. When getting notification of this discussion I dragged myself into giving a by no means complete rebuttal and then just had to get away. It's horrible. Old issues are continually dragged up and misrepresented. TheTimesAreAChanging, as far as I remember, has never addressed me directly other than as response where I was addressing TheTimes directly. In all (or near to) other cases, TheTimesAreAChanging, has limited this to talking about and disparaging me often with misrepresentation. The irony is not lost on me that its in relation to an article on a defamation trial that these activities have happened.

TheTimesAreAChanging was the first to make accusation of WP:TENDENTIOUS misrepresentation as in Revision as of 00:37, 13 June 2022 in relation to my edits here I totally accept that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment whilst also under the pressure of the misrepresented accusations mentioned. (My comments regarded misrepresentations in edits while having no idea in regard to a number of editors involved. My intention was to highlight the problem but not to specifically point fingers). So much heat was generated on the talk page that I felt the need to attempt cordial exchange with editors personally[18].

On the way to this I'd pinged TheTimesAreAChanging in a conciliation seeking edit[19] to explain "... I know of a specific editing instant that was pointed out to me which was a certain mistake. I'd like to get it in context. I'd previously made an edit[20] "Legal experts considered that Depp's chances of winning in the US were weaker than in the UK citing strong freedom of speech protections in the US." Later, when editing an internal link into this text, I had a real brain fart and mixed up the US and the UK with the result of producing this edit[21] to rewrite the same text as I'd previously written to say "Legal experts considered Depp's chances of winning to be better in the US than the UK."
The talk page subsection on "A quickly fixed mix-up between the "UK" and the "US" made within approaching 10,518 character edits"[22] has also been on the talk page at the end of TheTimesAreAChanging's accusation thread since 13:01, 16 June 2022. Here I'd stated that "I brought the topic of freedoms of speech into the article." Regardless of all this TheTimesAreAChanging persists in presenting the related accusation above.

TheTimesAreAChanging can insist that I withdraw accusations,[23] yet none of the accusations by TheTimesAreAChanging, even when full of misrepresentation, ever get withdrawn. GregKaye 16:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"TheTimesAreAChanging was the first to make accusation of WP:TENDENTIOUS misrepresentation as in Revision as of 00:37, 13 June 2022 in relation to my edits ... I totally accept that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment whilst also under the pressure of the misrepresented accusations mentioned." The timeline of diffs presented above suggests otherwise. For example, GregKaye left the edit summary "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" a week before my first edit to the article. Unlike GregKaye, I presented evidence of a clear misrepresentation on the the talk page, which GregKaye (and every other user) accepted at the time; notably, GregKaye's explanation for the error ("I had a real brain fart and [repeatedly] mixed up the US and the UK") departs from Starship.paint's sympathetic evaluation above: "I did say before on the talk page that 'Greg may have over-analysed this, as I don't think the sources actually explicitly said that the US trial was easier for Depp, though they did describe reasons why he won.' Certainly, Greg needs to be much more precise. Yet, we should note that Greg may have misread content from this (sic) sources into making his conclusion - see quotes below."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you using the “tenacious hacks” comment to rebut GregKaye’s statement that you are the first person to accuse them of tendentious editing? Are you not understanding the difference in those words and conflating their use of them with your accusation of their behavior? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I understand the difference between "tendentious" and "tenacious," but it's not obvious that GregKaye does (cf. the GregKaye diff above about "editors are wanting to tenaciously suggest something without evidence"). In any case, elementary logic would suggest, if GregKaye is claiming "that I went too far various of my subsequent edit summaries [after June 13] but perhaps they can be viewed in context of previous pointed comment," then there should be no uncivil edit summaries from GregKaye before the putative June 13 "provocation". Therefore, it is material that he was leaving uncivil edit summaries like "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable, wanting to tenaciously smear with labels like wifebeater even though it NEVER appeared in a paper's PAPER edition and only appeared online for TEN HOURS. PLEASE STOP THIS SHIT! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!" on June 6 and "editors are wanting to tenaciously suggest something without evidence" on June 8. Do you really want to play this silly "gotcha!" game or will you honestly acknowledge that such behavior is clearly unacceptable? (Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to people the internet dislikes, such as Amber Heard, and that civility and decorum are expected even on much more serious life-or-death topics such as those involving war crimes.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re misreading GregKay’s statements. He is using “tenacious” in its correct meaning, someone who won’t quit with their current behavior. Nothing in those quotes is worthy of sanction. Swearing is not inherently uncivil.

I’d ask why you’re trying to play a “gotcha” game with the dates in question, personally. Just drop this diversion and focus on the core issues if you want to resolve this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "He is using 'tenacious' in its correct meaning, someone who won't quit with their current behavior." A review of GregKaye's 281 edits to Depp v. Heard shows that his very first edit contesting inclusion of The Sun's "wife beater" quote already accused other editors of "wanting to tenaciously smear"; I am not aware of any previous reverts by other users (or of a concurrent talk page discussion), so the definition is not obviously applicable. (The TENACITY of the article not reading exactly as Greg wanted it to from day one!) Sure, without the power to read minds there is no way to prove if this is actually another "Snoops" vs. Snopes situation, but "tenaciously smear" is a relatively uncommon formulation, compared to (say) "mendaciously smear". Regardless, I was giving GregKaye the benefit of the doubt that in a few of the diffs above he may have been raising (potentially valid) concerns about Tendentious editing (or WP:SOAPBOXing, as in edit summary #5) in the wrong forum (i.e., an edit summary)—which is a fairly routine, minor infraction that most of us have done on occasion, albeit not necessarily at the same frequency as GregKaye—rather than hurling insults or name-calling. If you think that he was just name-calling, then I won't contest that any further.
• "Swearing is not inherently uncivil." I agree! Now will you please address "Wikipedia tenacious hacks can really be F******* deplorable"?
• "Just drop this diversion and focus on the core issues if you want to resolve this." Any further disruptive editing will most likely be resolved in a different forum, but here's hoping that that will not be necessary! Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks at least for noting (my proud contribution of), "Found 281 edits by GregKaye on Depp v. Heard (14.12% of the total edits made to the page)" and noting my (actually slower than I would have liked) response to WP:BLP issue based on "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects"
  No it's not about "the article not reading exactly as Greg wanted it" which is another of your misrepresentations but I'll continue to object to abuses of issues like MOS:INSTRUCT along with WP:DUE which have been more my issues.
• Yes, even when dealing with issues like misrepresentation of sources, naughty words may not be called for even if aimed at no one in particular.
• Your "Just drop this..." has never been something you've been willing to do. You're already on one violation of WP:FORUMSHOP and editors like starship.paint, Homeostasis07, Saucysalsa30 and myself will likely oppose you in other locations as well. If editors don't confront your abuses,[24] I have no reason to expect they that they won't continue.

GregKaye 19:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This what I've seen to be typical of the WP:Bludgeoning responses and interactions of TheTimesAreAChanging, repeating the same things over and over again. (I got the message the first time). It's reminiscent of the 970 word response[25] to the thread on edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja" within which TheTimesAreAChanging still managed to target me in an off topic link. I'd encourage editors to visit Talk:Depp v. Heard and its archives and look up references to issues such as WP:Due/WP:Balance as well as the concept that "the same rules need to apply to all" in regard to rules like WP:OR and WP:Coatrack which I think give further context for this discussion. GregKaye 15:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GregKaye Commenting to point out this looks like a case of WP:BOOMERANG. A report was made against you on misrepresentations like other editors pointed out, presumably for the purpose of removing you from the discussion. However your being harassed and the edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja mentioned by GregKaye at these links [26][27][28] including attacks on Rusentaja as an editor are the more substantial issues here, and it would appear the report was made on you to deflect from this unbecoming activity regarding Depp_v._Heard. Unfortunately such engagement edit warring, WP:BLUDGEONING, engaging in ownership of articles especially those with lower edit activity like removing edits that defy a particular narrative being presented, removing edits proactively in spite of Talk page discussions, harassment, proactively reporting users when consensus or evidence is against them, and more, has been a common trend for years and is not exclusive to this case. The harassment and edit warring you point out are an ongoing example.

A few other easily visible recent examples

• An issue discussed was discussed on the Talk page and sorted out. An edit is made in line with that, and then TheTimesAreAChanging reverts that edit on the basis of personal opinion despite Talk discussion. [29]
• One of many instances of reverting an edit and removing a good source on loose basis on an article they "own", among others, and if you take a closer look, have driven a narrative on this article on the basis of a single 4-page controversial and refuted paper in contradiction to almost 30 years of data and academic study, including hundreds of studies, books, and other publications. It's an extreme case of WP:UNDUE and an ongoing example of WP:OWNERSHIP, tendentiousness [30]
• More reverts on personal opinion, which is the plurality of the editor's activity overall, often with a shaky editor note to "justify" removing sourced additions like "editing against consensus" when no such consensus exists, like recent edits on Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations and Khomeinism [31][32][33][34]
• but then will go ahead and edit articles on the basis of personal point-of-view such as [35]. When someone contests this, the response is edit warring like with Rusentaja and making ANI reports like this on GregKaye, or continued reverts of other editors like on the same Trump_Tower_wiretapping_allegations article linked above.

I'm not going to look through and link thousands of examples of this and other forms of editing behavior by the reporter here or point out other issues as this isn't the topic here. This is a sample of very recent times to point out what GregKaye is stating regarding the reporter of the ANI topic is not new editing behavior, to give context to why the ANI was created due to GregKaye's and Rusentaja's misdoing being not acquiescing to a user with an unfortunate track record of this type of editing, and to point out the accusations against GregKaye are being overblown.

A much better handling of this situation than engaging in edit warring against one user and witch hunting against another due to "losing" in a dispute is described here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes_with_outside_help Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

dialogue

TheTimesAreAChanging. I hope we can talk and, one way or another, get things resolved. You've repeatedly levelled a lot of accusations at me on issues that have been shown to contain misrepresentations of issues and that have variously been either explained or not repeated or both. These are issues that have been raised previously and they've been noted on repeat.

I hope you can give some consideration to the designation that, within Wikipedia, you've applied to yourself; specifically on the extents both to which you think other people can change with time and the extents to which your perceptions of situations can change in that time as well as to consider the extent to which your standards may change in the ways that you hold them to others and to yourself.

In the discussion on Inclusion of differences between UK and US trials on Talk:Depp v. Heard I replied to you:

"And again, TheTimesAreAChanging, In the same way that I said to Suzie "You're right about editing." I'll say to you, you are very right about coatrack and the same rules need to apply to all. The initial OR coatrack, if anything, was the initial lead comment on differences between the trials in the lead. IF it's OR to attempt produce a balanced account of differences between the trials isn't it also OR to cherrypick select examples of differences between the trials to publish? Fundamentally, on the valid argument you present, it's this OR chosen initial content that should go. We can simply talk of having live broadcast (done) and the trial having a jury (also done). As I said from my first reply: "the choice is between whether the article presents a content on differences between the trials or not." How is that not so?"

In the third paragraph of your opening reply to the edit warring thread,[36] you included pointed comment:

"despite the frustrating nature of a chaotic revision history that leaves experienced editors blindsided and unable to locate the diff wherein a crucial part of the lede was gutted without discussion."

The link is to a response from gtoffoletto, a "wiki-ogre" of his own description, within comments that followed with the edit summary: "WP:LAWYERING Not mentioning the previous trial is absurd."

1. I was not involved in wikilawyering other than in claiming that "the same rules need to apply to all"
2. As you know from my perception as in the immediately preceding response[37] "A different editor decided this topic was best covered in the article's body text." who happened to be the editor that started the thread.
3. My personal edit summaries are fantastically clear (if anything I stand corrected on having needed to have toned them down).

In relation to this off topic content in your 970 word reply, and feeling the weight of past accusation, I came to your talk page in attempt to discuss the issue[38] only, myself, to be accused of bludgeoning.

You insist on BLP considerations in regard to the Fran Hoepfner, Willy Womp-a article in gawker[39] and, even though I immediately comply to your demands, you still make issue of it here. Meanwhile, on another BLP topic (me), you are corrected again and again regarding your accusations and, while nothing is withdrawn, you still bring the same stuff out on repeat. In regard to the wp:crystal ball text, where my one attempt at revision was reverted, I'm still glad that it was raised as an issue on the article talk page[40]. I'd pointed out that it was just a revert[41] but now I'm thankful that the issue was dealt with in that way so that I wouldn't get "blindsided" here.

Please talk with people. People can change as can our understandings of them. Please hold yourself to the same standards to which you hold others and which others may hold you too as well. In the same way that you demand change from others, you can change too. GregKaye 04:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment

If the situation is virtually one editor vs many editors? Then who's the problem. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, yes "if", but I wouldn't say "many editors", at least not since managing to address various of misrepresentations made by TheTimesAreAChanging to which starship.paint and Homeostasis07 have referred. I've not had previous difficulties like this. See also comments by Saucysalsa30 above including: "However your being harassed and the edit warring between TheTimesAreAChanging and Rusentaja mentioned by GregKaye at these links including attacks on Rusentaja as an editor are the more substantial issues here," among other strong points. In cases where there have editors involved, we still have to go by our 5p based rules.

