Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see WP:DEADHORSE. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forgot a point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There are many reliable sources stating it"

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

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

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

Please refer to the consensus summary I provided above, as well as the other comments in this thread.

> "My issue is with how we (Wikipedia editors) are wording the article at Yasuke. This is very much within the purview of "us individual editors""

It is important that we follow the sources and the academic consensus. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You also state:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

Purdy's review has indeed been talked about extensively, and you seem to be ignoring that he was overall supportive of the relevant claims in them, and did not contend with the claim that Yasuke is a samurai. Additionally, concerning Lockley: "担当教科は歴史で、特に国際的視野に立った日本史を扱う" ("the subject he presides over is history, particularly Japanese history from an international perspective"). Lastly, I am not seeing the controversy and I am not interested in the endless rehashing of these discussions. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source text: ㋒武家に仕える者。家の子。武士。さむらい。

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

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

Source text: Saburai: Fidalgo, i, bomem bonrado

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"as I've done in the past"

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

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

Of these 5 diffs, 3 of those diffs are from Eirikr, who has been engaged in disruptive WP:BLUDGEONING and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK behavior for over a month now, and the other two have been answered by me in other edits. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You have sent 7 replies in the span of an hour, with none of them adding anything new and only a regurgitation of the same accusations you've been saying all this time, which falls under WP:BLUDGEONING:

[Bludgeoning] is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions. [...] This behavior and conduct is undesirable, considered a form of disruptive editing, and is usually seen and reported as such when observed by other editors who are involved in the same discussion.

Only when you are presented with talks of a topic ban, you have slightly changed your tone in your more recent posts, but then decided to gaslight as if you have always been saying this, when you have indeed not as shown by the reference links posted by @Thibaut120094 above. At this point I do not know what other option to pursue other than a topic ban since you have not shown interest nor desire to actual productive discussion and only seek to accuse others of doing the same thing you are doing. Hexenakte (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think something fundamental you are misunderstanding is that ANI is not the appropriate place for you to force people into debating secondary sources with you, especially debates that have already been concluded with clear consensus. It is for discussing behavior not sources, and in particular your behavior as the initial report concerns you and Eirikr. The initial report has nothing to do with how credible you think certain sources are and I am not interested in having that discussion with you. I was not involved in previous discussions and I am brief to respect the already established consensus.

I am not a frequent editor. You've continuously WP:HOUNDED me for additional replies and I genuinely am assuming good faith on your behalf (despite the relevant information being available in the RfC as I've previously pointed out), so I provided them and now you are claiming that they are "regurgitation". I hope you can see how this is disruptive and a clear case of WP:BLUDGEONING, where you harass someone if they do not wish to reply to you, and then force them into an endless debate if they do. I was not involved in the earlier discussions but I imagine this is precisely the kind of repeat behavior from you and Eirikir that led to the initial report.

I do not have an exact count of your high comment volume on the talk page and in the other discussions, but by a rough estimation across all of the relevant discussions it perhaps a staggering 150 comments. Just you and Eirikr alone have quite possibly left about 300 comments collectively in these discussions. As other editors have pointed out concerning your refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK and severe WP:BLUDGEONING:

One editor[8]:

re Eirikr's the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference. Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book and Lopez-Vera's book are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.

Another editor[9]:

I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well. I will keep things short and to the point (as best as one can with this subject matter). Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai. There are no reliable sources that argue otherwise. Meanwhile, you've got editors like Hexenakte and Eirikr that have made massive threads all across the talk page trying to put in their own WP:OR interpretation of said sources, claiming that the sources aren't reliable because they translated the Japanese wrong or didn't show the primary sources they were using, ect. I've tried to explain to them time and again that editors aren't allowed to be sources and claim their interpretation is the factual one, especially if they don't even have a single reliable source backing their claims. My statements in that regard have fallen on deaf ears time and time again with both of said editors (and they are likely to reply to my comment here with yet another wall of text arguing the same points again).

The quote from WP:BLUDGEON is quite relevant here.

[Bludgeoning] is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions. [...] This behavior and conduct is undesirable, considered a form of disruptive editing, and is usually seen and reported as such when observed by other editors who are involved in the same discussion.

This is precisely what you and Eirikr have done despite constant warnings. Not to mention that this doesn't even touch upon the off-site canvassing, which appears to be you and Eirikr discussing how to bypass the RfC before it even closed.

Given that you appear to be a SPA as well, at this point I think a topic ban or even a WP:NOTHERE block suggestion would be appropriate, but I'll let others discuss that. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not. Anything I've referenced is in the RfC for anyone's perusal, and/or has been already extensively covered in the relevant discussions, including this page itself (Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book and Lopez-Vera's book).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t take more than a quick look over at the Japanese talk page:

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

to see that @Symphony Regalia has been similarly disruptive and accused of using multiple proxy accounts, including a high likelihood of being the user やまとぉ due to having the same exact defensive dialogue, replying on the other’s replies, and baseless claims without providing proper sources. Furthermore, this account also copy-pastes retorts from other users as deflection to their accusations. 天罰れい子 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I will kindly ask you to stop the unfounded WP:HARASSMENT. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be prudent of you to not deflect the accusation back at your accuser, especially when @天罰れい子 is justified in saying so, in regards to the state that ja:弥助 was in and that you also attempted to insinuate that @Eirikr is @天罰れい子.

Ever since your initial edit of ja:弥助 on the 2nd of July, it was followed by concerted efforts by three accounts all made in the span of 3 days, as well as several IP addresses over the course of days to push for the same edit. Your edit was rejected on grounds that the BBC source you provided did not mention the word 護衛. In response to that, on the 4th of July, you accused the Japanese editors of prejudice, racism and of all things, vandalism, instead of talking things out in the Talk page.

Prior to your initial edit, you also did not engage with said editors before pushing for said edit, this is one of several points that I want people to take note of as I delve further.

On the 6th of July, you gave your reasoning, however you presented it as "Sources described him as", "According to sources", "Several experts and historians describe him as", you were then pressed for your citations, as well as in your Talk page, but you did not provide any, a behavioural point that I'm sure several editors here are familiar by now.

When a comment was highlighting the possibility of Symphonia Regalia, やまとぉ and Asakasarin violating WP:SOCK, the やまとぉ account in turn, twisted the accusation around and accused the other Japanese editors of the same. This includes @天罰れい子's comment, directed at Symphony Regalia about not using socks and IPs and instead use their main account, which was then copy-pasted and twisted by the やまとぉ account, accusing @天罰れい子 of being ぼーしー, this copypasted response is repeated in the Talk page as many as 13 times and to several other editors who were against the edits. The reason I bring up the やまとぉ account is that like SR, it doesn't provide citations to its arguments, just the same vague "According to", "Historians claim" talking points and that SR also twists accusations back at their accusers, see here and here.

On to the 2 block logs on the Japanese side I would like to discuss, in 2023, when the user Masatami left a message in your Talk page about not adding JPOV/NPOV tags to articles without prior discussion, you chose to blank it out to avoid showing misdoing (another point to take note of), you were then given a temperament warning for that by Mt.Asahidake, which you promptly blanked again, citing vandalism, more or less the same as your English Talk page but it's "harassment" instead. Prior to the page blank, you copy pasted the same warning directed at you, twisted and sent it to Masatami, and shortly after, doing the same to Mt.Asahidake, which landed you that block.

In 2018, you renamed the ja:南京事件 page to 南京虐殺事件 and like your most recent edits in the Japanese side, it was also done without discussion. When the user Pinkpastel dropped 2 warnings on your Talk page, you blanked it and then copied the message and pasted it on Pinkpastel's page to use it against them, and as before, netting you that block. Given that you made comments like this, it would seems like you still have some lingering vendetta over being blocked.

Given the context and past behaviour, I find it very difficult that you would operate in good faith. I would also like to bring attention to this previous incident, I believe User talk:12.75.41.40 is a sock of SR, given the following circumstances.

1. the blanking of pages to hide misdoings after being warned by @DarmaniLink
2. making claims without providing source" .
3. SR's copypasted @DarmaniLink's comment which was also blanked, they repurposed the comment and used it against @DarmaniLink, before adding another another link in the comment. That link was a comment in response to the IP above, which is questionable as to why SR chose that specific comment to be included later on.

14.192.213.32 (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the context above as well as the behavior shown throughout this talk page as well as the RSN page and the Yasuke talk page, the only appropriate option is to suggest a topic ban for @Symphony Regalia from anything on Yasuke, as it is clear there is demonstration of bad faith arguments and methods of vandalism in order to derail productive discussion over the issues at hand. Thank you for documenting Regalia's consistent disruptive behavior. Hexenakte (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. Admittedly I'm an involved editor, but I did not notice anything inappropriate from Symphony Regalia. On the contrary, they've made good contributions both to the talk page and to article namespace, where they've helped to uphold policy and build good content. I haven't delved into the bunch of harsh accusations levelled against them (including sockpuppetry, if I'm not mistaken) but those based on their behaviour on the Japanese Wikipedia are ludicrous, completely out of scope here, and should have not been posted. It's hard not to develop a battlefield mentality on such a heated topic, perhaps somewhere SR could have done better, but overall they behaved professionally. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

He has done nothing to contribute to actual discussion to this issue, has not posted a single citation when asked, and completely ignores all opposition and dismisses it as ambiguous authority on the subject matter for "being Japanese and fluent in the Japanese language". He also consistently accuses others of doing the exact same thing he has done, and this history of his past behavior only reinforces that idea. Many editors such as myself have given him multiple chances to prove his arguments and provide citations for his claims, and he hasn't done that once and has attempted to gaslight that he did. I have spoken with many editors here who oppose my arguments and have actually contributed to discussion, whereas he has not, so it has nothing to do with battlefield mentality.

Please link the posts where he has actively contributed to discussion and not have been disruptive, because I am very confused why there is defense being provided to Regalia when he hasn't shown any interest in the issues at hand and continues to be disruptive and hostile. Hexenakte (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 — Just here on EN WP, by my count, @Symphony Regalia (SR) has made 21 statements about sources being reliable, or correct, or demonstrating academic consensus, but gave no specific sources, and ignored repeated requests by multiple editors that SR provide any such sources, as detailed earlier above by @Thibaut.

This is not appropriate behavior for any editor.

Details:

SR's contributions to Talk:Yasuke, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on the subject of Yasuke, that do not include any references.

• Talk:Yasuke: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]
• WP:ANI: [19], [20], [21], [22]
• WP:RSN: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]

SR's contributions to these pages, that do include references.

• WP:ANI: [31] -- First time that Symphony Regalia has provided any specific reference, in mentioning that they have "repeatedly referenced 新辞林's definition of 侍 (帯刀し，武芸をもって主君に仕えた者。武士。 ) to support the conclusions that matter experts and reliable sources have drawn in regards to Yasuke being a samurai." The 新辞林 here is Shinjirin (Google results), a Japanese dictionary published by Sanseido. Last edition came out in 1999, and this title is no longer available on Sanseido's website (see the lack of hits for that title here). Considering the brevity of this dictionary's entry for 侍 (samurai) and the paucity of information provided, as compared to the pages of detail given in the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry here at Kotobank, it is clear that the Shinjirin entry is abridged and minimal at best, and it should not be used as the basis of any nuanced discussion about what "samurai" means historically.

This post also makes additional unsupported claims that "Lockley is reliable".

So far as I have seen, they have still not posted any reference explicitly backing up their contention that Lockley's works are reliable. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith in you, but I must remind you to understand no other editor has an obligation to re-prove things to you that have already been discussed to death[32]. Indeed, I have made 9 talk edits, and you have made over 100 as mentioned by another editor, refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK and continuously sealioning anyone and everyone for more "evidence". With all due respect, you do not seem to be aware of how disruptive your WP:BLUDGEON behavior is, and this exactly why the initial report here was filed about you, which is about your conduct[33]. The first few of mine were responding to someone who was raving about "black supremacy" and "DEI"[34], and the others here state my references directly ("Lopez, Smithsonian, Time, BBC, and Britannica are all considered reliable as well") and/or refer to the RfC outcome. When I say that Lockley is reliable, I am referring to the fact that his work is peer-reviewed by Purdy and trusted by major publications such as BBC, Time, the Smithsonian, and Britannica. Previous discussions make this abundantly clear[35]. You have already been rebuked on this by dozens of editors and yet for two months now from what I can see, you still refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

The fact that Eirikr and Hexenakte still do not seem to understand that ANI is not for content debates, and that indeed there is no good reason for you to continuously rehash and WP:BLUGDEON everywhere you possibly can on a topic that has already been discussed to death, is precisely the problem. I am intentionally brief as I am respecting established consensus.