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GregKaye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GregKaye 13:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC) "if" 5:57, 9 July (UTC)[reply]

Hope it all works out. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hope suits you GoodDay and I hope to more fully return to it. I've inserted a section heading above (which anyone can change) but hope it suits. GregKaye 19:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As said above, I’ve pretty much decided to retire from WP for now and yes, tendentious editing is a major reason. I could not care less about IPs calling me names etc, but when editing becomes all about trying to fix a seemingly endless flow of misinformation/misinterpretation, then I know WP is no longer for me. GregKaye’s editing is the textbook example of tendentious, in every way. I don’t think he is necessarily malicious, he simply has a very strong view of the case, which, combined with his lack of source criticism skills and seemingly endless time to spend on editing results in eg misrepresenting sources in the process. He is a very prolific editor, but his edits are rarely an improvement; as an example, please see his edits to Depp v NGN, where he replaced the sourced text with quote walls that overemphasized/took out of context parts of the verdict and left out key parts. [See this roll-back https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1092982380&type=revision]. To fix his errors would necessitate editing WP as a full-time job. I don’t think there’s any other option than to ban GregKaye from Heard/Depp related topics, as he has gotten feedback for his editing many many times since April 2022 when he first began editing them, with no changes to his behaviour.

As for my stance on the topic, as it has been brought up - of course I am biased, every one of us is. In this case, all of us have some impression, given how prominent it has been on media and social media. Personally, I’ve followed the case closely since 2016. The facts and evidence are consistently on Heard’s side, supporting the view that this is a classic DV case with the abuser using DARVO techniques. In addition to the UK verdict and DV experts’ almost unequivocal view of the case, consider Occam’s razor - the alternative is a conspiracy theory where a 20-something C-list starlet spent 4 years creating a hoax with multiple participants while concealing all evidence of it, and then only took a fraction of the money she could have gained in the divorce.

You’re free to take the latter view of the case, but if it (or the other view of the case) affects the way you edit or makes you declare reliable sources biased to the extent of not reporting full facts, it’s a problem. I don’t think GregKaye fully understands this.

I’d also like to note that despite my strong opinion of the case, I’ve also added a lot of very positive content on Depp’s career -to the extent that an editor, who clearly indicated that he thinks Depp has been wronged, contacted me on my talk page to ask about collaborating on the article. That’s just one example of how a strong personal opinion does not necessarily mean your editing is automatically biased.

Finally, it should be noted that Homeostasis07’s comments should be taken with a grain (or several) of salt given his previous editing, e.g. in Marilyn Manson/Evan Rachel Wood related topics and the subsequent ANI.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TrueHeartSusie3, You launched personal attack on four editors here. Please cite "IPs calling [you] names etc". I replied, not even mentioning your attack, but referenced page abuses of WP:NPOV and MOS:INSTRUCT in particular. You are yet to respond.

You claim tendentious editing with presenting evidence. (My additions include providing TOC navigation to the social media commentary.[42] among my great many NPOV edits) There have been many against policy issues of all sorts that I have cleared up.

You mention your concerns of my editing with the other Depp trial and yet none of you pinged me[43] The first I knew of it was when TheTimesAreAChanging launched his accusations (which were mainly based on my corrections of unjustified POV) on the Depp v. Heard Talk page.

Yes, if you assume Depp is guilty then darvo would apply - but this is where the your bias is exposed. We are covering a trial where 7 jury members decided that Heard defamed Depp by claiming abuse, in the free speech obsessed US. (btw, I added the link to the darvo article[44]). We can't judge whether or not darvo applies. We "Simply present sourced facts with neutrality.." per mos:instruct.

You edit warred over removal of content you didn't like with final result here. No, I don't typically remove materials but have more often focused on correcting ways in which they have been misrepresented. Each to their own.

Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IF you're going to malign additional editors, such as someone with as clean a record as Homeostasis07, it could be appropriate, at the very least, to inform them. GregKaye 18:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07, only the last sentence of what I wrote above concerns you, so I’m afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. The rest is about GregKaye’s editing. As for the IP ref, see Starship.paint’s comment and my Talk page history for what I mean. Examples of GregKaye’s editing have been provided above by both myself and the person who began this ANI, and but since those are not isolated cases, even a cursory look at GregKaye’s contributions to all four Depp/Heard related articles will show this problematic pattern. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While my interaction with User:Subtropical-man has been brief, I have immediately noticed behavior that strikes me as alarming/aggressive.

My good faith edit was removed, in which I corrected the perceived errors of a reversion and submitted a new one explaining my reasoning for the edit in a clear and concise manner. In response, the message on my talk page:

• Assumes I "only know Malta from the tourist folders, so you have no idea what you are doing", stating that my change is not rooted in logic and comes off as incredibly judgmental of my abilities to contribute to Wikipedia
• Discounting my edits due to my edit footprint, indicating that because I have a low edit account I again have "no idea what I'm doing"
• Accuses me of starting an edit war over a single edit (severe escalation/accusation of my behavior)
• Gave me a "last warning" which I assume was an attempt to bully me through a vague/urgent threat, taking advantage of my "apparent" lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes as a new user, considering the user in question doesn't have elevated permissions to take (unnecessary) serious action on my edits

In normal circumstances I would attribute the aggressive rhetoric in their response to the fact that English is not their first language and been more forgiving of the behavior, but looking into their talk page there seems to be a consistent pattern of aggression in their recent edits, resulting in a previous ANI and recent warnings regarding their rhetoric from other users for activity such as that on Talk:Perth. I don't feel like I will be able to engage in a good faith discussion regarding my edits and thought I'd bring their behavior to a more formal audience. Sam Walczak^Talk/_Edits 23:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Walczak, you analyze each my word too literally. Maybe my one sentence "You are a new user, you have a very small contribution to Wikipedia [1] and you only know Malta from the tourist folders, so you have no idea what you are doing" is impolite and unnecessary opinion, I just assumed that because you are pushing your version again even though it is debatable. Maybe my comment in your discussion partly contained impolite and unnecessary opinion, but note that most of my text of this comment is an exact explanation of the problem. I consider your change to be wrong as malta has no cities / towns but only administrative units named "local councils". You tried to compare Malta to other countries, but other countries have cities so it's no problem to enter the largest of them into the infobox. Malta is different from other countries because there are no cities. Instead of continuing the discussion, you started a thread in ANI because I wrote a rude sentence. In my opinion, this is an abuse. We both made a mistake - lack of good faith. I invite you to a substantive discussion about the infobox in the article Malta. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out the existence of this. – ².O.^Boxing 07:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article breaks the Wikipedia:No original research and totally breaks the Wikipedia:Verifiability. This article is either for removal according to Wikipedia rules. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 08:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Squared.Circle.Boxing's point was in mentioning List of towns in Malta, but it certainly isn't an intentional hoax and I have therefore reverted Subtropical-man's prod and started a discussion on the talk page about what is to be done about it. I found we had 3 articles and at one point had 4, all with lengthy histories (including Subtropical-man himself in 2017). Subtropical-man, insulting wording like You are a new user, you have a very small contribution to Wikipedia [1] and you only know Malta from the tourist folders, so you have no idea what you are doing shouldn't simply be waved away as [M]aybe ... partly contain[ing] impolite and unnecessary opinion. Please discuss civilly, and without labelling others' work with the word "hoax", which implies a deliberate intent to deceive. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that English Wikipedia connects people from all over the world. There are different cultures and manners in the world. In my region of my country where I live, the use this type of sentence is not offensive, it is just a admonition (I don't know if I used the correct word), pointing out that "if you don't know the topic, don't argue". I wasn't going to offend anyone, I don't even know the user Sam Walczak at all. However, if this is offensive to him, I apologize. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical-man, please note that the English Wikipedia has its own rules regarding civility. You may be best advised to better familiarise yourself with those rules and abide by them, lest you find yourself on a Wiki holiday courtesy of a passing Admin. Also note that the issue is not offending any particular editor, it is not abiding by the civility rules that is at issue here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have also received unnecessarily aggressive comments from this user. See: User talk:Poketama#Brisbane

Disclaimer: I have had content related disputes with them. Poketama (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

( Peanut gallery comment) I looked at Subtrop’s purported evidence of vandalism by Poketsma. Well, that certainly was abuse by Subtrop of the term “vandal” and unprovoked abusive behavior towards Poketama. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rsjaffe, why are you lie? You wrote: "certainly was abuse by Subtrop of the term “vandal”"? I didn't call him a "vandal", nowhere. I gave him a warning not to wage an edit-war and no make changes until the discussion about this topic was over. I have the right to reprimand someone. At first I wrote him what it was about, later I gave the standard Wikipedia template like 'test' because the user has not changed their behavior. The user made controversial changes despite the fact that there were open two discussions on this topic, while breaking Wikipedia:CYCLE. I'm supposed to give him a reward for his destructive actions? Second: for me is offensive that you distorted my username twice. This is "unprovoked abusive behavior towards" me. As you can see, it's easy to accuse someone of behavior like that. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 05:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You placed a Test4 template on their page, which is the Vandalism warning template. So yes, you did accuse them of vandalism, though perhaps you didn't understand the template you were using.

Second, your aggresive responses to rsjaffe are highly uncalled for. Please stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To make it very clear, this is what They posted: You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Yours manipulations and lies and your change despite the ongoing discussion on this topic, it is unacceptable. Your further destructive activities will no longer be tolerated!. This is last warning. Subtropical-man. Clearly, that’s calling someone a vandal. Belligerent contributors harm Wikipedia and should not be tolerated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rsjaffe, it's still not calling someone a vandal. I didn't call him a "vandal", nowhere. Secondly: the test4 template is used thousands of times on Wikipedia, this is a standard template. There no other templates to insert into user talk page for abuses including failure to follow Wikipedia's recommendations especially if previous requests have not worked. If there are other (more polite) templates to put on the user's page, please link. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing the wrong point here - whether you used the word vandal or not, it was an unnecessarily aggressive response. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand: when other users use the template {test4} - it's ok, but when I use the template {test4}, it is "unnecessarily aggressive response"? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not talking about that part. They're talking about the part where you accused them of lies, manipulation, "destructive activities", etc. That's the problem. Don't say things like that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in involved in disputes with the editor in the past, so I'm too INVOLVED to take action as an Admin. But I can confirm that I've had multiple negative interactions with him over the years. It's always overly aggressive rhetoric and bad-faith assumptions. Their block log is also quite concerning - they're already on thin ice due to a lifted indef block. At the bare minimum, some sort of final warning needs to be issued. Too many conduct issues keep arising here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as the link above shows, my previous problem was edit-wars / 3RR. Here I have a great impro vement in behavior. Although I was recommended to avoid 3RR, which is to do 4 reverts in a short time, for last year, I never use more than two reverts - which is twice less than the recommendations for me. So I tried to improve my behavior in this problem and I did improve my behavior in this problem. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please give me more suitable tools (more polite), I will use them. Simple question: there is a nuisance/troublesome user who keeps pushing his controversial/disputed version despite the ongoing discussion on the topic. Reverting its new version does not solve the problem, this user restore its own changes. User does not intend to listen to other opinions and apply Wikipedia guidelines to such situations. There is no point in creating an edit-war. I can't use a reprimand / rebuke? What should i do? It's a simple question. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just stick to the issue at hand and leave all the personal commentary out. Leave out all the unconstructive stuff you keep adding in the discussions about calling people "liars", "manipulators", "having no idea what they're doing", etc. There's no need to say any of that. Just stay calm and say "I disagree with your edit/stance because it's not backed by reliable sources." Or whatever the given scenario calls for. There's a common saying around Wikipedia - "Comment on content, not editors". Follow that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the answer. I will try to apply these tips. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neplota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We currently have an editor (User:Neplota) having multiple slow edit wars in the middle of short talks and an RFC. Canada, UK, Japan.The main purpose of the edits is to add data to the infobox that despite being in other articles is being contested in these cases . I do find this edit odd that removed the data they are trying to add on other pages? Is this someone here just to mess with us and waste our time? Moxy- 16:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Australia page. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this edit is to that page...what is odd is they removed the data they are trying to add in other places. Saying "as the categories included are very ambiguous e.g., oceanian"..but this is what they are trying to add to other pages ...clasification with the term "oceanian". Are they just trying to start problmes/debates all over?Moxy- 17:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's more countries, he's made such bold changes to, as well. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar issues with this editor at United Kingdom per this thread. However, they abruptly stopped editing when this thread at ANI was opened - ANI flu? - but a pause for the editor to take stock may be helpful and all that's needed. DeCausa (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's active again. GoodDay (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply a net negative Copyright Moxy- 00:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bunkerpr violates WP:COI and WP:REFSPAM on a regular basis and either deletes or ignores warnings on his talk page.

WP:COI violations (I. M. Mills, R. N. Zare, F. Légaré, P. Jensen, H. C. Longuet-Higgins, A. R. W. McKellar, C. di Lauro, T. Carrington are his associates [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]): [54] (see references #51 and #53 in the arXiv paper) [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125]

Diffs with warnings about COI: [126] [127] [128] [129]

See also the bottom of this[130] message and this[131].