By my count you alone have left 150-200 comments on this topic, most of them bludgeoning other editors. As you mentioned by another editor :

Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book and Lopez-Vera's book are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.

Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@14.192.213.32 is a proxy IP. This is likely the same user (@天罰れい子, @Pobble1717) who is harassing me and making random things up because they dislike my opinion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a comprehensive evidence of @Symphony Regalia’s disruptive behavior and constantly making outlandish claims without proof or source. This is the exact same disruptive behavior I noticed across both EN and JP Wiki Talk pages and simply wished it to point it out. 天罰れい子 (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I will also add that the user in question posted on my talk page with these accusations against Symphony Regalia [Here] stating: "There is also a user called Symphony Regalia who has been trolling the Japanese talk page, being exposed as using multiple proxy accounts to try and promote the viewpoint of Yasuke = 侍 with no credible sources other than Lockley (which itself is seen as uncredible to the Japanese editors). The same user is also on the EN talk page promoting the same viewpoint, by the way." Relm (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Based on the user's other comments on this page[36] he appears to be someone who signed up to target perceived enemies.

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

Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100% yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Three points:

1. re Eirikr's the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference. Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book [37] and Lopez-Vera's book [38] are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.
2. re When that editor then edits the Yasuke article to add a detail ("as a samurai") with citations, and those citations do not say anything about that detail. Again, I don’t know if that's bad faith or lack of competence but this edit of mine replaces "retainer" with "samurai", which is directly supported by all cited sources, and modifies one sentence, As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend, which is supported by the quoted source, CNN, stating "Today, Yasuke’s legacy as the world’s first African samurai is well known in Japan (...) Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records".
3. Chrhns' closure was flawless, and I support any measures necessary to make that talk page workable and policy-compliant.

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

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

@Gitz6666 —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, the fifth color-coded paragraph down.

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

You're right. Now I understand what happened. My first edit did not add that "samurai" there. It was added later by another editor here [39]. After the RfC I undid this edit [40] and in doing so I restored that "samurai". I had no recollection of it because I had not included it in the first place. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

additional:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to WP:SELFCITE, it states the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note that I had already warned Hexenakte about WP:BLPTALK violation regarding Lockely on their talk page on 28 June 2024 [41]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(note that is also a response to [42] and [43]) Hexenakte I see that you're a new user. My suggestion for you would be to back away from this topic and get more experience with Wikipedia through topics you don’t really care much about. You don’t have as strong of an understanding of Wikipedia policy yet, which is to be expected when you’ve only been around for a few months, but I think that’s really contributing to your frustration here.

I understand why you want answers from Lockley and why you feel like Symphony’s behavior over on ja.wiki should be discussed here, but that just isn’t how Wikipedia works. Administrative actions are exclusively preventative, not punitive (WP:NOPUNISH), so someone who hasn't edited in 5+ years just isn't a concern. We don’t need, or really even want, an explanation from him about his motives. That just isn’t how Wikipedia works.

In terms of Symphony, I really don’t see anything substantial or actionable in the accusations, but regardless, accusations about socking belong in an WP:SPI, not here. Repeatedly accusing people here instead of opening an SPI is sometimes considered a WP:PA. Repeatedly accusing people of trying to gaslight is, to my knowledge, pretty much always considered a WP:PA and a failure to WP:AGF.

I’m going to take a step back now in the hopes that one of the admins JBL pinged can start clearing things up here. In the meantime, I strongly suggest that you find some new subjects to edit in, and consider retracting some of your recent statements. CambrianCrab (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if you looked at the diff links or post links or just any of Regalia's comments in general, but he has been nothing but accusatory and I and many other editors have been extremely patient with him over the past month or so, but he simply has not done anything to actually provide any discussion on the matter. Every single time, he has accused and attacked several editors of the exact same thing he is doing.

Also there have been several subtopics opened up about other editors and their behavior in this talk page and action being taken (such as @Shinjitsunotsuikyu), there is no reason to suggest that the same could not be applied to Symphony Regalia. I have not directly suggested anything about Sockpuppeting, but rather his accusatory, disruptive and hostile behavior. Please do not misinterpret this as a personal attack, because I have been extremely patient with him and continuously assumed good faith up until now, which I had to open up a subtopic about him below to suggest a topic ban on him.

I may be a new editor, but I have been able to adapt quickly to Wikipedia policy to the best of my ability. Also consider that I have been following this topic for well over 2 months now and have been one of the more involved editors in this issue, competency has been demonstrated on the topic. If you have any questions about my statements please ask before making accusations, the behavior of Regalia is well documented here and mirrors Shinjitsunotsuikyu's problematic behavior.

Also just to be clear, I have noted your respectful behavior and it is appreciated, you have done your due diligence, I just expect the same expectation to mine. Hexenakte (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

I would like to second this ping. Protecting Talk:Yasuke has helped a lot but clearly did not completely solve the issue, as it's spilled over into this thread and also into the discussion at WP:RSN about Thomas Lockley. Loki (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if it's time to drag this to AN for a formal discussion about issuing general sanctions on the topic of Yasuke writ large. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to note for the admins that as part of the discussion at the WP:RSN for Lockley, it was suggested that since the definition of Samurai being used by users in OR to apply to Yasuke conflicted with the Samurai page's definition that the matter should instead be prioritized there. Myself and others suggested this assuming good faith but, much like this incident noticeboard's remarks about canvasing, the same thing has occurred again irt the half dozen recent threads on Talk:Samurai where the Yasuke controversy has spilled over to.

[Here] on the same wiktionary as the last report it can clearly be seen that @Hexenakte and @Eirikr were attempting to quote farm a definition of Samurai to suit their purpose, and then when presented evidence by another user showing an entire list of sources the two thought could support their view were instead stating the definition they are trying to disprove - the focus was merely shifted to whether they could still cite an offhanded quote by a scholar which could be read as supporting their preferred definition over an entire laundry list of published works of that same author reinforcing the definition on Samurai. Relm (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

[Here] on the same wiktionary as the last report it can clearly be seen that @Hexenakte and @Eirikr were attempting to quote farm a definition of Samurai to suit their purpose, and then when presented evidence by another user showing an entire list of sources the two thought could support their view were instead stating the definition they are trying to disprove - the focus was merely shifted to whether they could still cite an offhanded quote by a scholar which could be read as supporting their preferred definition over an entire laundry list of published works of that same author reinforcing the definition on Samurai.

I would not pin intent where it is not due, we were not "quote [farming]" a definition of Samurai to "suit [our] purpose". There was a clear disconnect from the scholar's use of the term from his personal website and the book he wrote for Osprey, which was pointed out as not necessarily academic by the user you mentioned. He was extremely helpful in discerning this, as we were trying to find reliable sources to help solve this issue. To suggest we are doing this for a "preferred definition over an entire laundry list of published works" is dishonest, and you should retract this accusation. There was no bibliography listed in either his personal website nor the Osprey books mentioned, so it cannot be reliably verified, this is the same problem we had with Lockley and the aforementioned "laundry list of published works".

As noted in the user talk page, the definition of Samurai used by Bryant changed as time went on, only taking on the form of nobility on his personal website as noted by his Modes of Address article. To use these sources when the information written in them is not peer reviewed nor has the proper citations to attribute where he got the information from would be dishonest, we simply cannot use them. @Eirikr and I have done more than enough due diligence to show good faith arguments and transparency, we were not attempting to hide anything, in fact this was pointed out in the past prior; it's a collaboration effort to properly verify a definition for Samurai as supported by secondary academic sources where their citations are verifiable. You are welcome to join in that conversation anytime, to suggest we were doing anything with ill intent is dishonest, and it would have been preferable if you were up front with us or asked us instead of making these accusatory remarks.

I am very disappointed since we were discussing in good faith prior in this talk page, I don't understand why you did this 180 out of nowhere. Hexenakte (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am pointing it out as behavior that is not suitable for an encyclopedia. What I am pointing out is that the information, which was more than just the Osprey book, when it did not agree with the definition that was forwarded on the Samurai talk page (as per the title of that section on the wiktionary) was discarded. What raised my eyebrow was that there was no reflection acknowledging that these sources are opposed and what that means, but rather to keep going so that a source which did agree with y'all's PoV on the matter could be reached. This is not a bad faith accusation, it is pointing out that as per the title of the thread, it was to 'un-muddy' the definition on the Samurai page by finding a source that agrees with the point of view being forwarded there:

1. without regard for the consensus.

2. with no reflection on new sources reaffirming the consensus definition given that a desired definition is already in mind.

I have not 180'd on anything. I am concerned that if you both are able to toss out sources that disagree with your viewpoint as happened on the wiktionary page without reflection, then it means that if you found a source which disagrees with the consensus that it would be dishonest to not mention the many sources which agreed with the consensus in the process of finding the source which didn't. I want to reaffirm to you that this is not an observation made out of malice but one derived from concern that investment in a particular PoV is getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. Relm (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you have the wrong idea. Bryant was not discarded because it didn't fit our definition, it was the lack of citations as well as the fact he was inconsistent with how he defined Samurai. You are still implicating that we intended to only use sources that agree with us, when that is not the case. If you read the topic, you would see that Bryant had no bibliography in the mentioned books nor his website.

If you also read in that same user talk page, you will see both Eirikr and I agree that it does not matter to us personally that Yasuke was a samurai or not, what matters is that its verifiable, and as it stands, it isn't. The reason Bryant confused me is because I was familiar with his personal website, and that website was the most consistent I found out of all his resources, which actually came after his books. But even then, its unusable because there is no bibliography, even though it agrees with our so-called "desired viewpoint". If it weren't for the fact that Bryant is now deceased, we would have asked him personally for academic sources on the matter (since he allowed inquiries when he was still around).

Like I said, if you were just upfront with us both instead of pre-emptively announcing this it would not be an issue, even if you did not intend malice, it is still very disrespectful to us both. I have no desire to hide anything and nor does Eirikr. Hexenakte (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I dispute the characterization, at least of my own efforts. I cannot speak to the motives of other participants, but for my part, I am keen to nail down for my own understanding what solid references can tell us about what "samurai" specifically meant at that time period. I am a word nerd. A look at my Wiktionary edit history should make that plain: wikt:Special:Contributions/Eirikr. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am going to reply to both of you here now that it's a new day and I feel I can explain myself better.

As per [1] [2] on the Samurai talk page and posts you've generally made across the RSN and Yasuke talk pages you already have your personal definition of Samurai (which goes uncited to RS in these links. In the former link you make clear that you believe that a Samurai "... in historical terms was not simply someone in Japan who was allowed to walk around with a sword, it included specific rights and duties and hereditary status." and in the latter "according to a looser (more recent) definition of samurai as 'a pre-modern Japanese warrior', then Yasuke was a samurai. According to the definition in currency at the time Yasuke was in Japan, as "a member of a hereditary nobility, with specific status, rights, and responsibilities", then no, Yasuke was not a samurai. Any RS that talks about Yasuke as a samurai must be evaluated for how they are defining the term."

You have a definition of Samurai already which disagrees with the definition listed on the Samurai page for Sengoku Jidai. Many of the relevant sources on the page - including all of the ones by Anthony Bryant that were published - explicitly state that your definition does not apply for the Sengoku Jidai and were not formalized until the Edo period. This is why it is concerning to see a topic where 'sources to un-muddy' is a stand in for 'sources which agree with my definition'. When you are entering a topic with the goal of promoting a specific definition, you should already have those sources on hand to justify why that is your definition. If you are running a definition against a tide of current consensus sources, it is even more important to have sources in hand when the claim is made. Hunting for specific sources rather than tackling the breadth of sources goes against what an encyclopedia is for and will just lead to repeating the cavalcade of SPA accounts weighing in, wading through weeks of OR and citation picking, and bludgeoning wall posts. These are not all your doing, and I don't want to attribute malice or anything of the sort to either of you, but it must be explicitly stated that you both are provably working backwards from a definition in a way that is very not in line with building an encyclopedia. Relm (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason for creating the topic was to analyze the sources in which I did not have access to when I made it; there is a reason why I used the word "Possible sources" because I did not fully know if it was going to be reliable or not. It turns out it wasn't, as the anon user who came in had also stated that Bryants Osprey books had reliability issues on Wikipedia in the past, and I have to agree because his works were entirely uncited.