I suggest that Bunkerpr be blocked indefinitely per WP:DISRUPTONLY. A1E6 (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a final warning since they're not currently active. They're on very thin ice. Star Mississippi 16:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

022 (UTC)

• Comment I haven’t met Bunkerpr in real life, but I work in the same research area. He’s an internationally respected scholar, trying to make contributions to Wikipedia in his retirement. His edits have all been technically correct, and he’s made edits having nothing to do with his own papers or book. I believe that this user has made these edits in good faith and that an indefinite block is going too far at this point. If a block is considered, it should be a short-term block issued as a warning. If the warning is not heeded, then next steps. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bunkerpr calls the rules "the stupid rules of wiki land"[132]. This is not good faith, he is not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:CNH), he just wants to promote his work and work of his associates (as you can see in the diffs). He was warned several times in the past (and was also blocked) but this wasn't enough (as you can see in the diffs). So blocking indefinitely is the only solution. A1E6 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did go through many of the diffs. I wasn’t aware that he’d been blocked in the past. I’m aware of those comments since they occurred in a conversation with me, wherein I was trying to steer him away from the point of view you just mentioned. As far as I know that’s the only negative comment he made, and he probably thought he was making it in confidence since he seemed unaware of why Wikipedia works the way it works. He was, I think, trying to strike an apologetic tone with me but certainly I wasn’t the one who needed an apology. In any case, if he was blocked in the past that may be a different kettle of fish. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Bunkerpr may not be the best or most experienced Wikipedia editor, but I find his recent edits to generally be constructive in that they improve the encyclopedia's coverage. It is unfortunate that Bunkerpr refspammed in the past, but he doesn't seem to be doing that anymore since September 2020. In [133] he settled for a version without his book referenced with the comment "Ah Well. People will have to look at my book to really understand angular momenta in molecules", so he seems to have internalized the refspam policy. Well, minus adding his book in [134]. Other papers he has cited since then have been Mills and Légaré, for which the COI claims seem overblown; e.g. François Légaré published precisely one paper together with Bunker, and from the actual paper site you can see they were all at difference research institutions and it was a collaboration of diverse researchers. Similarly Mills coauthored a paper and met Bunker at a picnic. Using this flimsy evidence we would ban everyone with an Erdős number from citing Erdős's papers because of COI.

There is likely to be an actual COI of Bunkerpr editing his own Wikipedia page Philip Bunker and the page of his doctoral advisor Christopher Longuet-Higgins, but he seems to have stopped that too. I have placed COI templates on their talk pages. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At worst I would say Bunkerpr deserves a main-article ban, he should at least be able to leave messages on talk pages. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 2022 alone, he violated WP:COI at least 8 times. It doesn't matter if they were at different institutions, it's still a conflict of interest if they collaborate. A1E6 (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Unfortunately, Bunkerpr is continuing to edit the page Philip Bunker, even after the warnings. It does seem like he's unresponsive and doesn't plan to stop his practices. This is very unfortunate. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  as a partial step, he has been p-blocked from the article Star Mississippi 01:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  These logs [135][136] are very suspicious. It is possible that Bunkerpr uses socks/new IPs/his associates to edit the article. Also on 9/8/2020, Bunkerpr added[137] the link [138] to Angular momentum operator. On 9/18/2020, Sergeyarhivarius added[139] the same link to Spectroscopy. A1E6 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @A1E6. I blocked the IP as the quacking is deafening. Suggest this goes to SPI for broader tracking. Star Mississippi 14:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ETA: the IP disclosed here. If someone thinks that merits an even longer block, I have no objection. Star Mississippi 14:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's up to you, but I don't see an end in sight. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support some sort of sanction. One option I had been thinking of was a ban from BLP and science pages. Gusfriend (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban from directly editing articles related to chemistry, atomic and molecular physics, or Philip Bunker. Since this is a COI issue, edits to talk pages should still be allowed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that مصر المصريين (talk · contribs) started an undiscussed mass move of pages, mass changing the spelling of people's names to Arabic transliteration (Abdul Hussain --> Abd al-Husayn, Abdul Latif --> ʻAbd al-Laṭīf, etc.). I've asked them to stop and reverted a couple of most recent moves, but I'm unable to follow through with reversal of all the ~80 page moves. Can someone step in to help? Thanks, — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are not my "preferred spellings", but the convention of WP:MOSAR for the romanization of Arabic on Wikipedia, which you've probably never read. مصر المصريين (talk) مصر المصريين (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read WP:MOSAR and it certainly does not mandate changing the common English translation of a name to a strict transliteration. In fact it says quite the reverse. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. MOSAR explicitly states that The strict transliteration (...) is only used for etymology, while articles titles should follow the article naming criteria. You need to revert all your page moves. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

لمصريين should revert these changes and wait for consensus before restoring or performing any similar moves. MOSAR is in line with the vast majority of wikipedia style standards in stating that article titles should follow "translation or transcription that is most often used in English-language reliable sources (WP:COMMONNAME principle)", which in many of these moves can be easily shown to be the pre-move name.Dialectric (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOSAR is actually a bit intricate and not always well understood. For the names of modern people, places and things we use 'common transcription', which is basically WP:COMMONNAME: use the most common spelling in RS or the one used by the subject themselves. However, for historical subjects, RS themselves use transliteration, with the precise rules varying almost from publication to publication. For these subjects we too use a transliteration system, adapted from one of the most widely used ones in English-language sources, with two sets of rules: one with all the diacritics in place ('strict transliteration'), and another, simplified version of this which is easy to type for all editors because containing only ASCII characters ('basic transcription').

But 'basic transcription', which is the standard for article titles, is still a transliteration system, and only fit for historical subjects and other subjects for which no 'common transcription' exists. Finally arriving at what مصر المصريين has been doing, i.e., moving name articles to transliterated titles, this is perhaps one of the most difficult types of articles to decide on. Often one finds a dozen or more different spellings for one name, with none of them being particularly more prominent. Though there are possible objections upon which I will not elaborate here, it would make some sense to use transliteration to make all Arabic name articles uniform and easy to decide on. However, and that is why we are here, this would mean moving hundreds of pages, which is something that should never be done without getting a solid consensus for it first.

We do have a bit of a problem though with an obvious space for editors to go and propose this. I would suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Arabic names task force, but the last 10 edits there go back to 2011. There's also WT:ARAB, but it's near-dead too. Your best bet is probably WT:APO with a notice of the discussion at WT:ISLAM. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All those page moves should be reversed, if they've not gone through the RM process, let alone gotten a consensus to be moved. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this account might belong to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. Quack! — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well one thing that seems certain is that this user has edited a lot before creating this account. It's also true that SheryOfficial socks of the last past half year have been disruptively moving pages (many of which I have reverted during the past week), including quite a few moves citing MOSAR. However, that's where the similarity ends. I am very familiar with SheryOfficial, and though one can never be sure, I don't think it's them at this point. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I've now also spotted important differences, primarily in geo association. So, ignore my suggestion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is one able to contact the editor-in-question, aside from posting at the editor's talkpage. Pinging would be difficult, as I don't have non-english letters on my keyboard. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy and paste their username (مصر المصريين) inside the ping template. M.Bitton (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• H-influenzae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lily32241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blue Gucci dress of Harry Styles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The two users have long been involved in policy-based disputes on the topic of Styles. Both have canvassed, myself being who one of them notified.[140][141][142] I'm not sure whether this was done appropriately, so I did not edit the article, but I did notice that the issues with H-influenzae's previous edits have continued (e.g., the "legacy" section is full of text that violates NPOV by being either unsupported by the cited sources or irrelevant based on how the sources don't mention the dress at all). These violations have continued since this discussion about Styles's sexual orientation, in which H-influenzae said that Wikipedia has made a distinctly political choice when deciding what counts as "out" that in my personal opinion is harmful and invasive. They never seemed to understood the errors in their policy interpretations even after every other user had intimated that Wikipedia includes that a subject is out when sources say they're out. They received a block in May, during which the administrator said H-influenzae persist in misunderstanding editorial policy, or disregarding it entirely. While H-influenzae seems receptive to listening to Lily32241's concerns, this summary referencing the commentary queer people made about Styles during the controversy shows they still have a skewed understanding of NPOV. The article does not regard these comments as responses to a controversy, and the sources don't group these commenters together as the article suggests (i.e., a group of some queer people of color. KyleJoan^talk 14:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of bring this here myself. H-influenzae doesn't seem to understand our need for sources directly citing his text - interpreting a book cover shown in a source is an example of this. I believe either a block, partial or full, or an AE topic ban may be appropriate here but want other opinions. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User Lily32241 almost entirely edits sections about Styles' sexuality, and does not add any articles to Wikipedia whatsoever. She follows me around on all of my pages, deleting at many points true quotes if she feels they are controversial or, in my opinion, if they are too gay. KyleJoan has also been confronted by administrators in the past for accusing me of activism simply for making Styles' sexuality section more neutral. Unfortunately this has been deleted and I am not experienced enough to dig it up.

Here are some examples of many of Lily fighting specifically about Styles' sexuality, and erasing literally things he has said or just being quite frankly weird.

Larries "he never said he experienced sexual shame and the cleanliness clause mention is taken out of context"

Harry Styles "Wikipedia is for facts, not for opinions. If you think his statements were offensive to the queer community that doesn't mean you get to change them"

Starfox (comics) [Styles plays Starfox in a movie, and in the comics the character is pansexual. "Please stop. That article is purely speculative and the only one there is. Loki and Valkyrie are confirmed bisexuals but they don't have sexuality sections" H-influenzae (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am really doing my best to create neutral pages for Styles and I apologize if I am not always doing it right, but when topics are politically charged it is not always possible to be "neutral" and I do not think the way Lily is editing is neutral whatsoever. She is following me around and it's really weird, and creeping me out. I know life isn't fair but given that she literally just spot edits and I make pages it seems kind of obvious to me who is trying to contribute to wikipedia and who seems to have some sort of weird agenda. H-influenzae (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is at least the beginning of the thread where KyleJoans incredulously calls me an "LGBTQ activist" for removing a sentence that said "Styles sexuality has long been a topic of speculation." H-influenzae (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full report containing the accusation H-influenzae referenced in case any user would like to determine its relevance. KyleJoan^talk 14:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this date I have made extensive edits to Styles fashion, public image, music, conspiracy theories surrounding him, etc. Stuff nobody has added to Wikipedia for years. Lily just constantly deletes things. I really am begging to not be banned, because I want there to be more content about Styles on Wikipedia. I will bargain to just try to avoid "controversial" topics if people really want - I wouldn't have made the dress article at all if Lily hadn't suggested I do so with a kind of weird attitude on Styles' page.

But I really am begging, please do not ban me, I really want to continue making articles on Wikipedia. H-influenzae (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a list of topics on my page even that I would like to create, and most of them are very uncontroversial. Probably the most controversial one would be Harry Lambert, and if KyleJoan wants to literally review the article himself once I am done he can, the draft is here. But imo I am a good editor and I am unfairly criticized as not neutral simply because I talk about topics Lily and KyleJoan on this website do not like. H-influenzae (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what this response means, but I will say that H-influenzae has repeatedly suggested that (at least some of) the opposition to their edits has been politically motivated. KyleJoan^talk 14:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my fault that conversations on sexuality and race are not considered "neutral" that would be the fault of society. H-influenzae (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KyleJoan Have removed the paragraph about representation in the dress article in the Legacy section. I have also edited slightly the paragraph about Porter, Vaid-Menon, and Lil Nas X. H-influenzae (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lily removed all mentions of race from the article. I can put more direct quotes in if you want. I find it strange that yesterday an editor who didnt frequent Harry Styles looked at the page and gave it an award, but then two people who have been bothered by me for months suddenly take issue with the page and are fighting tooth and nail to remove references to sexuality and race in it. H-influenzae (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:Premeditated Chaos. @H-influenzae who are the two people who have been bothering you? By the way, you've used Page Six which is the New York Post, an unreliable source. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two users who are bothering me are KyleJoan here who has been angry with me ever since I changed the paragraph on Styles' sexuality to be, imo, less insulting last December and Lily32241 who follows me around and messes with all of my pages to remove references to any topics she seems to find are icky. Lily32241 this morning posted to KyleJoan's talk page to report me to an admin I think because she understood he does not like me. Partly I believe this is also due to me removing a photo of hers that had a watermark as Styles' profile picture several days ago. It's honestly super uncomfortable - there weren't even references to Styles' sexual orientation on the page until 2019, when KyleJoan added a rather rude paragraph in. I am a huge fan of Styles myself and I find myself disturbed by what has been happening to me in the past months. H-influenzae (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware PageSix is unreliable, I was trying to use it to show that the article became notorious so that's why I specified it was a tabloid in the sentence where I used it. If that's not appropriate, my apologies. H-influenzae (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I was temporarily banned from Styles' page, I was trying to remove a quote that said "I'm pretty sure I'm not bisexual," which was something he said 9 years ago while cornered, and which was not considered relevant for most of his time as a public figure, especially since he has not labeled his sexuality since 2017. I was trying to remove it because it would come up as a google featured quote which I thought was extremely unfair considering it's not even the most recent information. Since I have had access to the page again I have never removed the offending quote and have not debated that treatment even though imo it is unfair both to me and to Styles to have that displayed forever. I have been doing my best to contribute to Wikipedia and to expand knowledge about both Styles and many other topics. H-influenzae (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see the dress article because I got a notification that someone had linked from it to an article I had written. I skimmed it in brief, thought it looked pretty good, and figured I'd be encouraging toward someone working in fashion as a topic area. I had no idea there was any negative history with this user and Harry Styles as a topic. The barnstar isn't intended to be a blanket endorsement of any content from that article that may be improperly sourced or otherwise poor, nor of the recipient's behavior if it is indeed problematic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the things you've listed do not relate to the topic. Writing that "As of July 2022, no other man has been on the cover of American Vogue by himself." is factually true but not adding anything. You just brought taht up because you thought of it. There are no sources connecting the covers of people of colour that you've listed to Harry's cover and a debate about race. Lily32241 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are uneducated, or in denial. There are dozens of articles about race and this issue. I should not have to cite all of them to get the point across, but if you want me to spend hours doing so I'm happy to do it. H-influenzae (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@H-influenzae again, who are the "two people who have been bothered by me for months" - I'm guessing you don't actually mean you've been bothering two people. But presuming Lily is one, I don't see the second. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KyleJoan has been bothering me for months. He doesn't like that I edited his paragraph about Styles' sexuality last December, and sometimes picks fights with me like this one. He is the only person who reports me to administrators, I have good relationships with other editors on this site besides KyleJoan and Lily. H-influenzae (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize I am not perfect and I am still learning the ropes sometimes but I genuinely believe these two editors do not like me, I don't really have problems with other people even when there are disagreements over editing. I really genuinely care about adding valuable content to the site. H-influenzae (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are those of someone writing articles or blog posts. There may be dozens of articles on the race topic but if no one made a connection between them and Harry's dress or cover then they don't belong in the article. Lily32241 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is false and a very strange accusation. H-influenzae (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the fact that you have been chastised for disruptive editing related to adding false content to articles before and lost many times, and the fact that the article on the dress has many, many sources, and the fact that you have never written an article yourself and mostly delete other people's contributions, I find your accusation to not only be incorrect and a little insulting, but also coming from a place of no experience to say whether or not I am writing a "blog post." Why are you never accusing other editors of writing "blog posts," only me? H-influenzae (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had problems with adding boxscore data from pollstar because it's behind a paywall and hard to link to the page directly. But it's been solved and none of the content I added was false. Lily32241 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not fight you on this point because I was exhausted and didn't want to edit the page anymore but another example is when you followed me to the Larries page and removed a cited sentence about Styles saying he experienced sexual shame. This is also false. There is tons of evidence to believe that besides small edits to charts you are a single issue editor whose goal is to minimize the place that Styles has in discussions about queerness. Whether you like it or not (and hell, whether I like what people have to say - many of the opinions I myself have shared in my articles I disagree with) he has a place in these conversations, a place that many other androgynous and sexually ambiguous (and white) celebrities have existed in throughout pop culture history. I don't understand why it is almost your sole prerogative to minimize this on the site, but it is genuinely getting in the way of educating people about Styles' place in the culture. H-influenzae (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The context in which you tried to use the quote is the problem. Lily32241 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of trouble believing that this is what you actually care about considering the fact that the scope of your edits is very limited. Why not add more to the Larries page? Why only edit statements regarding his sexuality and how he feels about sex, and no other content? Why follow my pages around? I recognize that when starting out on WP it can be tempting to fixate on one issue, especially a contested figure like Styles, but you've been an editor on the site for almost three years. H-influenzae (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm the one with a fixation. Lily32241 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would believe that you weren't if in the past three years you had ever:

-created your own Wikipedia pages about Styles or any other topic

-significantly fleshed out any Wikipedia pages about Styles or any other topic

-edited a diverse array of topics, including topics unrelated to Styles

-created a profile page for yourself detailing what your editing interests and experiences are

-not fixated on an extremely narrow set of issues

-not spent most of your time deleting the work of others related to queer topics, no matter how tangential they are to Styles

It's truly wild to me that there are so many Harry Styles related topics alone that you could write about and flesh out on Wikipedia and this is what you choose to focus on. Who he sleeps with, really? Not his work? Not the conversations surrounding him? H-influenzae (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read a ton of articles for this page, and for other pages I've made, some of which said things that I felt were really actively cruel about Styles. And to keep NPOV I feature these articles anyway because I genuinely want to educate people about how he's seen and what people are saying so they can make up their own minds. Does that make me comfortable? No, some of the things that were said honestly made me feel a little sick, but sometimes articles are going to feature things that make you uncomfortable to give people a fair understanding of what happened. H-influenzae (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lily32241 Out of respect to your work, by the way, I replaced at least some of your edits that didn't have to do with removing the conversations about privilege, sexuality, and race. I don't disrespect you as an editor if that is something you genuinely aspire to be, I myself am still learning. You can go look at what I put back in, and look at my justifications for what I kept, not all of your work went to waste. H-influenzae (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: topic ban for H-influenzae

At the very least, I would suggest that H-influenzae, who appears to be most at blame here, is WP:TBAN topic banned from editing any article about or connected to Harry Styles. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Edit: Oppose For clarity, I have developed some faith that H-i has the potential to become a good editor during this conversation and my proposal should not be taken as a support for this option. However, striking the proposal would only cause confusion, so I'll leave it in its original state.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How am I most at blame for creating a good article and then disliking when someone took out mentions of discussions of queerness and race? I even edited back in some of Lily32241's edits this morning.

Why does a single issue editor have more sway here than someone who actually makes pages?

H-influenzae (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the article history and see that I took stuff out that people thought was contentious: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Gucci_dress_of_Harry_Styles&action=history H-influenzae (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem is that you don't appear to understand how Wikipedia works... that it is a collaborative effort and you do not WP:OWN articles regardless of how much of its content can be traced to your hand. That's a concept that you gradually learn. Wikipedia is also not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... however unjustly heteronormative you might see a contrary opinion to yours, you absolutely must discuss content and gain WP:CONSENSUS. Find the common ground... As far as I'm concerned, the article should be merged to Harry styles and could probably be covered in a couple of sentences, but I'm insufficiently interested to worry about it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I never considered creating an article on the topic until Lily32241 suggested I not talk about the controversy on the main page. Nevertheless, Porter's gown gets its own page so I think Styles' should too. I'm not going to edit it anymore, I would love if someone would bring it to committee for GA because it was suggested it could get there but I don't want to work on it if people who already doing like me are going to make it a constant battle.

If I need to be banned so be it. I personally am going to choose to cut ties with this account & start clean elsewhere editing less controversial things as I think I got off on the wrong foot with some editors starting out too aggressively and it's been a struggle ever since. The dress suggestion is the last time I will take a suggestion for sure. H-influenzae (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great way to get blocked for sock puppetry. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning on sock puppeting whatsoever. This account is retired. I'm concerned no matter what I edit these two editors are going to follow me around, and I would rather that not happen. I don't wish to prove my worth editing in other places, I would rather start clean editing topics fewer people care about. H-influenzae (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are banned or otherwise about to be sanctioned and decide to WP:CLEANSTART, that's not a clean start. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, apologies then. I will clean start after my ban ends. H-influenzae (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will I be notified of the length of the ban? Do I have a set number of appropriate edits I have to make before I become unbanned & can cleanstart? H-influenzae (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to keep these two editors from following me around & create some sort of middle ground? I feel like as long as I am on this website they are going to dislike me. I don't want to be kept from editing but I'm concerned that I will just be bothered no matter what I do. H-influenzae (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not the other editors behavior...you need to reflect on that because your responses here are indicating a much larger problem than the initial filing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will, thanks. H-influenzae (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still learning so on other websites it has been generally accepted that you can just start clean and stay away from other people you've had conflict with. I am not trying to have conflict with people. H-influenzae (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ’’’Support TB’’’, this will give the editor a chance to show that they can edit in other areas following our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am pretty sure these users stalk my contribs so I appreciate the opportunity to be given a chance but I will not be using this account anymore & will be avoiding related topics anyway. H-influenzae (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your fairness in arbitration. H-influenzae (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What is classified under the Harry Styles topic? H-influenzae (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Anything Harry Styles related. His article, all lists related to him, all song and album articles, their talk pages, even editing about him at all. Which is why I opposed the TB. I think it's harsh to ban an editor from their main interest when a slap on the wrist/warning will do. If it doesn't? A block will suffice. If anything, I think a gender-and-sexuality related sanction would be more effective, which would allow you to edit constructively about Harry Styles without the "hetero-normative" troubles. —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be perfectly happy to agree to that, provided that it was clear to other users that it did not exclude making articles about queer people generally which would effectively ban me from making and editing many of the pages I want to make and edit anyway as most of Harry’s fashion and music collaborators are LGBT of some kind. Otherwise it would effectively be banning me from page creation and editing except for the small number of straight people he has worked with. H-influenzae (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef topic ban if not an outright block, at minimum given their creation of Blue Gucci dress of Harry Styles following this exact discussion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Surely indefinite is a little extreme? Lily32241 has been scolded many more times than me, and made far fewer pages, and has never been article or topic banned even once. H-influenzae (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Responding and badgering every person here is doing you no favors. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand what I am supposed to do in this situation, other than reply to people? They don't give you a rule book for when you're dragged to public arbitration. H-influenzae (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @H-influenzae indefinite means just that, it's not permanent and you would be able to appeal at some point. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Styles has like three careers, it is going to be almost impossible for me to write about music, film, or fashion without someone coming to argue I am overstepping my ban, which currently nobody is even explaining what I am going to be topic banned FOR. Nobody seems to be reading the page, or caring what was reverted or put back, but instead seems fixated on things I did months ago and suggestions that my idea that people follow me around is insane and makes me feel creeped out. Wikipedia:HOUND is very much a thing that exists & Lily is a disruptive editor which is why I reverted all her edits on the page in the first place. She is not only disruptive about his sexuality but about basic facts on the website, and she uploads watermarked photos to his page. I don’t care if someone edits the dress page, I care that Lily came to it and tried to reframe the controversy to not have anything to do with race, and to remove many parts of the controversy where queer people criticized Styles. I woke up to 14,000 edits removing charged content from an article by a person who just a few days ago was edit warring a watermarked photo and decided it was vandalism.H-influenzae (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It feels quite a lot like this arbitration is taking so long solely to try and wear me down and make me get increasingly emotional for daring to say the words racism or harassment, and it has honestly felt from day one that people do not want me on this website at all. Everywhere I turn someone is opining that I need to assume good faith with an editor who often has an extensive history of misbehavior. It is really difficult to edit basic things on the Harry Styles page in the first place because even though much of it until recently was three years or more out of date, people’s edits would be reverted. His core collaborators get removed all the time, and new editors on the page are bullied away. This probably wouldn’t happen if Styles had a dedicated wiki project but since he doesn’t it seems like often the people who edit his page treat him with disdain, misquote him, upload strange images, and are generally hostile. I have known other people who are a fan of his who have attempted to edit the page with his band members names or something and become established only to get three times reverted by KyleJoan, who has openly suggested Styles is queerbaiting on the talk page, which was a popular argument two years ago that has since become fringe. H-influenzae (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. H-influenzae has been at this for a few months now, but I think they're self-aware enough to pick up what has been put down. That is, they need to completely cut it out with the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentality as it relates to Harry Styles. The user's contributions otherwise have been fine. This should be a final warning. If this returns, the user can be blocked, but right now that, or even a sanction, is entirely too much. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was reading about indefinite total bans and I guess I am confused about why something so extreme is being suggested for me when it seems like they are supposed to be rare. I don't even really understand what RIGHTGREATWRONGS I'm doing because I don't think that the article that was being arbited was righting great wrongs - I actually felt like in that article it was necessary to include a lot of stuff I disagreed with, much of which Lily was removing this morning. It seems kind of messed up to be arbited all day for content I didn't even like putting in the article, because I felt it was inappropriate to remove the voices of marginalized people from it in the way that I felt the editor was trying to do. I would much rather everyone had just loved the dress!!! H-influenzae (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban Reading this detailed note, it's disappointing that some (if not most) of the reasoning that administrator outlined when partially blocking H-influenzae remain applicable to H-influenzae's conduct today. I disagree that H-influenzae has displayed enough self-awareness to just receive another warning. They had been asked to reflect on the fact that they can't seem to accept that your fellow editors are acting in good faith and how they are increasingly tendentious despite your politeness before they called another user uneducated, or in denial in this report. KyleJoan^talk 23:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am genuinely confused about what right great wrongs thing I’m doing here. I don’t even agree with the people that Lily deleted from the article, this is the most maddening part! I think that a lot of their opinions are reprehensible but was doing my best to represent them anyway. H-influenzae (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that I disagree with pretty much every queer commentator about Styles’ appearance in Vogue and yet I have had to be argue that it’s still right for them to be in the article anyway to give a balanced look at the issue has been a deeply degrading experience. I hated reading those articles and I have hated defending their inclusion. H-influenzae (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, Lily WAS wrong that there's no articles about race and the Vogue profile. Here's several if you would like an extremely miserable read. H-influenzae (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The statement above about clean starts [143] was slightly worrying, but this earlier statment [144] is more clear in intent: "And if this account is eventually taken down for "vandalism" on this, all for trying to ensure that the most visible sexually fluid public figure is given the decency of acknowledging that, I will make new accounts and continue to insist on this for years if I have to." Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to me that my current “crime” has not been litigated for like 12 hours but things I said many months ago. Can someone please tell me what I am being sanctioned for exactly, other than being rude to administrators when someone came to complain about me? I fixed a bunch of stuff that KyleJoan and Lily requested, which nobody seems to be checking, and nobody has been listening to me that these users do not like me and that at least one of them follows me around. I am unsure how I will be unable to be reported in the future if nobody even seems clear on why I am getting banned now, other than when I got dragged into public litigation and said someones behavior was racist, people acted like I committed high treason, and because a few months ago I was rude. It seems as though since I was rude months ago I will now always be watched. H-influenzae (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I also seem to be being litigated for even suggesting I might someday make a new account, even though I do not have any sock puppets. Wikipedia is not friendly to new editors not knowing all of the rules, which are often levied at you in quick succession on day one by an angry person. It is very confusing and there seem to be one million of them, and it feels like experienced editors often cite them to abuse seniority power against new editors. Like, how am I supposed to know that one of the rules is you can’t make a new account if you want to avoid harassment, which is a rule that is buried deep into a page? This is something you can do on every other website, start fresh if you feel people don’t like you. H-influenzae (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming you are being serious, I think we have to consider your competence to edit on Wikipedia. You have been editing tendentiously WP:TE from the start, coming in with an axe to grind, refusing to accept that this is a collaborative platform. You've also indicated that if you don't get your way, your intention is to evade any ban/block by sock puppetry. This isn't a trial, by the way... any sanctions placed will be to prevent further disruption and are not punitive Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am very serious! I think it should be obvious to any of the people who look at my contributions that I really care about being a good editor. I am perfectly competent to edit. Why would I be unserious, and why would I assume this arbitration is not punitive when it has been stretched out for so long, and when the way I should be treated keeps escalating the more I insist that I am being harrassed? H-influenzae (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Topic ban - H needs some time away from this subject to work on something else, and demonstrate they have an understanding of Wikipedia policy & procedure. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The topic doesn't appear to be the problem. Competence and arrogance is. Editor seems to be gaining clue. Let's WP:TROUT and see what happens.--v/r - TP 18:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal

H-influenzae is blocked from Wikipedia per WP:CIR Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there going to be a point when people just decide what to do with me? Why is this arbitration taking so long? H-influenzae (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just surely not important enough for this to be argued over for almost 24 hours. H-influenzae (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a collaborative project. No one editor gets to decide anything except in an emergency context and only temporarily pending further discussion.--v/r - TP 18:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. Incompetence is the inability to understand the basic fundamentals of Wikipedia or the inability to collaborate. This isn't that, this is clearly just a case of someone not knowing our WP:SOCK policy. H, you are not helping your case here. You need to make it clear that you know where you went wrong, what to (not) do in the future and that you understand the linked sock policy. Nobody here wants to punish you; blocks are to prevent future disruption. Even if you've gone wrong before, as long as you're not a sock or haven't done something egregious, you can still promise to do better, it's the best only option you have right now if you want to keep editing normally. —VersaceSpace 🌃 13:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am assuming based upon reading through the conversation that these are potentially what my faults are seen to be:

  -being too aggressive responding to administrators initially

  -perception of ad hominem attacks without better cited evidence

  -threatening socks without understanding policy

  -overturning someone's edits without more thoughtful consideration and a better attitude of assuming good faith and consensus seeking

  It does still feel like all of this is a little politically charged and being dragged out because I used the word racism but I really am not trying to be disruptive. In the future if that would be preferable I will review edits to a page and not jump to ad hominem attacks, or any arguments whatsoever, but will be more committed to a collaborative attitude on the website. It is my perception that these two editors do not like me but perhaps that is just something I will have to live with. We all have to deal with people who don't like us in life, and I am happy to try my best to be as civil as I can in exchange for expanding knowledge on Wikipedia. H-influenzae (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that's a good start. Who you like and don't like and vice versa, really not a concern at all as long as no one attacks anyone personally. Even editors who don't agree with the LGBT community are allowed to edit as long as their beliefs don't interfere with their edits. Do I agree with this? Hell no. But likewise, they do not agree with me, and that's something we both must accept, as bickering over it would be against the Wiki's collaborative spirit. My point is that you don't always get what you want, that's just a part of Wikipedia, and accepting that is a big part of developing a better reputation here. —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I will do my best to put my feelings aside in the future and work towards collaboration on Wikipedia. This has been an uphill curve and I have been genuinely trying to learn the rules and get better, and I think I have been, but it is not easy, especially because nobody really sits down with you and tells you how to behave until you are being litigated publicly. The social norms on Wikipedia are much different than the social norms on other parts of the internet, particularly leftist inclined spaces where I spend most of my time. H-influenzae (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For example on many other parts of the internet if you feel someone is being bigoted you are encouraged to say so, you have the ability to block people you don't like, you don't have to assume good faith, you can make new accounts if you feel like you've messed up, and you aren't expected to for example tolerate anti-LGBT people in the community. I'm not saying that this neutrality stance is necessarily wrong but it's not something I'm used to, it's essentially online resocialization. H-influenzae (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the things you need to bear in mind is this is an encyclopedia based on some fundamental principles that we call the WP:Five pillars (read them, you'll get a lot from it). It is not anti-anything to insist that content is backed up by reliable, authoritative sources WP:RS. In WP:BLP articles particularly, anything that is not backed up in this way needs to go, no matter how firmly we believe them. It's also not okay to use editorial synthesis in the place of reliable sources WP:OR, especially WP:SYNTH. This is something that you've certainly been accused of doing. It can be disheartening when someone removes something that you're proud of, but you must assume good faith and not be tempted to think it's because the other editor dislikes you or what you represent. Most likely you have done something wrong... we all did as new editors.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the Five Pillars information. To note, yesterday I did remove some individual synthesis from the dress article, it was significantly altered. I do really want to be a good editor and when reverts occurred yesterday I went through the article extensively to make it more neutral and to remove what seemed to cause offense. Neither Kyle nor Lily have since been back to the article and, while they certainly could in the future, it appears that my edits yesterday were satisfactory to settle the dispute. In the future I will not so hastily revert and will instead take more time and be more thoughtful about changes. I would hope that someone would not edit pages I've worked on calling them "blog posts" as that does not seem very civil to me but I suppose all I can control is my own behavior. H-influenzae (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If I didn't edit the page again, it's because I don't want to get in trouble.

  This line "Despite being on the inside of the magazine, rather than the cover, the second photograph was the one that became the most notorious because it was shared by Vogue's Twitter account on November 13, 2020" and many other things are not okay. There's also the issue of what is relevant enough to the main subject and what is not. Things can be properly sourced but brought up just to support your own point of view. Lily32241 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You can go make whatever changes you like, I am avoiding controversy so I will not argue with you and plan to stay away from the page. I have no more power as an editor than you have. H-influenzae (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for responding aggressively to your edits I will AGF in the future. H-influenzae (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am also happy to run any new articles through approvals rather than just creating them if that would help show that I have the spirit of collaboration in me. I was very excited to not have to do that but if that would be preferable to administrators I would be happy to do it. I would also probably prefer to do it because I think more editors reviewing work related to Styles and other topics I am interested in is better, not worse. The pool of editors with eyes on him is very small. H-influenzae (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Editor seems to be realizing both that they've been a problem and that we have guidelines/policies on how to collaborate.--v/r - TP 18:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal 2

H-influenzae is not sanctioned at this point on the understanding that they abide firmly by WP policy and guidelines. Ideally with the help of a mentor. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per basically everything I said above. Open to being a mentor if everyone here agrees I'm experienced enough. If a more seasoned editor wants to mentor, I'll step back. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as I believe that just sweeping this under the rug will leave us dealing with this same problem in short order. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I promise I will not cause problems and do feel truly sorry for being disruptive H-influenzae (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Editor seems to be realizing both that they've been a problem and that we have guidelines/policies on how to collaborate.--v/r - TP 18:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going with support on this one VersaceSpace is very generous to offer to mentor H-influenzae and I may offer the odd bit of advice here and there. I don't think any malice was intended and that H-influenzae started running before learning to walk, assuming that WP worked pretty much like social media where he who shouts loudest and longest wins. They also chose a challenging topic to start with and inevitably got caught up in controversy quicker than if they were a huge fan of the Manchester Shipping Canal (although those guys can be rough). I think we could have the makings of a dedicated editor, but there's a bit of work to be done on learning policy... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like to hear H-influenzae briefly explain the policies or guidelines that support this edit before I respond further. KyleJoan^talk 00:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SYNTH even though the paragraph was factually accurate and informative no secondary sources connected the paragraph to the topic at hand. Paragraph would fit better perhaps at the Vogue page itself. H-influenzae (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @KyleJoan I say that with no intent to add the paragraph to the Vogue page itself but just to demonstrate understanding that if it were to go anywhere that would be more appropriate. H-influenzae (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this response, I neither support nor oppose the proposal. I believe H-influenzae needs to prove they are able to edit constructively around less challenging topics before going back to Styles-related articles. KyleJoan^talk 01:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I, optimistically, think that with mentoring it should work out well. Gusfriend (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many unsigned editors are vandalising the page, including:

1. 116.204.241.7
2. 125.162.214.120
3. 116.204.241.2
4. 116.204.241.7
5. 78.109.73.139
6. 85.249.170.28

I'm not sure if that is the place for such a report, more so because I've obviously haven't warned there unidentified users. CLalgo (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RFPP would have been the place, but I've semi-protected it for a month so no need now. Black Kite (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For one or two IP vandals WP:AIV may also have worked. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bblqk37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is an editor with a self-admitted conflict of interest who has been asked by myself and an admin (see comment by "Waggers" on their talk page) to respect the COI rules. Yet, for some reason, they seem to think that the rules don't apply to them. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I just noticed on their talk page that they now want me to supply them with my "full name and country of residence". M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a blatant case of WP:NOTHERE, especially their demand that M.Bitton supply your full name and country of residence. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour vacation for edit warring on Cairngorm Club. If communication doesn't follow, I think we'll be in longer block territory. Star Mississippi 16:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hopefully they'll get the message. M.Bitton (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear legal threat too. Secretlondon (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it was made 5 and a half years ago and they have since removed it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Away and get a life. Clearly you are in the USA. You do not have any legal right to ban me from anything in the UK. Bblqk37 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi and Canterbury Tail: what do you think of their reply? M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was something. If I'd been here instead of out drinking I'd probably have indeffed them as well. Canterbury Tail talk 21:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks to that and the recent nonsense on their talk, I've indeffed. Should they wish to return as a collaborative editor, the usual processes remain available. Thanks for flagging @M.Bitton Star Mississippi 18:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this needs to be protected again, the sock needs to be blocked and all the crap must be rev/deleted. At what point does Wikipedia contact law enforcement and trace the vandal? The persistence of the threat needs to be addressed, since we're dealing with an obsessive rhetorical call to violence. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Will go double check to be sure I got all of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I also extended PP from a few days to a few months, seeing it is a BLP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. This is stalking behavior, and needs to be treated as such. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an LTA who has plagued a number of actress biographies.I think I'll see if I can make a list and forward to Trust and Safety. Acroterion (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Acroterion, I recognized the edits, too. It's easy for us to become numb to the sheer plenitude of vandalism. But certain behaviors stand out, particularly when they represent long term threats against individuals, and traffic in racism or misogyny. Thank you very much. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I am the primary contributor of several Star Trek articles which I have done a lot of work creating/expanding to get to GA status. This is the same way I work on many other film and TV articles with other editors, but there is less interest from other editors on these ones so the contribution stats are definitely skewed towards me by a lot. I am not surprised that someone might have WP:OWNERSHIP concerns with me because of that, but I firmly believe that there is no actual issue with my approach here. I am raising this because Bacon Noodles appears to be using these facts as a way to borderline-harass me into getting their own way in a content dispute:

• They added disputed content to Star Trek: Discovery (diff) which had some back-and-forth reverts before a discussion started
• Discussions at Talk:Star Trek: Discovery and MOS:TV both found consensus for my position and almost no support for Bacon Noodles
• Across both discussions, Bacon Noodles has accused me of ownership at least seven times. They have also left WP:WALLOFTEXT accusations at my talk page (diff 1 and diff 2) and their own (diff)
• I have pointed out the irony of this since I am working with other editors to get consensus for my position and they are not
• I have also asked them to stop these accusations multiple times as it is starting to feel like WP:HOUNDING to force me to back off, but they keep on posting them
  • I am especially concerned that they seem to be continuously posting accusations to my own talk page

Despite consensus forming to remove the disputed content that was added, Bacon Noodles's changes are still in the article and I am concerned about what they will do to try and keep them in. If they agree to back off with the accusations and remove the disputed content from the article then I will be happy to move on, but otherwise I will keep looking for ways to resolve the issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've read both discussions and they do seem to favor User:Adamstom.97. I think the ownership accusations as part of those discussion are personal attacks and distract from discussing the content. Adam seems to have been very patient here in describing the policy. I'd recommend Bacon Noodles to walk away quickly.--v/r - TP 00:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to dismiss it as appearing as prompted by simple content complaints or as being completely unrelated; in fact, I made a point of it that my concern stems from the ways User:Adamstom.97 dealt with an edit I made to a page, which went they then went to unusual extremes to remove. To be clear on the actuality of things, rather than a single-sided interpretation, I've compiled a fuller, not complete, timeline of interactions, to show it's more than a knee-jerk reaction to having an edit reverted. There are quite a lot of points, so I don't want to write too much above it, at this stage. But, to address the main accusations:

• "Disputed" is an objection, when there has been no previous discussion on inclusion and no factual/contextual errors; I maintain this was not sufficient to revert and, the eventual (second revert) recommendation to discuss the matter was a step in the right direction.
• "You vs Everyone consensus" is wrong because I have highlighted opposing views, as well as my own; incorrect to say a consensus was ignored, before there was a consensus. On one talk page, I even stated that I did not disagree with the general consensus and more with the potential lack of neutrality in implementation. (Referencing it as a reason to revert, 10 minutes after adding it, during an ongoing discussion)
• "WP:OWNER 7 times" close enough, however, in my first message to User talk:Adamstom.97, I made an attempt to directly address my concerns; I did not assert it was any one edit or statistic, but what I felt was a trend that I had observed. WP:WALLOFTEXT was to attempt more objectivity, to quote likely indicators and perceived evidence matching.
• "No consensus building" if the complaint is I don't spend enough time on Wikipedia, that's the WP:PULLRANK point. I have explained my viewpoint, in response to concerns from different users ([145], [146], [147]); I don't keep refreshing the page and to expect a loop of repeating phrases is frivolous.
• "WP:HOUNDING" first talk page message clear on appreciation for WP:STEWARDSHIP, not "dislike, revert, remove, silence." MOS:TV specifically called me "offending user" and "pointed" to respond. first was large, to be unambiguous. second was paraphrased version, to reduce WP:WALLOFTEXT, after replying on my own talk page. Automatic notification on both reverts and reply on own talk.
• "Concerned about what they will do to try and keep them in" I'm insulted by this; after all the things Adamstom.97 has done, rather than wait for the discussion to end naturally, or another editor to implement changes, I am baselessly accused as being likely to do the unthinkable (whatever that may be). This is one of the prime reasons I'm concerned; if the response to a concern is this instead of just saying "I disagree", how are first-time editors meant to respond in a similar situation (again)? All over what started as one line about rerun ratings in a section on viewership and a statement on disagreeing about reverting to remove, before discussing.

1. I added referenced content to Star Trek: Discovery, which I deemed relevant to a specific section on viewership; this displayed as one sentence.
2. Back-and-forth reverting, initiated by User:Adamstom.97 (two each, additions maintained on last)
3. Shortly before the final reversion (taken by me), I had begun a discussion on the article's talk page, as suggested in a reversion comment from Adamstom.97
4. The immediate response was that this was "out of line" due to not having their endorsement to add it
5. Several days later, the article was reverted by Adamstom.97 on the perceived grounds of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, as well as a reference to additions to a manual of style
6. Counter to that action, I reverted to the previous (still containing the original edit from myself), on the grounds of perceived WP:STONEWALLING, unjustified WP:BRD (WP:BRD-NOT); the same page also mentioned the latter as a potential sign of WP:OWNERSHIP, which I chose to apply in line with each
7. Partially based on the talk page discussion, I revised the edit to include multiple new references and background, addressing points raised on notability, source reliability and context
8. Adamstom.97's objection changed to "bare minimum" and WP:UNDUE, from lack of same qualities.
9. Prompted by the mention of the manual of style, I reviewed the page's history and found that the specific reference to reruns (applicable to the original edit in dispute) was added by Adamstom.97, shortly before their reversion, in the previous point; however, the edits to the manual did have a discussion with a general consensus among those discussing
10. The changes were reverted by myself, on the procedural grounds that it was applied to the background of the Star Trek: Discovery discussion and directly used by Adamstom.97 to justify removing the edit, despite that ongoing discussion not yet having an apparent consensus (most recent discussion, prior to Adamstom.97's reversion)
11. On the manual of style talk page, I added my views on the change and emphasis that my concerns were based on application, but also the way that Adamstom.97 lacked sufficient individual neutrality to implement the change due to veiled attacks directed towards me as "offending user" and "someone who is trying to add [rerun ratings] without any commentary [... not] in appropriate context". On the claim that I am "hounding", the timings are clear a response on the MOS was expected, even requested, although slightly before my revision on context/relevance
12. In response to my concerns on neutrality and effect of the change, Adamston.97's replied that I had "forced" my "own personal view upon multiple other editors" and "[keep] doing whatever the hell you want"
13. As a final response, on the MOS page, I reiterated that my concern was separate from the Star Trek page, how so, and my issue that the MOS change appeared to bypass the ongoing Star Trek discussion
14. Finally, to respond to what I had felt reached a concerning level of uncivil behaviour, I posted to User talk:Adamstom.97, as recommended by Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing with incivility, when no one article is the focus; I even included a point where I acknowledge it is likely to appear personal or biased, so to compensate, I included quotes from WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR on the signs of it and, what I felt, although retrospectively it may have been an overreach, were objective statistical comparisons to demonstrate the trend in reverting good faith edits by multiple editors, being the overwhelming single contributor to related articles (including how it is not on its own enough), and going as far as changing manuals of styles, what I continue to feel was, to bypass discussion, and not typical in comparable examples.
15. The message was removed/reverted by Adamstom.97, responded to at my own user talk page, dismissing it as WP:HOUNDING, entirely personal and that it would be dealt with by "reporting you for harassment"
16. I replied identically on two pages, first with a paraphrased version on User talk:Adamstom.97, in a format less likely to be WP:WALLOFTEXT. In my second reply, on my talk page, I placed links to the original messages for context, I reiterated my observation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR signs, how it was not towards any specific content or edit with a trend, and my concern at dismissing it as retribution.
17. User:Adamstom.97 submitted their interpretation of events as perceived harassment, and brought it here.

I'll be clear, I do not think everything was said perfectly, and there has definitely been regrettably charged language at times, not always; although I can't quote every policy and when one should have been used instead of another, I still believe the patterns show my concerns were/are genuine and not purely out of contempt over a reversion, where I have freely highlighted concerns to prospective editors. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be the only administrator who has taken an interest here. So, let me be clear. I read your timeline. You have a serious case of not listening. Consensus is against you. The MOS doesn't support your insertion of material. There is no ownership issues here, you're just wrong. And continuing to push that as your central point is becoming a personal attack. So, literally shut the fuck up and do something else for awhile because your behavior is bordering on tendentious. Stop it. You're wrong.--v/r - TP 01:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometime last month (June 20th), I launched an Request for comment about the status of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) as a TV network.

As of today (July 13th), multiple editors responded:

From my interpretation - 5, in one way or another, stated support for my proposed change to the current wording; 4 stated no reference for, and thereby no support for, the current wording (which was the reason for the RfC); & 1 editor not even voting but simply stating an opinion on the current wording. So, my stance is that there was a consensus reached with the RfC through the 5 that supported my proposed change to the article's current wording.

However, user General Ization is arguing: 3 editors supporting the proposal, 3 opposed, and 1 with an alternative proposal entirely (thereby his stance being no consensus exists). Ization is also arguing that it is not my place to close the RfC, despite Wikipedia policies allowing for anyone involved in the discussion to close it upon a consensus being reached

The thing is, the most recent response to the RfC in question was 2 weeks ago today (June 29th); with no response since then, I took that as meaning that there was no more interest in the discussion. The 30-day mark for this RfC ending would be July 18th (next Monday); after 30 days, the bot responsible for maintaining the space for RfCs would remove the RfC template. In fact, the instructions for ClueBot III even state not to archive the RfC until July 25th (two weeks from this past Monday).

So, with myself & Ization unable to agree on whether or not a consensus was reached for the RfC in question, there is no other choice in this matter but to ask for an uninvolved, third party review of the RfC in question.

And, as a result of my experience with Ization's recent actions & behavior concerning the RfC about PBS, I am politely requesting that, should the 3rd party review of the RfC in question uphold my interpretation of it, Ization be prohibited/disallowed/restrained from not only editing the article & talk page for PBS, but also reverting any changes to either page as well. 2600:1700:C960:2270:3CD1:517A:41BE:55DB (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFCL is where to request an uninvolved editor closes an RfC. As for the topic ban, I haven't looked into the discussion, and you haven't presented any evidence, so I have no idea if it is warranted, but your statements suggest it is not - editors shouldn't have restrictions applied due to them being on the wrong side of consensus absent other issues such as WP:IDHT. BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, after thinking it through some, I am withdrawing my filing. I will go through with requesting a third party review. Hopefully, if the review upholds my interpretation, it'll convince the other user to finally accept facts & move onto something else. 2600:1700:C960:2270:3CD1:517A:41BE:55DB (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User: Selfstudier (talk · contribs).
Page: Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

When I added links to the 'See also' section, Selfstudier reverted me ([148], [149], [150], [151]) demanding to get consensus first, and left a message on my talk page calling my editing disruptive. But when he added links to the same section and I reverted him ([152], [153], [154]), he re-added them and left a "warning" on my talk page accusing me of disruptive editing, again. He continues to push his POV, despite it's being against consensus.

Earlier on the same talk page, after he tried to remove content and received pushback, he said things like "we can do that or we can have a POV free for all, your choice" and "It's OK, the POV game is open to be played by more than one person as I said above". --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He made edits you dont like, and you made edits he doesnt like, and for some reason that merits a trip to ANI? Misusing this board in an attempt to remove an opponent isnt the best idea and opens you up to a WP:BOOMERANG. nableezy - 03:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that Triggerhippie4 (talk · contribs) has not made a single edit to Selfstudier's talk except for the ANI notice, which I'd consider the bare minimum dispute resolution before an ANI is worthy. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed Selfstudier numerous times on the talk page mentioned above. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's instructing others to apply to requirements he's not doing himself. And he's openly saying he's pushing POV. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be concern about an editor essentially openly threatening to mess with POV due to additions. That's not constructive, but it's also not ANI worthy, because saying ther are going to, isn't the same doing it. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you look at the thread where Selfstudier saying it, you'll see that's what he's doing. That's why he's bragging about own POV-pushing. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He isnt bragging about anything, he is saying your POV pushing should be answered. And your claim of it being against consensus is nonsense. Neither of you have consensus on that talk page. And this is straightforward attempt to remove an opponent from that talk page. Which, again, is not a smart move. nableezy - 06:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate Selfstudier's contributions, he's been great at updating the page. But he was wrong in the last couple of days. These were really like made to make a point, and then he edit warred on it and continued with a nonsense tag. His whole tone on the talk page was as if he was doing this all as retaliation.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start at the beginning: Diff1 7 July The complainant edited a new section of the talk page entitled "Selfstudier", complained about a removal I made and asserts without evidence that I do not WP:OWN the page.

Diff 2 & Diff 3 I changed the section title and complainant changed it back once again alleging WP:OWN and again without evidence.

I referred the complainant to their talk page Diff 4 and point out that WP:TALKHEADPOV says ""Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious" and asked for an apology. None was forthcoming.

As for the "see alsos", I was initially of the view that a basic timeline article did not need them and indeed the article managed without them since its creation until they were added on 1 July (including a redlink) Diff 5. There ensued discussions on the talk page after I removed them and since two editors wanted them in, I let it go.

However, when I then attempted to add see alsos according to this new "consensus", the same two editors who insisted on having see alsos to begin with had an apparent change of heart, only their see alsos were to be allowed but mine were not. 2022 in Israel would be OK while directly related links per WP:MOS added by myself would not be OK, described by complainant as "spam links about broad subjects not specific to this year" [Diff 6] and most recently on the talk page as "spamming of it with vague and POV links" and now by a second editor (of the same POV as the complainant) as "a collection of broad unrelated links".

It is clear that the two editors claiming a "consensus" on this issue are now for all practical purposes, teaming. I would like either editor to explain why the see alsos added by myself are not allowed and what is the basis for their reverts. Essentially, both editors are abusing the see also section to push a POV, which is why I tagged it (tag now removed Diff 7 with edit summary "how in the world "2022 in Israel" is POV? removing ridiculous tag" !? That these editors are unable to see that this is POV is somewhat concerning.

Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, I have been working with you collegially on that page for more than a month. I am the third editor, with you being first, by number of edits on the page. I greatly appreciate your many valuable contributions. Why are you now coming at me with the outrageous "teaming" accusation?Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@חוקרת: Perhaps you should answer why you think links reflecting only one-side of a two-way conflict is not POV, but "nonsense": I'd definitely like to know. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about the conflict in 2022, thus "2022 in Israel" is relevant and your additions are irrelevant, unreasonable and excessive. Besides that, "2022 in Israel" is neutral, while yours are one-sided, but you, of course, knows this, otherwise you wouldn't add them. As for the accusation of "teaming up" – what does this even mean? I'm not familiar and don't recall ever having a contact with him/her, if that's what you're saying. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that the page is currently subject to active arbitration remedies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romcreator (talk · contribs) has at least twice added copyright violation content to Dmitry Steshin and Alexander Kots (journalist); moreover, the source doesn't mention either Steshin or Kots [155]. This raises questions as to whether other passages in the articles they've created contain WP:OR, or have also been copied from their foreign language sources, which I'm unable to read. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a video record of the event, where you can see the presentation with both Steshin and Kots. And the discussion among journalists about them.

You can check the video (the picture in left corner is Kots, in right corner - Steshin)

search for "Російська пропаганда як інструмент геноциду українського народу. Методи виявлення та викриття" in YouTube, 5min26sec Romcreator (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • But it's not in the source you've been using. Can you confirm whether you've added copied text elsewhere? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Should I add the YouTube video as a source in this case? Romcreator (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have taken some of the statements from this article (which I want to mention as a source):

    https://imi.org.ua/en/news/ukrainian-journalists-call-to-punish-russian-propagandists-for-facilitating-the-genocide-in-ukraine-i46351

    Is this a violation of Wiki rules? What I need to do in this case?