These sources never were suggested to be definitive, it was to investigate it because I was familiar with Bryants website, but not his academic work. I asked to look at these sources because I saw him, an academic scholar, make the claim that Samurai were appointed titles and court ranks on a blog - and even pointed out the opposition to that idea - and wanted to see if he had academic work to back that up. He didnt, and even worse his work was uncited, so he can't be used. I am not sure why you are still implicating intent when you can read the discussion quite clearly that we talked about Bryant's issues and my confusion at the difference between his website and academic work. I am not suggesting to use his books and I am not suggesting to use his website; both have no citations.

Like I said before, the nobility of the samurai is extremely well documented, so it is concerning to see academics in the English field of Japanese history trivialize the matter so much without any citations to back it up. These statements and claims are made unattributed, how can you expect to use them, when many of them cant even agree to use it in the same way? Some, like Lockley, are suggesting that Yasuke was just a warrior and that alone makes him "samurai", while others such as Edugyan suggest that Yasuke was actually part of the samurai class. And this inconsistency is repeated throughout the many secondary sources that were listed in these talk pages with all of them unattributed, they simply are not appropriate to use when dealing with a definition, if I may even suggest they are unaware of these facts. You are well aware that Toyotomi Hideyoshi was specifically claimed to be an ashigaru and not a samurai under his initial service with Nobunaga by scholars (I had made a post covering this here and this is reflected in his Wikipedia page), this already contradicts what Lockley is claiming. If there is truly no difference between ashigaru and samurai, there is no reason to make such a distinction, however its been long held that there is; to suggest that any warrior is considered a samurai during the Sengoku period is ignoring other figures such as Hideyoshi who were specifically noted to not be a samurai at first when he was under service.

Simply put, a comprehensive academic study on the samurai and its relationship with nobility with satisfiable attribution and citations for claims made is necessary for this, especially when the topic is extremely muddy, and we will continue looking for them, very likely on the JP side. There is nothing wrong with this stance, and I don't know why you are suggesting it is. Hexenakte (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying there was malicious intent, I am saying that - similar to the matter of Yasuke - you both have a point of view already, and instead of citing sources for that view you both are working backwards from your own definition. You are saying the current Wikipedia article is incorrect without sources already in hand to contest it. If you don't have sources available to support your position, then whatever you are arguing is OR and irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia relative to the rest of the sources. Continuously posting new OR does not help, it just textwalls discussions on how Wikipedia should handle the sources that are being used or under review in an increasingly unreadable text log of OR that - whether it pans out correct or not - has no merit by Wikipedia standards until these have sources cited alongside them. Whats wrong with your approach is that you're failing to honestly engage the body of literature by dismissing the status quo as wrong without sources ready to demonstrate this. Relm (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If you don't have sources available to support your position, then whatever you are arguing is OR and irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia relative to the rest of the sources. Continuously posting new OR does not help, it just textwalls discussions on how Wikipedia should handle the sources that are being used or under review in an increasingly unreadable text log of OR that - whether it pans out correct or not - has no merit by Wikipedia standards until these have sources cited alongside them. Whats wrong with your approach is that you're failing to honestly engage the body of literature by dismissing the status quo as wrong without sources ready to demonstrate this.

Please show me where I have committed OR in that diff link I provided, or in regards to Lockley and his use of sources, because I cited a plethora of secondary sources on the matter. According to WP:NOTOR:

At times, sources provide conflicting facts and opinions. Comparing and contrasting these conflicts is not generally classed as original research (as the nature of the conflict can be referenced to sources meeting WP:VERIFY), but synthesis or unsupported conclusions based on those conflicts must not appear in an article. These source conflicts fall into two broad categories: factual and summation.

A factual conflict arises when reliable sources present facts that appear to contradict each other. As an example, one source may claim a town had a population of 5,000 in 1990, whereas another claims a population of 7,000 in the same year.

According to WP:NOTSYNTH:

A talk page is the right place to claim that something in an article is SYNTH. The policy does not forbid inferences on talk pages that would be SYNTH if made in an article.

I have not once made any suggestion to add any of the information I have written throughout these talk pages on the article, I have done all of this constrained within the talk pages, the entire point of me presenting these arguments and sources is to show the conflicts in Lockley's work and other academic sources as well as showing that the issue is not as simple as it is made to be, and that it cannot just be reduced to a loose definition, because this would make Wikipedia internally inconsistent (see Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Ashigaru). I have never suggested using these sources nor "my viewpoint" in the article. Please consider I have done the necessary due diligence to keep this constrained on the talk page where it belongs. The only additions I would make are academic sources that meet the satisfactory requirement of verifiable citations of their claims in regards to Yasuke and/or the definition of Samurai; this shouldn't be a controversial stance. Please explain to me how this is against Wikipedia policy or what Eirikr and I are doing wrong.

Keep in mind that the definition of Samurai and Yasuke's samurai-ness may be an interconnected issue, but not necessarily the same subject matter, especially when we are talking about looking for secondary sources that go into a more in-depth analysis of what a samurai is. That specific topic was not specifically about Yasuke, and was treated separately from it. As far as what we have demonstrated on Yasuke himself, we have demonstrated more than enough that all we are doing is doing basic verification of the academic sources provided, and as pointed above, this is not OR. The citations are extremely important here especially where there is a clear conflict in their terms. Hexenakte (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Very bluntly the issue is that you do not have a source, which is why it is OR and Synth. You are misunderstanding both selections for NOTOR and misquoting the NOTSYNTH one entirely.

The quote from NOTOR begins "At times, sources provide conflicting facts and opinions." abd continues "A factual conflict arises when reliable sources present facts that appear to contradict each other." Both of these statements are predicated on already having two sources in conflict, which is not the case here. Additionally you are misquoting the NOTSYNTH - it is saying that the talk page is the place to point out synthesis that is occuring on an article, not that synthesis is okay to do (unsourced) on a talk thread. Synthesis is trying to remedy a gap or minor discrepancy between reliable sources through a user's OR or conjecture, the second half of your selection is ignoring this section of the next paragraph which is directly attributable to the situation: "Of course, these are arguments about what the sources and policy say, or what will or won't improve an article, not arguments about the substantive issues themselves. As the talk page guidelines say, "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral." Here you are arguing your personal point of view without sources to back it up. Lockley is not cited on the Samurai page for anything aside from attribution of the claim of Yasuke being a Samurai. This when combined with a definition in an interview being "loose" and "modern" in words you've used to describe it in other comments would be justifiable synthesis if you were on the talk page discussing how to rectify this disagreement between Lockley and the Samurai page's definition if they were truly in need of rectifying, but you are instead promoting the idea that all of the sources involved are wrong, and that you just need to find sources that affirm the true position. This is not synethsis, this is OR. Relm (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

initial report is SPA

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk · contribs)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

A comment like this:

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

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

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

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

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

We need to stop any attempt for history falsification.”

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

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

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

ErikWar19 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

B)

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

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

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

C)

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

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

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

D)

At least i quoted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oh and this may be interesting too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was referring to @Pobble1717 and @天罰れい子. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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

And it goes on.

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

Two points:

• ErikWar19 says i am a young contributor to Wikipedia and i am not so perfectly adept to the rules in Wikipedia, and yet in 2017 they were indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry on de.wiki [44]. I doubt they are a new user, WP:BITE doesn't apply - also digging out Symphony Regalia's Tban from GENSEX (which is irrelevant here) while pretending not to know hot to post a link on a talk page is not the behaviour of a newcomer.
• As already explained in my OP and also on the Yasuke talk page (here), the point at issue is not whether Yasuke was a slave/servant when he was in the service of the Portoguese Jesuits. Either out of bad faith or incompetence, ErikWar19 insists that being a slave of the Jesuits prevents Yasuke from becoming a samurai of Oda Nobunaga.

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

B states on a sidenote:

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

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

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

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

so i presume

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you expand on that? Serious request, as I don't understand your point of view. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Setting aside that this forum is not for content discussion, the translation as a African priest seem to be a mistranslation by the English translation ... the original calls him ... 黒坊主 and this would mean a black monk, monks can't become samurai, they had Sōhei, so i presume, that the original meaning is a young black man is entirely individual analysis by ErikWar. This is precisely the kind of thing that is prohibited from being put into Wikipedia articles by WP:OR.
I don't care very much about the underlying issue here (which, from what I can tell, involves a bunch of people on the internet being very angry about there being a black character in a videogame, or something similarly gross and inane), but what I can tell is that there are huge ongoing discussions in which people arguing one point of view have produced a variety of scholarly or para-scholarly sources that agree with each other on the point in contention, and people on the other side have produced a bunch of individual research and some links to things like twitter and reddit. En.wp policies are extremely clear about which side gets to win an argument under those conditions. --JBL (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The extent to which the sources presented are scholarly, para-scholarly or non-scholarly has been a point of contention during this dispute. Somewhere in the mess that is the RSN discussion, I am hopeful that a consensus on that question might emerge.

Through the various Talk page & noticeboard discussions, vague assertions about sources which do not specify the exact sources or which inaccurately describe sources have been made. This has not been helpful to uninvolved editors attempting to understand the dispute and provide input; and it would be better if it were to stop.

NOTE: To be clear, I do not in any way suggest that the preceding comment is an example of this issue.

Concur that Twitter, Reddit and the like are best left out, and that it would be better if the original research were also to stop; but note a difference in policy between research for the purpose of determining aspects such as source reliability and original research as the basis for article content. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A block is clearly warranted here.CycoMa1 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs)

The behavior of the user @Symphony Regalia in this talk page as well as Talk:Yasuke and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley has proven to be disruptive with no intention of providing good faith discussion about the issues with the Yasuke article or the reliability discussion on Lockley. Throughout all three talk pages, he has consistently accused others of being disruptive without providing diff links or any citations for his claims, as well as trying to dismiss all opposition by establishing himself as an ambiguous authority of him "being Japanese and fluent in the Japanese language" without ever providing any explanation as to why said translations are accurate or inaccurate, or any reputable dictionary such as Kotobank, or even speaking in Japanese himself - Except for this sole post, as he was threatened with a topic ban if he didn't explain his case.[45] When pressed with questions of where he got his information from, or what citations he has, he completely ignores it,[46] or more recently he starts gaslighting that he has always done it.[47] When I confronted him again over this - as well as him sending a very high volume of comments in a short amount of time - he ignores it.[48] This post here also demonstrates Regalia's past controversies, where he has a history of disruptive editing and dishonest methods on Wikipedia. Me and several other editors have given Regalia multiple chances to explain himself and give him the benefit of the doubt on the validity of his arguments, however in the light of the mentioned issues, it is best that Regalia receives a topic ban from this discussion page as well as the other 2 aforementioned pages, as it is clear he has zero interest in providing good faith discussion. Hexenakte (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't have much to add so I will summarize what I mentioned above. Also Hexenakte has already been rebuked for this report twice [49] [50].

1. Hexenakte does not seem to understand that ANI is not the appropriate place for him to force people into debating secondary sources or his original research with him, especially debates that have already been concluded with clear consensus. It is for discussing behavior not sources, and in particular his behavior as the initial report concerns the disruptive refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK and the WP:BLUDGEONING by him and Eirikr, as well as the off-site WP:TAGTEAMING present here. The initial report has nothing to do with how credible he thinks certain sources are and I am not interested in having that discussion with him. I was not involved in the original discussions and I am brief to respect the already established consensus.

2. Hexenakte engages in a pattern of behavior where he WP:BADGERS people if they do not wish to debate his original research well past expiration, and then dismisses the responses he gets or accuses them of "regurgitation" if the response does not satisfy him, forcing an endless debate. I was not involved in the earlier discussions but I imagine this is precisely the kind of repeat behavior from him and Eirikir that led to the initial report.

3. I do not have an exact count of Hexenakte's high comment volume on the talk page and in the other discussions, but by a rough estimation across all of the relevant discussions it perhaps a staggering 150 comments. Just Hexenakte and Eirikr alone have quite possibly left about 300 comments collectively in these discussions. As other editors have pointed out:

One editor[51]:

re Eirikr's the other editor refusing to engage in my attempts at conversing with them on Talk:Yasuke about the quality of the tertiary and quaternary sources they reference. Eirikr made 88 edits to Talk: Yasuke adding 115 kB of text and Hexenakte made 111 edits adding 188 kB. They argued that Britannica, Smithsonians Magazine, BBC, TIME, CNN, France Info, Lockley's book and Lopez-Vera's book are not WP:RS because of their content: these sources directly claim that Yasuke was a samurai, which is incompatible with Hexenakte's and Eirikr's original research. There is not one single reliable source denying that Yasuke was a samurai, apart from the 300 kB of ruminations Eirikr and Hexenakte have posted on that talk page. This runs contrary to core policies and is disruptive as WP:BLUDGEON. Eirikr is not entitled to have me or others "engaged in their attempts at conversing" - they should have dropped the stick weeks ago. I don't know if there's an issue of bad faith or competence but I'm sure it's disruptive and should stop.

Another editor[52]:

I see the usual suspects from the talk page are bringing their walls of text over here as well. I will keep things short and to the point (as best as one can with this subject matter). Per the RfC that was closed, there are numerous sources, including a number of academic ones I've previously presented over there, that discuss the subject's history and how he was given the title of samurai. There are no reliable sources that argue otherwise. Meanwhile, you've got editors like Hexenakte and Eirikr that have made massive threads all across the talk page trying to put in their own WP:OR interpretation of said sources, claiming that the sources aren't reliable because they translated the Japanese wrong or didn't show the primary sources they were using, ect. I've tried to explain to them time and again that editors aren't allowed to be sources and claim their interpretation is the factual one, especially if they don't even have a single reliable source backing their claims. My statements in that regard have fallen on deaf ears time and time again with both of said editors (and they are likely to reply to my comment here with yet another wall of text arguing the same points again).

The quote from WP:BLUDGEON is quite relevant here.

[Bludgeoning] is where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions. [...] This behavior and conduct is undesirable, considered a form of disruptive editing, and is usually seen and reported as such when observed by other editors who are involved in the same discussion.

This is precisely what Hexanakte and Eirkr have done despite constant warnings. We are now even seeing BLP violations from Hexanakte[53]. This is looking like a WP:BOOMERANG situation. Given that Hexentate appears to be a SPA as well, and together with the off-site tagteaming mentioned above, at this point I think even a WP:NOTHERE block would be appropriate. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussion off the rails

The discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley has been going in circles for a while, but comments like this one are crossing the line into BLP-violating attacks on Lockley. The discussion badly needs a firm hand from an admin, or perhaps it just needs to be closed. - MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The irony is that, it appears at the time Yasuke lived, the definition of samurai was very loose, yet the arguments seem to revolve around more definitive distinctions that are, for this discussion, anachronistic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur that the various discussions (by editors on both sides of this dispute) of the historical definitions of "侍" have been an unwelcome (disruptive?) distraction. Going back to historical definitions of a foreign language term to justify inclusion of content is exactly the sort of original research that WP:NOR seeks to prevent. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh you mean the statement, that at these times the term samurai was used more loosely. This is correct. Strangely this leave out some of the content of these statements. Often they were used with the example of Hideyoshi, a Japanese commoner, who became a retainer and than after years of service under multiple military campaigns got the samurai title under Nobunaga, that was heavily discussed by people at this time as a controversial step of Nobunaga. Multiple historians wrote actual books about Hideyoshi and Nobunaga and about this specific case as controversial and unique for these times.

Lockley on the other hand, defines every peasant, who got raised by a lord as an ashigaru (militia) already a low-ranked samurai. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Gitz6666-20240709150100-Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

Lockley is using a significant different samurai-term than used in most other publications. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I contributed quite a lot to the discussion on the RSN until a few days ago. I have stopped contributing due to seeing examples of harassment towards Lockley, online users on various websites who argue that Yasuke was a Samurai for any reasons, and some of the off site discussion regarding the wikipedia discussion that made me worried about receiving messages about this for the next year or two. The discussion in many cases has become a forum for constant updates with little regard for Wikipedia policy or building an encyclopedia rather than forwarding a specific point of view. Every week one or two SPA accounts have entered into the situation and each contributed increasingly circular text walls which make the topic unapproachable, unproductive, and toxic. I am in favor of admins stepping in to resolve the issues. Relm (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Should it be noted that the editor you're linking to, 天罰れい子, is yet another WP:SPA made earlier this month and who immediately started editing the Yasuke page and little else. Just a blatant WP:NOTHERE example. Silverseren^C 21:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree they are clearly WP:NOTHERE.CycoMa1 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I have not edited the Yasuke Wiki page, only contributed to the Talk page. When it became semi-protected, I started editing elsewhere on stuff I know to build authorization to post on the Talk page again. I do not have or use other accounts or proxies.

It has been alarming to me that Lockley continues to be credited as a “reliable source” on the English Wiki page despite recent news about him on Japanese news. This is a sentiment that is shared among the Japanese online community too, that there is potentially historical revisionism going on overseas due to the machinations of Lockley. 天罰れい子 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are attributing malice to him, which is something that may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If it is malice to point out the reasons why Lockley’s claims are unreliable along with numerous stances including a historian who has debunked Lockley’s claims, and why the EN Wiki Page of Yasuke continues to insist an authoritative stance of “Yasuke was a Samurai” rather than speculative, then I will no longer contribute to this discussion. I do not wish to keep going around in circles for something that has been kept in bad faith because of numerous agendas in lieu of primary historical facts. 天罰れい子 (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I might be wrong about the point that @HandThatFeeds is making (and if so, please correct me), but as I understand it, they are stating that it is incorrect to attribute motive of any sort to Lockley's actions, as you did earlier with your word choice in stating "due to the machinations of Lockley". The word "machinations" here implies willful intent to deceive on Lockley's part, and the objective truth is that we have no means of knowing that, unless Lockley comes right out and says that he's been trying to deceive.

We can objectively say that Lockley's actions (note: "actions", not "machinations") have attracted a lot of attention, and we can objectively say that there is a member of the Japanese House of Councillors who is publicly calling for some kind of government action in response. But we cannot say anything about Lockley's reasons, unless we have Lockley's own words giving those reasons.

Assigning intent where there is no objective evidence is similar to misattributing what sources say. We should not be doing either. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Eirikr for your clarification, and I do apologize for my intrusive language earlier. However, it is hard for me to believe that Lockley does not have willful intent to deceive given his deeds exposed, from creating the Yasuke wiki page and citing himself; to using different wording between the EN and JP versions of his Yasuke book, to lying about other people fact-checking his book when it did not happen; to lying about his lack of involvement with Ubisoft which propagates the Yasuke samurai claim as historical fact; to claiming consensus "commonly held by Japanese historians" in the Britannica article he wrote himself without source or citations for that; and when he in fact has been the recent subject of much backlash from the country itself. This can all be searched up and without knowing Japanese.

The actions of this person do not strike me as faithful or in good will in any way and I will stand by that. If it is wrong to point these things out, and so many EN-speakers here choose one this agenda-riddled perspective over primary historical facts, then I refuse to participate in this agenda-riddled discussion. 天罰れい子 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

^ --- This comment is exactly the kind of WP:BLP violation we need to stop. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

So, doubling down on the WP:ABF and WP:BLP violations. I think this person needs blocked as WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Just for a clarification, Thomas Lockley didn't create the Wikipedia article on Yasuke. The oldest edit is from an ip address in 2005 and the article consistently called Yasuke a samurai until it was randomly removed by an IP address with no comment or discussion. This was stuff I had looked at during the RfC close. Also considering as all you have done is participate in discussion and editing Yasuke on the Japanese wiki and admittedly only edited other content to get access to the Yasuke talk page again here, you pretty much stated you are a WP:SPA Chrhns (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a contentious topic or general sanctions designation that the Yasuke topic might fall under? If not, should the community consider imposing one? That might be one way to get some control over the disruption in this area. Pinguinn 🐧 12:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  BLP would suffice for some of the comments above; and for the comment I removed from Talk:Yasuke earlier today. It would be good to not have the heat of partisans attacking authors. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hence why I asked earlier if Yasuke, writ large, should be put under community-authorised general sanctions. The alternative is someone drags this to ArbCom and, given what's going on here, ArbCom would not just declare a contentious topic but also go scorched-earth as they did back in GG. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Wouldn't it fall under the Gamergate sanctions? Since this is one of several topics, including Sweet Baby Inc., that were targeted by Gamergaters for featuring women, minorities, and LGBT+ characters. Silverseren^C 17:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Minorities do not fall under GS sanctions; it's specifically Gender-related disputes or controversies and it's been that way since GG closed. This would need to be its own general sanctions/contentious topic regime. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. An ArbCom case would likely have a long list of parties, take a lot of time, and cause a lot of grief for all involved. It would definitely be good to try sanctions and they can probably be targeted pretty narrowly on Yasuke. Even if imposing sanctions can't prevent an ArbCom case at least it will show them that the community attempted to resolve the issue themselves. Pinguinn 🐧 22:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I also agree—probably an ECR restriction rather than the full GS set—made at WP:VPR per WP:GS#Community sanctions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Administrative input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Lockley (2nd nomination) is requested. I've just redacted, but not removed, a !vote per WP:BLP. Rotary Engine ^talk 03:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally attacked again

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

16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Calling me "continual and deliberate false accusations" [54]

04:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Suggesting that I'm trying to use the "big lie technique, in the hope that Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth" [55]

10:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "adding misinformation" [56]

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

10:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) "Given the influence and the large amount of $ the Sing! China incident involved, it won’t surprise me if it turns out that someone is paid to edit in their voice" [57]

21:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) "That sea lion and their bait are really disgusting" [58] "I hope you are paid, and well-paid. Otherwise it doesn’t worth the time and effort you’ve devoted." [59]

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

This is the third time since September last year. Whenever I said the truth, pointing out your mistakes / stating the fact that you attacked me, or you can’t win the discussion [60], you bring me to ANI. [61][62]. You did not succeed the last two times, and now you continue. When will all these end? Is there really no consequence for you to spread misinformation about me for so long (over nine months)? Is it the “norms” here that people who are more gentle and don’t like collecting diffs and filing at ANI deemed to WikiBullying/harassment? [63]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EducatedRedneck, I agree with most of what you said. However, it’s probably not as simple as “providing diff”. Actually diffs have been provided before many times already. If people (who are capable, which may also mean knowing the language) are willing to (take the risk and) spend the time to look into the issue, they can do so by viewing the article talk page, previous ANIs, etc., even if there’s no diff. Btw, sometimes sealioning behaviours are just so obvious that we probably won’t need more diffs.

“Just trust that someone else will step in and defend against misinformation” probably won’t work. As far as I know, some mistakes *can* stay in articles for months and even years, without anyone correcting them (e.g.,[64] ). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I was willing to work it out with them again at the first ANI before the personal attacks began [65]. They later crossed out comparing me to Joseph Goebbels but everything else remained as stated. To date they have not specified what they mean when accusing me of spreading misinformation or making untrue claims. Vacosea (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI, I’m not sure I understand what you mean. It seems to me that you / your diff. have mixed up with the timeline. Further, the issues that being asked for specification had been specified in various venues multiple times (1st ANI, 2nd ANI, multiple threads on article’s talk page, the RFC you started, etc.) already but people are still “pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity”. [66] And, the above comment does have untrue claims as well.

For the record, they have started an (IMO unnecessary) RFC on the article talk page on 9 July while this ANI discussion is going on, which is a second one after another “dead” RFC they started last October (not about the same issue, but again an unnecessary time sink IMO). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Please self-revert your changes to my comments [67]. Vacosea (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks in contentious topic

JDiala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [68] this is just a rationalization to avoid including anything which could give the appearance of criticism of Ukraine/NATO. It wouldn't be "too much" for the article, you could fit in his position and counters to it within one or two sentences. The POV pushing in this topic area is remarkable.