    (I'm new in Wiki, sorry) Romcreator (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You're still not responding to the original concern re: copyright violations. Until that's resolved, I wouldn't recommend making any further edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      No, this content is original. Some of it was taken from Russian-languauge Wiki and translated by me. Romcreator (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • To the contrary, at least some of the Steshin article appears to have been copied, as from [156]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        should I rewrite this? Romcreator (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        What is a best and correct way to add this information? Romcreator (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Semen Pegov. On further reading, the broader concern here is with the agenda and POV--are these Russian propagandists notable, and do the sources meet WP:RELIABLE?. Though Romcreator professes to be a new editor, unfamiliar with the process, thay seem to know what they're doing quite well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are being disruptive. Last ANI for reference.

• Reverts [157] [158] [159] against discussion outcome.

Old edit war notice was given [160].

• Asking for admin [161] after reverting [162] without notifying anyone involved [163]. Again [164] and [165] and history.
• The "improperly altered" series of canned edit summaries [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] that were difficult to tell what actually changed or were misleading.
• Keep opening new sections and recycling old arguments such as "threadbare" and "do you deny" in discussion, some since June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacosea (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that they take some time to reflect what they're trying to do here on Wikipedia. Vacosea (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the filer has engaged in their share of disruptive editing [177], [178] and I have stopped reverting after the involvement of a previously uninvolved editor. I did not give notice to the filer when I went to the noticeboards because I didnt make and had no intention of making the filer the subject of the discussions. I’ve been discussing many of the issues with the filer that have given rise to the edit warring on the associated talk page but at this point it is basically like talking to a brick wall with them. Some administrative on THAT would be nice Thundercloss (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had one interaction with Thundercloss, which is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Help needed for a long running dispute. They asked for assistance breaking a deadlock, and I advised them to stop accusing other editors of not reading their posts, and to realize consensus is currently against them and move on or start an RFC. Their response was to accuse me of not reading. Refuses to accept consensus, and assumes bad faith of those that disagree with them. Not a great mix. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn’t helpful advice because they haven’t been reading the stuff I’ve been writing and that’s evidenced by their responses. That’s not me assuming bad faith or refusing to accept consensus, that’s just me stating a fact. If an admin thinks I’m wrong they are free to go through the discussion page and verify the accusation for themselves. That said I have stopped reverting now, and will commit to this position from now on given the number of and comments by new editors who are now involved in this dispute. I should also point out that I am still in the process of discussing many of the issues with the filer on the associated talk page that have given rise to the edit warring on the main article. But given the discussion history I’m not optimistic that the negotiations are going to go anywhere. Thundercloss (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or they read what you wrote, and disagree or aren't convinced. You are specifically assuming bad faith. Either move on or start an RFC, and stop accusing editors that disagree with you of not reading what you're saying. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

we aren’t going to get anywhere with this accusation issue so i won’t waste anymore time talking about that. I will start an RFC but not before doing everything I can to resolve as many of the disputes on the discussion page as possible. But once more - given the discussion history I’m not optimistic that much is going to get resolved.Thundercloss (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember there is a difference between resolved, reaching consensus and done the way you want. They can sometimes be the same thing, but not always. Resolution and consensus may be against what you personally feel it should be. Canterbury Tail talk 15:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You went to a notice board, and then when you did not get the answer you wanted accused the user of not reading the dispute. That does not look like assuming good faith to me. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They did seem rather dismissive from what I have seen (the same place as ScottishFinnishRadish). Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd like to report edit warring, a violation of WP:BRD and MOS:PRON by User:Akerbeltz.

I removed the stress mark from the IPA transcriptions of Basque in Álava, Basque language and San Sebastián because it is not a part of the Help:IPA/Basque guide. Per MOS:PRON (section Other languages), Other languages have dedicated IPA-xx templates, where xx is the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code or the 3-letter ISO 639-3 code for the language in question, as in {{IPA-el}} for Greek or {{IPA-fa}} for Persian. A number of languages also have dedicated templates that automatically convert ordinary letters (or conventional ASCII equivalents) to IPA characters that are used to transcribe the language in question, such as {{IPAc-fr}} for French and {{IPAc-cmn}} for Mandarin Chinese. These languages and templates are listed at {{IPA}}. Again, if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. If you wish to change those conventions, bring it up for discussion on the key's talk page. Creating transcriptions unsupported by the key or changing the key so that it no longer conforms to existing transcriptions will confuse readers. This means that transcriptions linking to Help:IPA/X guides should agree with those guides and vice versa.

They keep refusing to engage with me on Help talk:IPA/Basque, which is the appropriate place for such discussions. Edit summaries such as adding stress symbols to shut up the IPA lawyer show that this person has absolutely no interest in respecting the proper way of dealing with such issues, instead showing the my way or the highway (or WP:OWNERSHIP, basically) philosophy. Given that they've been here for over a decade, they really ought to know better than to behave like this.

First wave of edits: [179], [180], [181]. Reverts: [182], [183], [184].

Second wave of edits: [185], [186], [187]. Reverts: [188], [189], [190]. Note the edit summary it just says "use the conventions of that language, it does NOT say you can only use what's listed on the IPA page, indeed many languages don't even have that page which is clearly at odds with what MOS:PRON says (and then goes off on a tangent about other languages that are not the topic of the discussion).

Third wave of edits: [191], [192]. Reverts: [193], [194]. The edit summaries that read restore stress mark, stop removing relevant info, the stress mark is so universal it's not going to confuse anyone who can read IPA give off WP:OWNERSHIP vibes with a complete disregard for MOS:PRON. And it is an insult to my intelligence to suggest that I think that a stress mark would "confuse" someone who can read the IPA, as it is one of the most basic IPA signs.

Then, after User:Largoplazo created a discussion on Talk:San Sebastián#Phonetic representation, Akerbeltz added the stress mark to Help:IPA/Basque with a disregard for other IPA transcriptions of Basque which would then have to be changed per MOS:PRON (to repeat myself, this means that transcriptions linking to Help:IPA/X guides should agree with those guides and vice versa.) Because of that, I reverted them. Then, they start edit warring with me, disregarding MOS:PRON and WP:BRD. In fact, they completely disregarded WP:BRD as they ignored the discussion on Help talk:IPA/Basque#Stress mark. Diffs: [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203]. Sol505000 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While your complaint here is, I'm assuming, aimed primarily at the edit warring, can I just hold up for reflection the notion that if phonetic transcriptions from a particular language uniformly fail to represent something so fundamental as the stress, we must never begin remediating that deficiency anywhere because we can't fix it everywhere at once?

The real deficiency seems to have been at Help:IPA/Basque, and Akerbeltz fixed that. I don't see how you make that out to be a MOS:PRON violation. Where does MOS:PRON say "Thou shalt not include stress in IPA representations"? Have you taken a look at Help:IPA/Spanish? Help:IPA/Russian? Largoplazo (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akerbeltz is generally a good editor; the problem here is that if IPA-eu is changed, then all the articles that link to it should be changed to match. That's a significant project, affecting many articles, so there should be an announcement on the talk page of the key, where people could register their objections. At the least, a discussion should be started on the intended project if they start running into difficulty implementing it because they're getting reverted. It's not a matter of whether stress should be marked or not [and BTW stress is much less salient in Basque than it is in Spanish or Russian, so those aren't good analogies], but of consistency. No, it doesn't have to all be done at once, but there should be some indication that there are plans to do it, like 'I've started a project to add stress to all trasclusions of this key.' Also, in the case of marginal distinctions like this, there may be good reason to avoid it (such as it being inconsistent between dialects). Why wasn't it in the key to begin with? Was there a consensual decision to not include it or to remove it? That might be relevant to restoring it. — kwami (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for why it wasn't there, I suspect nobody ever got round to the suprasegmentals, since there's nothing exotic about primary/secondary stress. People likely have to check up on stuff like ɟ or ts̻ in Basque but ˈ much less so.

As for the edit war, I object to people wasting other people's time for no good reason. The primary stress mark is hardly exotic in IPA and its use Araba and Donostia is relevant and non-controversial. For an editor with an apparent knowledge of the IPA and MOS but apparently little in the way of Basque to come in and start removing stuff from Basque pages because of some rather dubious MOS angle and then to have the cheek to suggest if I add the missing bit they've complained about to the IPA page that this means I am therefore obliged to weed through an unknown number of pages, sorry, that's wasting everyone's time for *very* little gain, so yeah, I get short with that kind of thing and I'm not apologetic about it. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: Some good points that I hadn't considered. About the inconsistency part, though: It isn't the same as if someone were to replace one representation with another and begin implementing the new one. That would create confusion, with the same sound or phoneme being represented in different ways in different places. In this case, there would be renderings that indicate the stress and renderings that don't. This wouldn't be confusing, it would look like what it was: a case of something missing that could be added by anyone who came along, noticed the deficiency, and knew where the stress marks should go. Largoplazo (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like incomplete tone information in languages that have simple tone systems that a lot of dictionaries don't bother with. I've come across WP transcriptions like that, and yeah, it's pretty obvious that they're simply incomplete. I have no objection to that, but at this point, having come to ANI, I think it would be best for Akerbeltz to start a thread on the IPA-eu key talk page, saying what they intend to do and why, list a couple RS's, maybe ping those involved in creating the key or drop a note on the wikiproject talk pages, and wait a week for feedback. If no-one bothers to reply, you can take that as silent consensus. Sol505000 is correct in how we've set things up to work in this cooperative setting -- you need to satisfy those with no knowledge of the subject that you're following sources, because otherwise how can they tell? There's no rush here, and @Akerbeltz:, even if you're rolling your eyes over having to go all bureaucratic over something you find straightforward, remember that there's no peer-review before you publish, and it'll probably take less time and effort for you follow WP:BOLD than it will to repeatedly argue over it in edit-summaries. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna add, it isn't immediately obvious that the IPA transcriptions of Basque should include stress. Basque dialects show big differences in stress/accent patterns, and stress in Standard Basque has little to no contrastive value. MOS:PRON recommends, generally, following national or international standards, in this case being Standard Basque's stress patterns, but I think there is room for opposition and it's something that should be discussed. Erinius (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with including stress for some dialects if the relevant transcriptions are going to be adjusted along with the guide. I've never taken a definitive stance on this. Sol505000 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because stress in Basque is complicated doesn't mean it's a complete free-for-all. Like you won't get [ˈdonos̺tia]) in any dialect but if we put [donos̺tia]) then the chances non-speakers putting the stress in a totally wrong position goes UP. Collaborative is fine by me until it turns into "my knowledge of some Wiki policy trumps subject expert knowledge", at which point it becomes a waste of time and the main reason I do so little mainspace editing on the English Wikipedia these days. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that my knowledge of MOS:PRON or WP:BRD "trumps" your knowledge of Basque (I can't verify the "expert" part and it's not terribly relevant anyway). Stop putting words in my mouth. I can see that you participated in discussions on Help talk:IPA/Basque as early as in 2010 (12 years ago), so you really should've known better than to edit war with me in multiple articles. If you can't follow the aforementioned policies after that much time on WP then I can see why you edit so little. Sol505000 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See this contribution.

Please block him from using his talk page. Thank you. Kaseng55 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla semi-protected the page, which is pretty much the same as removing the IP's talk page access, but also prevents disruption if they IP hop. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In January I posted the following appeal. Every word I wrote then still stands, and I don't think I can improve upon it much (it was even described as "the Platonic ideal of a TBAN appeal - acceptance of wrongdoing, understanding of why things went wrong, commitment to focusing elsewhere on the project, and a plan for the future."), so I am repeating it here with a few additional comments below.

The other day I was notified that an article I created, Paul R. Devin, was nominated for deletion with the nominator saying it did not meet GNG. I created the article in 2006, when I was new, when the project was new, and when WP:N did not yet exist. I had long forgotten the article and it wasn't even on my watchlist. I wanted to support the deletion as I agree with the nominator but was prohibited by a T-ban I received a little more than two years ago. Devin was an official with the Knights of Columbus and I cannot make edits relating to the Knights.

In the two years since, I have dramatically reduced the amount of time I spend editing. In the last few months I have only made a handful of edits, and it will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. I simply don't have the time to devote to the project that I once did. I have also tried to make amends with those with whom I have clashed in the past and generally stayed away from them in general. I have also largely moved away from contentious articles and instead have made putting women in red a focus. I've probably created close to 200 articles since then with many of them biographies of women.

More importantly, I have consciously moved away from the types of actions that precipitated the ban. I now recognize that I had a much more liberal interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF than the community and I continued to argue after it was clear the consensus was moving away from me. Given how little time I have to devote to the project these days, I have no desire to spend any time at all on content disputes. I would much rather spend my limited time editing in quiet little corners of the encyclopedia and don't foresee making major changes to Knights-related articles. I even put into writing a plan to handle disputes and asked people to call me out on it when I fall short. All that said, I would like to be able participate in things like the deletion nomination mentioned above, and fix things like the reference error (currently number 48 on Knights of Columbus if anyone else wants to go there) that has existed since 2019.

I would especially like to know, even if I never make another Knights-related edit again, that I have regained the trust of the community. With that in mind, I am asking for a second chance and for my T-ban to be lifted. I would be glad to submit to a review in several months to make sure everything is copacetic. Alternatively, I would like to be able to at least participate in talk page discussions for a period of, say, two or three months, and then the community can evaluate my participation and see if a removal is appropriate.