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

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

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

Editor warned: [71] . (they undoed the warning without archiving, afterwards)

The editor responded I don't consider that a PA [72] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As a note of order, I saw this ANI discussion and tried to offer an advice to JDiala on their talk page: [73],[74]. Basically, I said that edit warring is not the way to "enforce" WP:BRD. And I got this response from JDiala. My very best wishes (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

With all due respect, I believe my comments on JDiala talk page [75] and article talk pages were reasonable [76],[77]. I would not say anything about others at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Original research after warning for user Silence of Lambs

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's time to call time on this thread. The subject doesn't wish to participate, or is avoiding scrutiny, so it's now up to us to make a decision. Indef block or not for CIR, NOTHERE etc.? Canterbury Tail talk 19:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Indef block. (This is a repeat of my opinion stated earlier in the thread.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

They've edited again since and refused to communicate and participate. They're avoiding scrutiny. I've gone ahead and indeffed them. Their other recent edits need to be reviewed and possibly reverted as well. Canterbury Tail talk 17:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Ahmad_Shazlan

New account Ahmad_Shazlan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making disruptive edits not just on the English Wikipedia, but across several Wikimedia projects: Special:CentralAuth/Ahmad_Shazlan. The edits relate to South-East Asian food items (particularly klepon), which the user wants to label as specifically Indonesian. Example diff: [78]. There has been a history of similar disruptive editing by other accounts. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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

They are still being disruptive and unresponsive, despite a warning from the admin Ohnoitsjamie. They have just violated the WP:3RR: [79] [80] [81]. They have also expanded to be disruptive on the same topic across 8 language editions of Wikipedia (see global account info). Freelance Intellectual (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to Ohnoitsjamie and Isabelle Belato for intervening so far. Ahmad Shazlan is still being disruptive, and has repeatedly recreated the page Buah melaka (Kuih) despite consensus that this is a WP:CONTENTFORK. Could anyone advise on how to deal with cross-site disruption? I have read m:Global_blocks but I'm not sure of the right course of action. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

‎Repeated WP:GS/AA violations

BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı (talk · contribs) has violated WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction numerous times. They were blocked once already for it by Firefangledfeathers, but they continued doing it after being unblocked [82]: the article is about Armenian genocide perpetrators' party, and BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı specifically edited/moved the name of the main perpetrator, Tallat Pasha. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı also seems to be a proponent of the pseudoscientific and ultranationalistic Sun Language Theory. Using questionable sources to pov push the Bronze Age Mesopotamian Gutian people [83] and Turukkaeans [84] as Turks, which is next level ridiculousness. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

  I would support indefinitely blocking the user as WP:NOTHERE for pushing nonsense. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's very concerning that BaharatlıCheetos2.0 is ignoring this report. Moreover, there is evidence that suggest they might be the LTA Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 [85] [86]. Also see this embarrassing WP:TENDENTIOUS/WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/source misuse mess clearly created as a way of coping [87], pretty ironic when they are seemingly a proponent of the Sun Language Theory, and they will no doubt try to push more of this nonsense to this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The article Greek War Crimes also was written in what seems to a blatantly nationalistic fashion and pushing a pro Turkish point of view. This is something I have noticed in all of User:BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı’s edits and needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

IOppose sanction based on evidence presented: in this edit Baharatlı fixed the order of two items in the infobox. They didn't edit any text regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan or any Azeri/Turkish conflicts with Armenians. I don't think this should be counted as violating the topic area and if it did, the place for that discussion is ae not here. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Lighthumormonger and the Wikipedia Editors Guild

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

---

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

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

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

They have been rather evasive in the relevant Commons thead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks kindly,

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 1
• 2

jp×g🗯️ 19:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the Record, the character is now G-locked, I sorted it out; I think User:Just Step Sideways got a bit confused, asking for a Glock with only two blocks in the bag, but luckily I got it sorted. Thanks for the help, JSS  ;) One more time for the record :D ——Serial Number 54129 09:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I knew there was a hard-and-fast "three blocks will do it" rule. I figured Commons would block them eventually but it might take a while. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued policy violations by IP 116.86.53.37

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

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

@116.86.53.37 Your edits since this report have not gone unnoticed. Please respond here eventually – thanks. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yet another case of ENGVAR disregard here. This is starting to get exhausting. Maybe another block? XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editor spamming promotional material

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

---

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

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

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

The most recent edit [88] is simply stating that Lewis Hamilton has been made a brand ambassador for Dior, with citations. From the random edits I looked at, there doesn't seem to be any link. Orange sticker (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

So you didn't actually look at the edits they make? The badly-sourced positive fluff, the fake/incorrectly used/very weak refs? Here are some recent examples [89][90][91][92] Polygnotus (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I posted clear evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

Michele rose to global recognition for executing a turn-around at Gucci during the 2010s centering on a quirky androgynous aesthetic. Spring/Summer 2025 will be his debut collection for Valentino In April 2024, Purina and Cargill formed a partnership to advance regenerative farming practices. In May 2024, Purina invested $220 million to stimulate production in Mexico. In February, Prada joined the Sustainable Markets Initiative’s Fashion Task Force which seeks to ensure the industry's transition to a more sustainable future. In July 2024, Decathlon reported its investment Recyc'Elit, a start-up specialized in the chemical recycling of polyester textiles and complex PET plastics. In July 2024, Sephora introduced a summer-themed pop-up in partnership with body care brand Sol de Janeiro. In June, Lacoste announced the launch of its new fragrance, Lacoste Original. In May 2024, to celebrate its 140th anniversary, the Bvlgari brand introduced two ultra-high-end fragrances, Aeterna Serpenti Fiamma and Aeterna Serpenti Anima, which combine olfactory ingredients with jewelry materials. In May 2024, Fendi announced its return to the perfume market with a first collection of seven scents directly inspired by its origins. In April 2021, Hedi Slimane presented his Fall-Winter 2021 women's collection in a video shot at the Château de Vaux-le-Vicomte. In April 2024, Hedi Slimane launched Zouzou, the latest addition to his Haute Parfumerie collection for Celine. It is the twelfth exclusive Celine fragrance. By 2024, Celine’s Haute Parfumerie collection, created by Slimane in 2019, included 12 fragrances. While 9 of these perfumes are for the day (Parade, Saint-Germain-Des-Prés, Cologne Française, La Peau Nue, Zouzou, Rimbaud, Bois Dormant and Eau de Californie), the others are designed for the night (Reptile, Black Tie and Nightclubbing). Celine announces the launch of its beauty line in 2024 under the direction of Hedi Slimane. Celine's Beauty includes the "Rouge Triomphe" lipstick, and the 'Le Rouge Celine' collection is announced for January 2025. In June 2024, RATP partnered with Wabtec to equip all its RER A trains with a new brake lining that eliminates 70-90% of the health-damaging fine particles found on platforms. Similar tests are being carried out on some metro lines. In May 2024, Calvin Klein appointed Veronica Leoni creative director of its collections. In May 2024, A.P.C. expanded its range with its first unisex sunglasses collection, a tribute to New York rock band The Velvet Underground. Kia EV9 wins 'Best of the Best' in the Cars and Motorcycles category. The Renault Scenic E-Tech won the award for Car of the Year 2024. In 2024, The Swiss group has announced a partnership with e-retailer TMall to support growing local demand for fragrance products. In May 2024, Gap introduced its limited collection in partnership with the Californian clothing brand, Dôen, celebrating sisterhood. In April 2024, Swarovski unveiled a collection in collaboration with Marvel. Accordingly, Swarovski expanded its collection of decorative figurines with creations paying homage to the superheroes of the Marvel franchises. In May 2024, Kering partenered with the National University of Singapore to create, via the entity's Center for Governance and Sustainability, a tool for measuring the environmental impact of companies in the Asia-Pacific region. This collaboration seeks to establish a benchmark for measuring the impact of the green strategies of major Asia-Pacific companies. She has various published works in recognized journals in her field. (then follows the biggest refbomb ive ever seen: 12!) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafika_Ben_Chaouacha-Chekir&diff=1223800382&oldid=1223009231 In December 2023, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) awarded the prize for best vegan bag to Gucci for its Demetra Horsebit 1955. In April 2024, Ganni collaborates with Paloma Elsesser on a size-inclusive line. The Paloma Elsesser x GANNI capsule collection was announced to be available, starting from 17 April 2024, in EU sizes 32-52. In 2023, Kering won the Biodiversity and Water Award at the CNMI Sustainable Fashion Awards for its regenerative practices. In 2023, Valentino earned the Education of Excellence Award at the CNMI Sustainable Fashion Awards for fostering education in Italy. In 2023, Dolce&Gabbana won the Craft and Artisanship Award at the CNMI Sustainable Fashion Awards. 2024: Jacob & Co. launched of the Astronomia Régulateur watch, a timepiece of exceptional mechanical prowess. In April 2024, Maison Margiela extends its Replica fragrance collection with vegetable garden notes. For Autumn-Winter 2023, Sandro blended its ready-to-wear collection with the heritage and Western aesthetic of Wrangler, an American label with a passion for denim. In 2024, Promod opens a boutique-laboratory combining second-hand goods, unsold items, sewing kits as well as workshops to introduce people to sewing and upcycling. Indeed, its plans is to open over 100 new stores in the country over the next three years, In 2024, Sephora reported its plan to launch of its two new labels focused on sustainability, “Clean at Sephora” and “Planet Aware at Sephora”. In March 2022, Ben Ghoram (Byredo) and Isamaya Ffrench partner to launch their first make-up collection together. In April 2024, Charlotte Tilbury re-enters the fragrance world, eight years after the release of its last perfume. In April 2024, Maje, SMCP's subsidiary, formed a partnership with the after-sales start-up, Save Your Wardrobe, to develop its clothing repair service. In March 2024, the Bvlgari jewellery house officialized and announced the creation of the Fondazione Bvlgari, an institution that is an extension of the brand's founding values, particularly its commitment to safeguarding historical heritage. In January 2024, Prada announced its new partnership with the international non-profit organization Bibliothèques Sans Frontières involves the creation of a resource space dedicated to the seabed. 2024 World Performance Car Award. Also in April, Mango invests in shared mobility start-up Hoop Carpool. To mark its 40th anniversary in 2024, Mango recently announced its collaboration with the brand Victoria Beckham in April. It was reported that the Victoria Beckham x Mango collection would be available from April 23, 2024. In 2023, Bottega Veneta opens a school in Italy to train future craftsmen. The project includes training activities, workshops and courses, divided between the Kering workshop in Montebello Vicentino, and a new dedicated space in Povolaro Dueville. This initiative plans to train 50 students a year in a program run by 5 Bottega Veneta master craftsmen. The co-founder and chairman of the Mango chain, Isak Andic, was awarded the Kingdom of Spain Award for Business Excellence for his contribution to Spain's economic and social development. In October 2023, Burberry collaborated with Vestiaire Collective on a new circular style project. This partnership would allow customers to exchange their second-hand Burberry clothing and handbags for a Burberry gift card, which they could reinvest in the brand, with the aim of promoting resale and reducing clothing waste. In 2022, Chanel and Brunello Cucinelli join forces with cashmere supplier Cariaggi Lanificio. In 2024, Brunello Cucinelli strengthens its production line in Italy with the acquisition of the Sartoria Eugubina sewing workshop and the construction of a new factory to meet the increasing consumer demand. In December 2023, Fendi joined the restoration of heritage at Villa d'Este. In partnership with the Villas Adriana and d'Este, Fendi announced its new sponsorship project which consisted in the restoration of the grotto of Diana in the gardens of the Villa d'Este in Tivoli, near Rome. 2024: Clarins partners with Dassault Systèmes to boost the efficiency of its factories In 2024, introduced a new cosmetics science course with the online learning platform Coursera In 2013, he was awarded at the British Fashion Awards for 'Red Carpet Designer of the Year'. Later, in 2014, Moralıoğlu was named the British Fashion Council’s Women’s Wear Designer of the Year. 2013: British Fashion Awards - Accessory Designer of the Year. At the British Fashion Awards in 2013, Rocha won the 'Emerging Womenswear Designer' award. In 2006, the designer launched a capsule collection for British high-street clothing store Topshop Kane has also been credited for single-handedly turning the fortunes of cashmere producer Johnstons of Elginby partnering with the company to produce his line of cashmere garments. In April 2006, Kane was awarded the Young Designer of the Year at the Scottish Fashion Awards. On 27 November 2007, he was awarded New Designer of The Year at the British Fashion Awards. In 2012, he won the 'New Establishment' award at the [[The Fashion Awards|Fashion Awards] The same year, McCartney won the 'Designer of the Year' and the 'Designer Brand' awards at the Fashion Awards. In 2023, L'Oréal witnessed the highest sales growth in 20 years. 2023: British Menswear Designer of the Year at the Fashion Awards. 2024: Game Changer Honor at the Green Carpet Fashion Awards (GCFA). 2021: Clarins forms a partnership with Neoline for more sustainable shipping. In 2018, Mert & Marcus won the Isabella Blow Award for Fashion Creator. In 2024, the company announced its partnership with Messika. 2024: Chevalier des Arts et des Lettres Hedi Slimane designed the bottle and changed the typography of the Dior logo by using uppercase letters. In 2005, after the launch of the Collection Privée Christian Dior, Hedi Slimane, in collaboration with Olivier Polge, created a new fragrance Dior Homme which revolved around Masculinized Iris. Similar to the colognes, he designed the bottle, the concept and the advertising campaign. In 2006, he also created a line of six skincare products called Dior Homme Dermo System, developed in collaboration with the Harvard Medical Center. In 2019, while serving as the Artistic Director of Celine, he launched a collection named Celine Haute Parfumerie. This collection included 11 fragrances, 2 of which were announced for later dates: "Rimbaud" and "Bois Dormant". In 2021, Slimane launched a line of scented candles. The watch is characterized by an asymmetrical silhouette and the presence of elements in red, including a cherished date for the brand. The CNMI Sustainable Fashion Awards: The Visionary Award (2023) 2023: Humanitarian Award for Equity and Inclusivity at the the Camera Nazionale della Moda Italia Sustainable Fashion Awards. In the same period, it was announced that Bottega Veneta was planning to relaunch its perfumery production. In Februar 2024, L’Oréal announced its signing of a long-term global licensing agreement for the creation, development and distribution of luxury beauty products by the Italian brand Miu Miu. At the Fashion Awards 2023, Elsesser won the 'Model of the Year' Award. In 2024, Burton was given the 'Special Recognition Award' at the Fashion Awards Also in June, Leroy Merlin continued its plan to help with home energy renovation. Accordingly, the company offered a service, both in stores and online, to assist its customers with their tailor-made energy renovation projects. In 2022, pursuing its solar strategy, Leroy Merlin dentified 36 French stores with roofs suitable for photovoltaic panels, and sought to secure its supplies of electricity from solar farms. In June 2023, it was announced that Leroy Merlin opted for Eficia, the FrenchTech expert in energy management for commercial buildings, to support its initiative to reduce consumption across its entire real estate portfolio. The same period, it was announced that Leroy Merlin emphasizes energy renovation. In February 2024, the Leroy Merlin store in Châteauroux organized an information day about energy renovation. Indeed, devoted to ecological transition, Leroy Merlin made energy-efficient home renovation a pillar of its plan and policy. Later in February, B&Q announced its increase of its hourly rate of pay for its UK employees to £12.21 and up to £13.55 in London. New Balance committed to the Science Based Targets Initiative, the United Nations’ emissions reduction plan that seeks to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius. The brand also aims to reach 100% renewable electricity for its operations by 2025. According to this plan, pre-worn shoes are sold on New Balance’s online store in a new section of the website named 'Reconsidered'. Indeed, this program seeks to meet the brand's sustainability aims and to keep up with consumer shopping trends. Also in December 2023, Prana unveiled its engagement to the UN’s Global Compact (UNGC) initiative which reflected its commitment to work according guiding principles relating to human rights, the environment, labour and anti-corruption. In 2024, Clinique formed a partnership with New York’s Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai to establish a research dermatology centre. In 2023, Royal Canin expands its line of hypoallergenic food and launches Dental Care products, kibbles with a specific texture that help clean teeth In 2011, Royal Canin partnered with Groupe Gascogne, its provider, to replant trees. In December 2023, Royal Canin inaugurated the first edition of its international photography competition, Royal Canin Photography Award (RCPA). The competition is an attempt to celebrate the uniqueness of cats and dogs and their diversity through arts. In August 2023, Purina announced its donation of $25,000 to Greater Good Charities to assist the global nonprofit's crisis response efforts and help people and animals in Hawaii recover. In 2023, MR.DIY won the World Branding Award (WBA) for the sixth year in a row. At the 2024 Consumer Electronics Show (CES), L'Oréal introduced an AirLight Pro hairdryer for both professional stylists and at-home users which uses up to 31 percent less energy than a conventional dryer. In 2023, the brand increased its sales by 24% compared to 2022, to 1.14 billion euros. The last quarter of the year recorded the highest results, with sales up +15.6% to 321 million euros. In 2024, Roseberry received the Neiman Marcus Award for Creative Impact in the Field of Fashion As of January 2024, Zoetis was honored at the 2024 Catalyst Award Conference for its efforts to catalyze diversity, equality, and inclusion. In January 2024, Sephora was honored at the 2024 Catalyst Award Conference for its efforts to catalyze diversity, equality, and inclusion Miu Miu’s Spring 2024 show was chosen as the 'best of the year' at the Impression Awards 2024. In February 2023, Gucci is announced its willingness to launch a hub in Tuscany to promote more durable and less wasteful fashion. This hub consists of a research-and-development center to study how to catalyze circularity and reduce pollution. It aims to boost change in the Italian fashion industry’s production models. Later in October 2023, Gucci introduced its campaign which included its Horsebit 1955 bag made with Demetra, an animal-free material. Kia EV9 also won the title "Best Electric 7-Seater" at the at 2024 What Car? Awards. Women's World Car of the Year 2018 What Car? Car of the Year 2018 In January 2024, Valentino became one of the first luxury companies to obtain Gender Equality Certification for its efforts in the field of equal pay. The luxury house succeeded in reducing the pay gap to less than 10% and a further reduction is planned over the next three years. In November 2023, Swarovski collaborated with the shapewear brand Skims on a new collection of body jewelry. 2024: Chiuri receives the Neiman Marcus Award for Distinguished Service in the Field of Fashion. In January 2024, Chanel launched an initiative with the consortium of 15 cosmetics-manufacturers, called the Traceability Alliance for Sustainable Cosmetics to catalyze traceability in the cosmetics sector. In December 2023, Hugo Boss announced its investment in Collateral Good to catalyze and accelerate sustainability in the fashion industry. Irish Car of the Year 2006. European Car of the Year 2018 Levi's Autumn/Winter 2023 WellThread capsule aimed to show the brand's engagement to sustainability as it included items made from 100% transitional cotton as well as plant-based natural dyes In January 2024, Safilo renewed its partnership with Levi's until 2029. In January 2024, Highsnobiety announced its long-term partnership with Lacoste and their plan to launch an "ultra-limited" edition L003 2K24 sneaker and a clothing line. The Lexus LBX won the “Car of the Year” and the "Small SUV" titles at an awards ceremony, 'What Car? Car of the Year Awards 2024', in London. In 2019, Theory formed an alliance with Girl-Up, a leadership initiative launched by the United Nations Foundation which aims to support leadership development plans that help every girl reach her potential. Accordingly, they introduced a unisex t-shirt to donate a percentage of sales to the initiative. In 2023, Gucci reinforced its alliance with UNICEF with a new financial donation of 300,000 euros to the organization's Education Thematic Fund which seeks to ensure children's right to a 'high-quality' education globally. The Kia Niro was selected as the 'Best Urban Car' at the 2023 Women’s Car of the Year. In December 2023, Purina PetCare announced $120,000 in grants to fund four scientific research projects in the USA, Canada and Austria. The subsidized projects include human-animal bond research and look into the impact of dogs and cats on the lives of their owners and families. Puma managed to limit the carbon emissions that emanate from its supply chain through employing more eco-friendly and less carbon intensive materials. Puma managed to reduce its own carbon emissions worldwide by 88% between 2017 and 2021. In January 2024, the fashion Energy Report of Utility Bidder, a utility switching service, categorized Puma as the 'most sustainable brand' with a high sustainability rating, a high level of transparency, and a low amount of CO2 produced when someone visits their website. In 2023, the Sportage was chosen as Car of the Year in Morocco. In 2024, it won the North American Utility Vehicle of the Year at the 2024 North American Car, Truck and Utility Vehicle of the Year (NACTOY) Awards. In September 2019, Decathlon reached an agreement with Alltricks, a leading online retailer of high-end accessories for cyclists and runners. This acquisition allows Decathlon to strengthen its presence in the cycling market. In December 2023, Decathlon launches a new ultra-light electric road bike with the E-EDR AF APEX AXS 12S from Van Ryse. 2022: Clarins relaunches its personalized skincare brand, MyBlend. It was first introduced in 2007 and relaunched in 2022 with an environmentally-friendly reformulation. 2020: Clarins hands over Mugler & Azzaro to L'Oréal to refocus on beauty, its core business, with Clarins and My Blend. Indeed, dry dog food, dry cat food and wet cat food make up 80% of Purina's sales. Also in October 2023, Purina introduced its first and newest carbon-reduced cat food offerings, Purina ONE DualNature.This line pertains to Nestlé's aim to reaching a 50% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030. In 2023, at an event dedicated to feilne medicine in Brazil Royal Canin sponsors the Cat Friendly Programme, a project run by the American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP). 2024 Green Car Award at the Indian Car of the Year (ICOTY). In December 2023, Hyundai Exter was selected as the Indian Car of the Year (ICOTY) 2024. In November 2023, Purina initiated a campaign to encourage its customers to recycle their aluminium and steel cans after use. In August 2023, Royal Canin made a cooperation protocol with AKUT Search and Rescue Association to meet the needs of AKUT's search dogs, including nutrition. Also in 2023, Puma announced its new sustainable initiative, Voices of a Re:Generation, which aims to develop the brand's 'sustainable journey' through involving the 'recommendations' and 'perspectives' of the next generation. In June 2023, Prada announced its plan to increase its financial support for the Sea Beyond project. Accordingly, for the next two years, the Italian luxury brand will donate 1% of sales revenues from its Re-Nylon collections. This will allow the project to to broaden its scope beyond ocean education with two ocean-related fields of action; support for scientific research and community projects. In December 2023, L'Oréal announced its acquisition of the Danish research company Lactobio In March 2014, the Peugeot 308 was awarded European Car of the Year, in competition with the BMW i3 and Tesla Model S. In 2022, the new Peugeot 308 SW was selected as the 'Company Vehicle of the Year' at the Automobile Awards. In 2014, Peugeot 308 won the European Car of the Year Award. Régis Schultz joined the Group JD Sports as its new CEO in 2022. His plan includes opening up to 350 new stores a year as well as double-digit sales growth, double-digit market share in key regions and double-digit operating margin. It also won the 'German Luxury Car' of the Year 2024. In 2022, the Sportage won 'Family SUV' and 'Full Hybrid' categories in the Scottish Car of the Year Awards. In 2022, Honda Civic was chosen as the Scottish Car of the Year. Scottish Car of the Year 2023< In November 2023, Kia EV9 was selected as the 'Family Car of the Year' by Top Gear. In October 2023, Columbia Sportswear reported 3% of revenue growth as sales reached $985.7 million. In early-2017, Decathlon stores were opened in both Ghana and South Africa. In July 2023, Wallyscar presented its latest SUV production called 'Wolf'. In terms of design, this model moves beyond the traditional Wallyscar's style. Accordingly, the rear of the SUV features four tailpipies and an aerodynamic diffuser. Its plunging hood overlooks a low grille. Also, the SUV's interior is made from recycled polyester,polyamide and semi-aniline leather. In November 2023, Prious was named the 2024 MotorTrend Car of the Year. Irish Car of the Year In 2023, Hyundai Kona won the 'Car of the Year' prize at the Auto Express New Car Awards. In 2023, at the fourth annual UK Theme Park Awards., hessington World of Adventures won a number of gold, silver and bronze awards. In November 2023, Schneider Electric finalized its acquisition of EcoAct, a company devoted to climate consulting and net-zero solutions. Purina PetCare's performance during the first half of 2023, contributed the most to Nestlé as its sales in from January to June reached US$10,799 Thus, Purina PetCare became the largest contributor in both Europe and North America. Later in October, Purina experienced 2.6% of real internal growth and reached 13.1% of organic growth. 2023: Clarins introduces Precious, a luxurious anti-aging skincare line Also in October 2023, UMG formed a new partnership with BGM to develop collaborative initiatives to enlarge opportunities for BGM-signed artists all over the world. In October 2023, UMG and BandLab Technologies formed a partnership to protect the rights of artists as well as songwriters and guarantee the 'ethical use' of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Believe's inclination towards publishing is seen in its recent investments in Europe, India and Asia to globally expand and develop. For example, Believe partnered with the French pop label Structure and the Germany-based brand Madizin Music. Believe also formed a partnership with the Indian label Panorama Music. As the President of ACEA, Luca de Meo emphasized the 'deindustrialization' and 'relocation' of the automotive industry. In January 2023, in an open letter, he expressed the automotive industry's urgent need for an 'ambitious' and 'structured' automotive industrial policy by the EU to compete with other regions in the world. De Meo also highlights the importance of developing European electric vehicles. Accordingly, he called for the necessity of regional European support in terms of measures to maintain the competitive nature of the European automotive industry. Luca de Meo spent four years developing Volkswagen's brand, to make it reach a high operating profit in 2017. That year, SEAT increased its operating profit by 24.8% and delivered 468,400 cars. In 2018, that growth was sustained and further increased by 23.1%.In 2019, SEAT registered its 'historical' sales record, with over 574,000 sold cars. In 2023, de Meo's strategy was bringing about results as Renault's operating margin increased to 5.6% for the past year, compared to only 2.8% in 2021. Two and a half years after, Luca de Meo managed to make the Group witness a financial recovery. In 2023, the Tesla Model Y gained the 'Autovista Group Residual Value Award' in category of 'Compact and Large Battery-Electric Vehicle (BEV) SUV'. The Kodiaq won the title of 'Best Large Family Car' at the the 2024 Carbuyer Best Car Awards. BYD Dolphin won the title of 'Best Small Electric Car' at the Carbuyer Best Car Awards 2024. In 2023, Gucci obtained the Ellen MacArthur Foundation Award for Circular Economy at the Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana (CNMI). In 2022, Nissan Leaf was chosen as the 'Best Family Electric Car' at the Carbuyer’s Best Used Car Awards In 2023, the Citroën ë-C4 won the category of the 'Best Used Small Electric Car' at the Carbuyer Best Used Car Awards. In July 2023, Disneyland Paris introduced its new show 'Together' which includes Dory, Coco, Buzz Lightyear and all the characters from Pixar films. It is a cine-concert that features a live orchestra with actors on stage, music extracted from the movies and original compositions. In September 2023, Disneyland Paris renewed its involvement in World-Clean-Up Day, the world's largest environmental clean-up campaign. Accordingly, Disneyland Paris encouraged its team and Disney VoluntEARS to take part of the initiative.