Thank you all very much. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There was a string of comments supporting my appeal and the lifting of my T-ban. Indeed, the non-admin who closed it said there was a "a sound majority of votes" in favor of doing so. However, she and a few others interpreted my desire to not re-litigate the past as a refusal to engage in discussion. So, to be clear, my understanding of the actions that led to my sanction were my stubbornness in arguing points long after it became clear the consensus was moving against me. My view was not the community view and I wasn't changing anyone's mind, but that didn't stop me. As it was my argumentativeness that got me into trouble in the first place, perhaps I was overly cautious about not repeating the behavior in the appeal. Additionally, I was the primary author of several of the articles in question. When others raised legitimate concerns, I tried to address them. This was in good faith on my part, but was interpreted by others as Ownership-type behavior. While it wasn't my intent, given the totality of circumstances it was a reasonable conclusion on their part.

I think my track record in the intervening years shows a break with that behavior. I am not perfect, but those types of edits today are by far the exception and not the rule. In fact, I don't think you will find any in the seven months since my previous appeal (or longer). And, I still don't have much time to edit, don't have intentions of making major edits to Knights-related articles, am committed to Women in Red, and am still bothered by that persistent reference error I am prohibited from correcting.

In case you are wondering, the prompt for this new appeal is similar to the prompt for the last one: there was a question about the notability of a Knights of Columbus official's biography I created. Someone left a comment on my talk page and I briefly responded indicating that I didn't think it meets GNG. (I then notified the closing admin of the potentially offending edit.)

Given all of this, my primary motivation is still to simply regain the community's trust. There are those, including some who opposed lifting my T-ban, who have active sanctions against them. It does not seem to bother them. I am not sure if this is a credit to my character or a fault, but my sanctions have always weighed heavily on me. In line with the WP:Standard Offer, I want a second chance so that 1) I know I have earned it and 2) to prove that I deserve it. I hope you will give me the chance to do just that. Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

‘’EDIT’’: While I appreciate all the votes of support, and hope to have this removed, it should be said in defense of the non-admin closer that I had to actively request a close at RFCL. The original conversation petered out and then was auto-archived. Had an admin stepped up before this happened, my tban may have been resolved months ago. I am not blaming the closer, even if her decision went against me. —Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per WP:AGF, WP:ROPE and WP:SO and that Slugger adheres to the guidelines laid out in WP:COI. Note:Involved in the incidents at KofC and ANI that lead to the ban. Slywriter (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:LASTCHANCE. I very much disagree with the non-administrator close of the last appeal. Eight editors explicitly supported the appeal and only one opposed. Then there were some questions. I do not think that should have been closed by anyone other than an administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support I continue to have concerns, however I think the appeal Slugger references should have been closed by an admin-and while I opposed, I was surprised that it didn't close as support/topic ban repealed. There are probably enough eyes on his articles, edits that any issues will be quickly identified. Star Mississippi 01:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Should have been lifted last time, terrible close by editor, verging on a supervote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Slugger O'Toole is aware of the behaviour that led to the topic ban and I trust that they are wise enough to avoid repeating it. I’m also concerned by the closure of the first appeal. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. That was a dreadful original close, and I would certainly have contested/reverted it had I seen it - it should never have been closed by a non-admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Initial appeal should have been closed by an admin and argument for lifting is persuasive. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This should have been done and settled back in February. The editor's initial topic ban seems necessary at the time, but the I believe the editor has shown that he understands what was problematic and has grown and improved since then, such that the topic ban is no longer necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Despite what WP:BADNAC says, some non-admins seem to feel that they are capable of making controversial closes, either due to lengthy experience on Wikipedia, or more likely an overestimation of their own abilities in judgment. This is certainly a case of the latter.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - and given the last discussion would say should be snow closed as lifted by an admin at this point. nableezy - 16:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Request seems entirely reasonable. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support thoughtful appeal. Andrevan@ 18:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Jeez Louise, non-admins should never close polls on ANI or AN, much less close a near-unanimous poll with the opposite result. Why a non-admin editor with barely 4 years' experience and barely 7,000 edits was allowed to close it, and against obvious consensus, is beyond me. More admins need to participate in ANI, and the thread should have simply been retrieved from the archive and given a DNAU tag until an admin closed it. Softlavender (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I appreciate the editors defense of the non-admin closer of the previous appeal and I do believe we should not be so quick to judgement of that editor, especially since the discussion was archived and a request had to be filed after an uninvolved admin never closed the discussion to begin with but I agree with the sentiments of the other editors here in that such a discussion should be closed by an admin. In regards to the editors appeal, it was thoughtful and nearly every original concern was addressed. There may be additional concerns as expressed by other editors but, as was pointed out, there are mechanisms in place to swiftly deal with any future issues that may arise should it be necessary. Imho, the editor has earned another chance. --ARoseWolf 19:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Seems like a sincere request, hopefully you will not let the people choosing to give you another chance down. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A reasonable request. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 13:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user Iterresise (talk · contribs · count) insists on simply deleting, without any prior discussion or consensus, various demographic tables from country articles (see here, here, here, here, etc). He has already been warned by user Moxy (see here and here) about this kind of destabilizing behavior and about the promotion of edit wars, but he insists on this kind of attitude. I request some kind of administrative intervention, as the previous warnings have not had any effect. Chronus (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup...second report on this board ....they are not new very familiar with Useful links

-(Moxy- 02:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy Second report? Chronus (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

opps achieved ...my bad]Moxy- 02:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy You think Neplota & Iterresise might be the same individual? GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified the editor on their talk page about this thread since they hadn't recieved the notice. I found it odd that after being warned for edit warring they removed the warning citing "don't template the regulars". The account is less than four months old, so either there's some kind of delusions of grandeur going on or something's shady. Either way, I also find the behaviour incredibly disruptive. The templates they are removing are useful for readers of the articles to easily get an overview of population clusters without having to go to some different stub article for it that may or may not even be as detailed as the template itself, and the reasons they have been citing for removing it have been flawed at best. They're currently blocked for edit warring but if this continues more drastic measures should be taken. TylerBurden (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They replaced the notification with an edit summary of "how ridiculous" [204] then changed their talk page User talk:Iterresise to "hypocrites and liars". I also agree that it is a little odd to say don't template the regulars when they posted a template on an editor who has been here since 2008 ([205]). Gusfriend (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it doesn't exactly look like they have learned from their mistakes. Calling people hypocrites when templating 2008 users.. nothing posted on that talk page has been a lie, their edit history confirms edit warring across several articles. I think a longer block at this point would be preventative because there is evidently no accountability here. TylerBurden (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• They seem to have a history of making a change and, after they are reverted, repeating their edit. For example at International Science Olympiad they repeated their edit after it had been reverted [206] and gave a warning to the other user [207] which included the standard talk page message even though they rarely use the talk page themselves (and didn't in this situation). On the DAB pages Faro and DM they also re-added content after being reverted without using the talk page or attempting to generate a consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (non-admin comment) Consensus which they would be very unlikely to get; MOS:DAB#Grouping by subject area recommends against the type of changes they made. Narky Blert (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's not ban them longer for now...much easier to follow this account then the sock they will make. Moxy- 00:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure how to deal with this, which could be both or either. I was going to just revert the edit but decided it wasn't clear that was the right thing to do. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Previous discussions in 2018 and 2019, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Freecomwireless. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• IP blocked for disruptive editing and probable block evasion. Not a legal threat imv but disruptive nonetheless. All their edits of this nature have been reverted. It's a reminder that this person is still active. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Rev del applied by Drmies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated a page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philip_Brooks_(basketball) for AFD, the votes were in favor to delete the page because it has no independent coverage. The guy hired a few people from Upwork a freelancing site and hiring people to edit their page and save it. A person name Franklin Darrk and one more is adding useless website links such as weebly.com, their personal website of Philip, Press releases website, and trademark.trademarkia.com as a reference. I warned him multiple times but every time he added the links. Two Wikipedians including the voter told Franklin to add the 3 independent news sources to the article but he is adding weebly.com and personal website links as a third-party reference. Kindly take action and see the AFD page. --IntelisMust (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @IntelisMust: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that there's much to do here except to close the AfD as a clear "delete", as has been done. I see that the editor in question has been given some warnings on their talk page. Any accusations of underhand behaviour need strong evidence to support them, and, unless an editor freely discloses their true identity on Wikipedia, we should be wary of WP:OUTING. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a large amount of copyrighted content into the Fractional-reserve banking article. Please see that article's history, and rev-deletions.

Thank you!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317, I have revdel’d the offending text. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:112.198.163.142 keeps adding/reverting back in WP:OR / MOS:PUFFERY to Battle rap and called me a "racist nazi" to boot. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This racist labels empirically supported evidence as PUFFERY. Checking https://versetracker.com/leagues proves that Fliptop is the most popular and most viewed battle rap league in the world, yet this racist does not want that highlighted. 112.198.163.142 (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user MeGowtham (talk · contribs · count) deleting, AFD template, without providing reasons (here, here). It has been previously warned on the talk page. (WP:LISTEN) HurricaneEdgar 04:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also here, here, here and here on the one article. Also warned on users talk page. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have also taken issue that some of the articles they have created have zero sources. Draft:Deepa Shankar was deleted per G7 after some sloppy handling of this unsourced BLP, but then got recreated in article space; it is now at AfD. MeGowtham added a source (using improper markup, as I recall) only when I told them to do so in a draft comment, and as noted by Deepika o (talk · contribs), that source does not verify any of the associated article content. Their other article, Mr. and Mrs. Chinnathirai (Season 4), has a similar history.

More recently, they also uploaded an image of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan without any licensing information, and which turned out to be a copyvio of [208]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Anarchyte (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD for Deepa Shankar has been withdrawn after additional sources were found, while the image was tagged as non-free for use on a nonexistent article, and has been tagged for deletion per F5 and F7c. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EditPatroller296 (talk · contribs) has, over the course of several weeks, been adding errors to the article Townley Grammar School (1) (2) (3) (4) (4) (5) (6) (7), even possibly entering into an edit war with editors from the school itself. The errors claim that the school is closed, while using an outdated source [209] instead of the current, up to date source [210] which I also added to the article. StartOkayStop (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also going to add that they also have recently been making some unconstructive edits, where they replace some content and change the reference, and then say “just trust me bro,” as they did here [211] and here [212]. The typical edit summaries they’ve been using for these edits are things like “Fixed inaccuracies” and “Fixed issues.” ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 06:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the admissions page from the school's website gives the impression that the "Townley Grammar School for Girls" was indeed shut down, but then the "Townley Grammar School" reopened in its place. EditPatroller296 hasn't edited in a week, so I don't think it's necessary to take any action right now, but if they return to their disruption it could be worth opening another thread. That or, and I say this without checking any of their edits, a partial block preventing them from editing that page could work. Anarchyte (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aamir Khan filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I reported this issue at AIV but was told to take it to another admin board (which I acknowledge is appropriate). I removed content at Aamir Khan filmography because it was not supported by the source cited. User Krimuk2.0 reverted with no explanation. When I again stated that the information was not in the source cited, Krimuk2.0 restored the content again with the explanation "the onus is on you to provide the correct source". I pointed out WP:BURDEN here. Krimuk2.0 added a different source that again had nothing to do with the content in question. I would appreciate it if someone would point out to Krimuk2.0 that any material on Wikipedia that is challenged should not be restored without a source that actually supports the edit. If I should discuss this elsewhere please advise. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 172.58.219.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using IPs from Boston has been adding spam links to media by "J. M. Smig" to multiple articles.[213][214][215] The links connect to Smig's Bandcamp page or Smig's YouTube page. Wikilinks are often added to the notional biography J. M. Smig,[216] a page which was deleted in 2006, moved to User:J.M. Smig. The user made two edits in userspace in 2006 and then fell silent. In the last week, the person has resurfaced to promote their work.[217] Below, I have listed the IPs involved in this activity. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Involved IPs

• 172.58.219.150 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.222.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.219.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.220.251 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.222.157 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.219.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.219.46 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.219.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.222.169 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• I have made a one-month rangeblock of 172.58.219.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! That will send a message. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2001:8003:3cfd:fc00:6154:228f:2b0b:498c (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Is repeatedly removing content and sources from Kip Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) citing "invasion of privacy". All content is, as far as I can see, is sourced, publicly available and not harmful to the subject. Not responding to messages left on anon's talk page. Appears to want the article to be a hagiography. Could I please get some more eyes on this? Thanks Adakiko (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an edit war, and a 3RR violation. Not sure if this would be better reported to the 3RR noticeboard, but here are some some diffs:

Last good version: [218]

Reverts:

1. [219]
2. [220]
3. [221]
4. [222]
5. [223]

StartOkayStop (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: There appear to be other accounts and IP addresses making the same types of edits, including 2001:8003:3cfd:fc00:20dd:e912:877f:dcfe (talk · contribs) [224], MikeWayneSydney (talk · contribs) [225], and 203.220.230.206 (talk · contribs) [226]. StartOkayStop (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an edit war. What this is a highly disruptive individual who is removing citation without an explanation. Judekkan (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The involvement of multiple IPs is why I posted here rather then EWN. Adakiko (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another new IP just popped up doing the exact same things: 49.195.18.217 (talk · contribs). Same types of edits, and the only recent edits on this IP. StartOkayStop (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I requested page protection at WP:RPP. Judekkan (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Semi-protected for a week to stop the edit warring. I'm about to log off and haven't had time to look through all the references, so I don't know if there is any additional action needed there, though I will make the general note that BLP concerns aren't necessarily invalid just because they are brought forth in a non-ideal manner. --Blablubbs (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]