Extended content

In 2024, Lewis Hamilton became Dior's menswear ambassador and guest designer. In May 2024, Ferrera became IOM Global Goodwill Ambassador. In 2024, Bang & Olufsen announced Charles Leclerc as its global brand ambassador. Later in June, Rosé becomes Puma's brand ambassador. In 2024, Alex Scott became the sportswear ambassador at M&S. In 2024, Léna Situations became the new Tommy Hilfiger ambassador. Also in February, Hoyeon Jung was named as the Global Brand Ambassador of Lancôme. Anya Taylor-Joy: Dior's global Fashion and Beauty Ambassador (2021). Pauline Déroulède: Dior Ambassador for the 2024 Paralympic Games (2024). In January 2020, Emilia Clarke became the brand ambassador of Clinique. In 2024, Boss signs a partnership with David Beckham. Charlize Theron: J'Adore Dior perfume (2004–present), Skin care Ambassador (2024) In May 2024, Cristiano Ronaldo becomes the global ambassador of WHOOP. In May 2024, Tom Hardy becomes the brand ambassador of Jo Malone London. Rosalía: Dior's Global Ambassador (2024-present) In 2024, Leighton Meester was appointed as the new global spokesperson for the skin care brand Biotherm. In April 2024, Mary Katrantzou became Bulgari's first creative director for leather goods and accessories. In 2019, Big Sean became Puma's brand ambassador In September 2023, Pepe Jeans celebrated its fifty years of existence in London, with a photo exhibition of its many campaigns and a dinner in honor of its new ambassador, Lila Moss The same year, Sekou became the brand's ambassador. Also in April, Hoyeon Jung was named as the Global Brand Ambassador of Lancôme. The same year, Wang Yibo became the Global Ambassador of Lacoste. In 2024, Puma appointed Milind Soman as its running ambassador.< In 2024, she becomes the new face of the Pucci woman. The same year, in December, Arthur Fils became the brand ambassador of Lacoste. In 2022, Tom Daley became the first male ambassador of the brand. Later in April, the tennis player, Iga Swiatek, became the Lancôme's brand ambassador in Poland. 2024: Chloé Perfume names Guan Xiaotong as its first Chinese brand ambassador. In February 2024, Lily Collins became Lancome's brand ambassador. In 2024, Michael Hill appoints Miranda Kerr as its brand ambassador. Elizabeth Debicki: the face of Christian Dior Joaillerie for the Fall 2023 season (2023). Also in 2019, Dua Lipa becomes the brand's global ambassador. Deva Cassel: Dior's Beauty Ambassador (2024-present) Also in 2024, Lancôme unveils new episodes of its digital campaign with the YouTuber Emma Chamberlain. Willow Smith: the brand ambassador of Dior Beauty (2024-present) Also in December 2023, Prada unveiled its engagement to the UN’s Global Compact (UNGC) initiative which reflected its commitment to work according guiding principles relating to human rights, the environment, labour and anti-corruption. At the CFDA Fashion Awards 2023, Goop won the 'Innovation Award'. 2023: Chloé wins the Human Capital & Social Impact Award at CNMI’s Sustainable Fashion Awards 2023. In 2023, Davis won the 'British Womenswear Designer Award' at the Fashion Awards Also in 2024, the Belgian-French actress, Virginie Efira, was appointed as the brand's first ambassador for France. Lang Lang: Dior's Global Ambassador (2023-present) In 2024, Pierre Niney was appointed as Lacoste's new brand ambassador. In February 2024, the Emirati artist and singer, Balqees Fathi became the Regional Ambassador for the brand in the Middle East. In January 2024, Watson became the face of Prada's Re-Nylon collection, the sustainable product line of the brand. In November 2023, Zendaya became the brand ambassador for Lancôme’s Idôle fragrance. In January 2024, Joy Sunday becomes Lancôme's global ambassador. Kauli Vaast: Dior Ambassador (2024-present) In January 2024, Kim Kardashian became the brand ambassador of Balenciaga. 2023: Chloé collaborates with Angelina Jolie's newly launched fashion brand, Atelier Jolie. In 2024, Jamie Dornan became the global brand ambassador of Loewe.< In January 2024, Madelyn Cline became Revlon's Global Brand Ambassador. Rachel Zegler: Dior Ambassador (2023-present). Dilraba Dilmurat: Dior Ambassador (2023-present). Alycia Debnam- Carey: Dior's first Australian Fashion Ambassador (2023-present). Jay Chou: Dior's global ambassador. In December 2023, Balenciaga introduced its new brand ambassador, Nicole Kidman.< In 2023, Joe Jonas became the brand's first-ever ambassador. He was appointed to lead in designing a new collection capsule to be launched in Fall 2024 In 2023, Idris became the new brand ambassador for Tommy Hilfiger's menswear.< In November 2023, Balanciaga appointed Michelle Yeoh as its brand ambassador. Later, in October 2023, Davika wa appointed as Gucci's latest and first Thai brand ambassador.< 2019: The Chinese actress and singer Dilireba becomes the new brand ambassador of Clarins.

Extended content

It also opened a new facility in Eden. Purina PetCare invested €472 million to open a pet food factory in Mantua, Italy Later in June, Balenciaga opened its first store in Cancún, Mexico. Later in June, Bottega opened a new store at the Rosewood Miramar Beach In December 2022, RATP Dev launches hydrogen training center in La Roche-sur-Yon. In January 2024, MAC opened in Rabat, Morocco. Mango is also opening a new store in Marseille after the summer of 2024. The same year, Mango strengthens its presence in the Netherlands with the opening of seven new stores. Later, in May, Mango opened its store at Angel Central in London. In May 2024, Balenciaga reinforces its presence in Japan with the opening of a new flagship store in Tokyo. In May 2024, Balenciaga reinforces its presence in Japan with the opening of a new flagship store in Tokyo. In April 2024, Tiffany & Co. opened their newest store at QueensPlaza in Brisbane The same period, Mango announced its expansion in the U.S. with the opening of new stores in Washington, D.C. and Massachusetts. 2024: Clarins acquires a new estate in the Gard region of France, with the aim of turning it into a resource site for sourcing exceptional raw materials. Later, in December, Pepe Jeans announced its aim to develop in the Indian market, where it is already present with around 200 stores. In October 2023, Kurt Geiger opened two stores in Mexico City, one in the business district of Santa Fe and another in the shopping mall Perisur. By March 2024, Mango had 2,700 stores operating in over 110 countries. The same year, Mango opened an online store on Roblox. In 2024, Sephora confirmed the opening of its fourth UK store at Newcastle's Eldon Square shopping centre. In April 2022, the perfume house opened an store at the Mall of Oman, followed by another at the Dubai Mall in September 2023. In February 2024, it expanded to America. On June 2023, Mr. Bricolage acquired 1,000 stores worldwide. In January 2024, Decathlon opened its third store in Dublin, Ireland In February 2024, Decathlon unveiled its planned four further openings in Swiss city centers: two in Geneva, one in Vevey and one in Winterthur. The same year, Mango opened an online store on Roblox. In 2024, Mango announced the opening of its new store in Reims. Also in 2024, B&Q reported the opening of its new store in Staines. In 2021, B&Q announced the launch of its new website in the Republic of Ireland. In December 2023, a new Decathlon store was opened in Tahiti. In 2023, Decathlon opened a training center in Lille. Later in November, Leroy Merlin opened a new store in the province of Alicante in Spain. In November 2023, Leroy Merlin opened a new store in the province of Alicante in Spain. In May 2023,B&Q opened new distribution centre in Bassetlaw In November 2023, Decathlon opened in Beau-Plan, Maurice. Also in 2023, Decathlon unveiled its plan to set up a new shop in the Cristal shopping center in Martigny, Switzerland. In may 2023, Decathlon opened its eighteenth store in Morocco The same year, the opening of a fourth Decathlon store in Strasbourg was reported. Later in September, it was announced that a new Decathlon store would open Trois-Rivières, Canada. Also in early-2024, it was reported that another store in Perpignan would be opening in March and it would be one of Europe's largest Decathlon stores. In February 2024, it was announced that a new Decathlon store would open in Agy Centre, Switzerland. In October 2023, MR. DIY expanded its operations in Vietnam through opening five stores in three key locations within a month. In January 2024, MR. DIY unveiled its plan to operate in Romania and Bulgaria. In December 2022, MR. DIY had 31 stores in Turkey In 2024, The One launched a new concept store in Dubai Hills Mall which allows shoppers to explore a home experience of The One’s home furniture collections. In August 2023, B&Q opened in Sutton, the UK. In January 2024, B&Q unveiled its plan to open its tenth local store on Staines high street. In January 2024, Harbor Freight Tools announced its plan to open a new store in Batavia. In December 2023, Floor & Decor opened its new store in the New York City Metropolitan Area. In 2023, SMCP which is already present in 47 countries, announced its entry to the Indian market, where it will open its first stores in 2024, through a partnership with the Reliance Brands Limited (RBL) group. In 2023, Mango extended its online sales services to 17 African countries, some of which represent new markets. Also in 2021, Mango opened four stores in the U.S., precisely, in New Jersey, New York and Miami. In 2023, the Sandro is distributed in over 50 outlets in the United States. In 2021, Sandro launched its second-hand offer in France and later in other European countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. In December 2023, Sandro expanded its presence in the American market with the opening of a new store at the Westfield Topanga Shopping Center in Los Angeles.< Also in June, the company owned a majority stake in the Spanish online sports equipment retailer Deporvillage. In June 2021, the sportswear company acquired a majority stake in the online fashion retailer Missy Empire. In November 2018, Decathlon opened its first store in Greece, Corinthe In October 2023, Purina announced the opening of two new production units at its factory in Hungary. In 2023, the company employs over 900 people as it has grown. In September 2023, WMG opened a new creative hub in Berlin. 2021: Clarins inaugurates its new store in the Marais area.< 2020: Clarins opens its R&D center in Shanghai, China.

Q.E.D. Polygnotus (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I was asked for evidence and I got mountains of it. In return I ask how I should describe this pattern of editing? I stopped at 2023-10-04T16:01:23Z so I didn't even get to the worst part. Seems like my confusion got interpreted as hostility, but I tried to express my bewilderment. The point was to discuss the edits by the account, not to accuse anyone, so I retract any and all perceived accusations (although I did not do anything wrong). I am permanently confused how well-meaning people can see a reality so different to mine. When has friendly fire ever worked as a strategy? The list of contribs is larger than I can post onwiki but if you want to I can split it up. The tool I developed to make it can probably be useful in other situations as well. https://i.imgur.com/vTjTi2S.png Polygnotus (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the general critique that Polygnotus came in hot and refused to cool down, which naturally generated resistance to their accusation — but I respect the colossal mountain of evidence they've posted above. This really does look like a duck, and I would like to see Hajer-12 provide a more coherent explanation of this entirely puff-based editing pattern. Toughpigs (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am stubborn and often confused/disappointed by others and the planet as whole, but I am no asshole and I have no reason to lie. I am too lazy to start a fight and invoke WP:ADMINACCT, I accept that people make mistakes, but it would be nice to hear from those who threatened and falsely accused me for pointing out something that I thought was superobvious. Maybe the tool I wrote would be useful to them because it gives a quick overview of what someone is actually doing here (and why!). Polygnotus (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I would’ve appreciated having a chance to actually read through the new evidence, maybe with a polite ping, before you resorted to a “haha, gotcha” trouting. My sincerest apologies for daring to doubting a case that was, at the time, heavy on accusations and light on evidence, and I’m sure this gotcha behavior will be greatly appreciated by other editors. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Not light on evidence for those willing to actually look at some diffs (the stuff above is maybe 30-40%). Apology accepted. Note that the template says: Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. Polygnotus (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be awesome if folks who feel they're involved in the "gotcha" cycle could put that aside long enough to decide what should be done about Hajer-12's actual editing behavior. Toughpigs (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use are pretty simple. You don't play by the rules, you don't get to play. And we got massRollback to fix the damage caused. Polygnotus (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, look Polygnotus: two things can be true at the same time, and here are the two things that are absolutely true here:

1) You absolutely and completely botched the report here, raising legitimate concerns about your conduct, and then compounded both of these issues by refusing to hear said concerns, instead doubling down with expressions of exasperation. When you report another user in this space, the onus is very much on you to meet a certain threshold of evidence to support your accusations. Particularly when you are trying to assert a WP:DUCK rationale. Whenever you are suggesting a sanction on grounds of WP:COI or WP:MEAT or anyhting else which cannot be easily and immediately substantiated through technical means and a mere review of the facial meaning of diffs (that is to say, whenever you are asking the community to reach a conclusion primarily on supposition from the available evidence) you have a particularly high burden to provide a lot of evidence--preferably well organized and annotated.

Your initial post and immediate follow-ups were woefully insufficient in those respects, and when numerous admins and experienced community members pointed this out and made it clear that they did not find what you were presenting as nearly sufficient enough to take action, your response was one of clear ire, with an accompanying argument that amounted entirely to "But it's soooo obvious." At that time, you made almost no efforts to augment your case, but just kept falling back on a kind of latent implication that everyone else was being clueless.

And mind you, I am saying this as the only person who initially looked past this attitude to look into matters a little deeper and somewhat support your concerns. But I very much didn't do that because of your approach, but rather in spite of it. Even now, you are half-condescending to everyone else here, as if the fact that you eventually did the thing you should have done from the outset entitles you to rebuff everyone now, and as if you have now achieved an open and shut case (and you haven't, FYI; there's still a lot of analsysis and consideration to be done now).

You are responding to nine other members of the community here, with about 50x your experience on the project between them, and acting as if every one should fall in line with your perception that the initial error was with everyone else's response, and not with how you front-ended this discussion. The fact that you actually cited WP:ADMINACCT as something you could realistically "invoke" in these circumstances shows that you are really out of your depth at the moment, and that the balance between trying to dictate how things should go and listening about how they work in this community's processes is way out of whack, especially if you want to continue to contribute in adminsitrative spaces in general.

But then also 2): All that said, your suspicions, poorly presented though they initially were, do not look unfounded to me. We have an editor here who is providing almost exclusively coverage of brand products, much of it extremely friendly to the profile and image of those brands, and almost all of it reeking of the kind of linguistic flourishes found more or less exclusively in press releases and other industry PR. Many of the sources employed look like the kind of extremely friendly and dubiously WP:INDEPENDENT commercial "news" aggregegator sites that such industires routinely use to astroturf self-serving media announcements of questionable notability. I spent a non-trivial amount of time yesterday attempting to get a clear understanding of who ultimately runs some of these sites, and determine what kind of editorial controls they have. I found them incredibly opaque and have yet to determine whether a single one does (or does not) definitely qualify as an RS, but you can call me skeptical for sure. Further, even if we qualified every single source used by this user as RS, much of the content they are being used to support is pure fluffery, adding little of substance to help the reader better understanding the subjects as encyclopedic topics.

Instead, almost all of this user's edits feel to me as if they could be reasonably described as greenwashing, bluewashing, purplewashing, and the like--or just plain meant to establish a positive image generally. My suspicions are even further stoked by the fact that this user seems to take such a keen interest in products in such disparate areas and has yet to add anything that I would consider to be even remotely critical of the brands and companies whose articles they are augmenting (that I have seen anyway). Many of the edits are purely factual and few are outright fawning, but they all either celebrate some "achievement" of the brand, announce an industry award, or push awareness of the product or some relationship the brand has established with a media figure. There's something very cut and paste about a lot of it.

All of which is to say...yeah, I'm leaning towards assuming this user is employed by a PR firm, and I think we might want to look at previous past serial offenders in this area and consider some checkuser requests. I suspect a relationship may be found. And even if we have to judge this one on purely behavioural evidence, I'd strongly consider a TBAN from all commercial brand products, broadly construed, if Hajer can't give one hell of a good explanation for such a suspect looking editing history.

I hope you can take the critical with the supportive in all that, and believe that both are meant in the spirit of asssitance. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am just one person, if I am dealing with people derailing the discussion and falsely accusing me, how can I compile diffs at the same time? To show a pattern you gotta have a mountain of diffs, not one or two.

Criticising me for not compiling the mountain of evidence first and then posting a report makes sense only if I could have predicted that even experienced users here cannot see the same problem I saw when looking at the list of contributions. If they can't see what I see then Wikipedia is kinda screwed, because there are many people trying to profit off of Wikipedia.

raising legitimate concerns about your conduct The idea that pointing out bad behaviour of other editors is somehow a PA/aspersion/whatever is wrong, and the PAGs do not support that idea. There is a big difference between: "User:Example is an asshole", that would fall under WP:PA (even if it is true) and "User:Example is a nazi", which could hypothetically fall under WP:ASPERSIONS even if it is true but there are no reliable sources/selfidentifications that support it and "User:Example is promoting brands on Wikipedia".

refusing to hear said concerns if you look back, isn't it clear that I wasn't the one "refusing to hear concerns"?

with an accompanying argument that amounted entirely to "But it's soooo obvious. Because, to me, it was. And if people start telling me they are very experienced dealing with these things and they cannot see what I see then something is going very wrong.

you are half-condescending to everyone else here imagine being treated like I was, while knowing the mountain of evidence available. Even a buddhist spiritual teacher would not be indifferent to that.

achieved an open and shut case (and you haven't, FYI; there's still a lot of analsysis and consideration to be done now) Disagree. I wrote a tool for that, it is pretty useful in cases such as this and allowed me to compile this mountain of evidence above. The stuff above is chronological (inside each collapse template); see how they suddenly switch from perfume, very expensive clothes and jewelry to cheap family cars?

acting as if every one should fall in line with your perception that the initial error was with everyone else's response Again, to me that is obvious.

not with how you front-ended this discussion I was working on compiling diffs when a bunch of people showed up who were acting, in my view, suboptimally. If they would've politely asked for diffs then they would've gotten the same mountain, it just takes a while to write software and copypaste all that stuff. I am a volunteer and this is my spare time.

if you want to continue to contribute in adminsitrative spaces in general. Ha! I was kinda hoping to offload the work I just did by pointing out the problem. I didn't envision having to get RSI and wrangling the API just to point out what I thought was superobvious.

I worked in marketing for over a decade. I know how PR/marketing works. I know how brand ambassador networks work. I know how reputation management companies work.

both are meant in the spirit of asssitance I was very glad to see you show up and doing your own analysis of the edits instead of simply joining the crowd with pitchforks.

If we require that everyone on ANI does the work I've done before submitting a report, it would get pretty quiet here. Polygnotus (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am just one person, if I am dealing with people derailing the discussion and falsely accusing me, how can I compile diffs at the same time?

By stepping back from vehemently deriding everyone else for not seeing what you think is "obvious", and gathering the diffs before coming back. It's not rocket science. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: If you report a crime, its not a great experience when the police in turn falsely accuses you and even threatens you without bothering to do even a cursory investigation. Demanding that all people who happen to notice a crime compile detailed reports and investigate the crime scene themselves in minute detail ensures that no crime will ever be reported. As you can see above, I wasn't vehemently deriding them; they were falsely accusing me and even threatening me without bothering to look at the diffs. So I knew that nothing short of the overwhelming amount of evidence I've presented would've been enough. I am suprised you are not praising me for how calm and polite I was, considering the circumstances. I was able to defend my point of view, how many others would have been scared off despite being 100% correct? Polygnotus (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Demanding that all people who happen to notice a crime compile detailed reports and investigate the crime scene themselves in minute detail ensures that no crime will ever be reported.

This is not a police report. It's ANI. You are expected to provide the evidence, period.

Yes, you were vehemently deriding people. The lack of self-reflection here is baffling, right up to the point where you are suprised you are not praising me for how calm and polite I was. I'm not going to bother beating my head against your particular wall, but you seriously need to read the room instead of just patting yourself on the back. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Snow Rise, that is yet another wall of text. You've got over 20K edits, you really need to work on the skill of writing short. I and others have asked you before to please write shorter, and every time you've argued that you need all those words to communicate your point. You are the #1 contributor of text to ANI, with a whopping 21% of text contributed. You are literally singlehandedly making ANI discussions more daunting for admins to manage. Please either stop contributing at ANI or learn to write short. Valereee (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

So, I'm going to disagree that this doesn't look like COI editing.

@Hajer-12, this diff does seem to be adding information in front of a ref that doesn't include that information, and the content is exactly the kind of thing companies do like to make sure is included: we do good things for the world. This diff seems to be generated from a press release, and ditto on the kind of info companies want included. I can't get to this one as it's behind a paywall, but from what I can see of it and from the way you've reported it, again ditto. And obviously your work is almost completely on wealthy brands. I can understand why that might look like UPE to another editor. If I were you, I would stop adding we're-helping-save-the-world fluff to the articles about wealthy brands.

@Polygnotus, what I'd recommend in future is that you bring this up at the person's talk and wait until they edit again but don't respond before bringing it to a noticeboard. And instead of coming in hot with no diffs but just an accusation and a request for a block, bring in several compelling diffs. Like four or five, with an offer to bring more. And a statement rather than a demand: Hey, I'm concerned about this pattern of editing (diff, diff, diff) because to me it looks like COI. And maybe take it to COIN first, that's where the experts are in COI editing. Valereee (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, perhaps COIN would've been better. I would stop adding we're-helping-save-the-world fluff to the articles about wealthy brands. That is exactly the same advice I gave. If you want me to I can post the full report on a userpage. I have to split it up tho because its 7mb. Polygnotus (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

7mb is more than most people want to read, and it's more than most people need. What people need to see is a TL;DR version, a few compelling examples, the strongest ones you've found, with the rest of your work as a sort of 'further reading for those who are not yet completely convinced but are willing to do some more reading'. Particularly in the case of suspected undisclosed COI, for me at least the goal is just to get the articles onto people's radar so that we know which articles to keep an eye on. But you could certainly post it that way onto a Polygnotus/ page, without making accusations, just noting concerns about an apparent pattern at particular articles. If it truly is UPE rather than simply someone whose completely well-intentioned passion is to add bits and bobs of positive fluff to wealthy brands, the task usually just gets rolled over to another account. That's why for me it's the articles in question -- the brands who have demonstrated an interest in polishing the articles about them -- rather than the user account that's important. Valereee (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It may be wise to also take a look at the URLs involved because these domains are often subpar for use on Wikipedia (or anywhere else). I really enjoyed the edit where they claimed Harbor Freight Tools announced plans to open a new store in the Batavian Republic (1795-1806) because I love time travel. I will split the list up and post it on subpages of my userpage. Polygnotus (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I was kinda hoping to pawn this off to someone else. I have done way more than can be reasonably asked of anyone to definitively prove my point; now that I have someone else should launch a full investigation and revert all the damage they've done. This is just one account I happened to notice because an IP was messing about on the Dior page. The fact that paid editors will create a new account when blocked is no reason to not block them. Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies is a long list. Polygnotus (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

A table of contributions

Apparently Wikipedia only loads the CSS to make the diffs look good when you are editing a page so you need to use a workaround: click Edit and then click the "Show preview" button so you can see it in all its glory. The pattern is super easy to spot: positive fluff (brand did something sustainable) - brand opened store/factory- celeb became brand ambassador - adding a fake/incorrectly used/very weak ref

Here are some of my favourites:

• Part 0 "Jacob & Co. launched of the Astronomia Régulateur watch, a timepiece of exceptional mechanical prowess." / "For Autumn-Winter 2023, Sandro blended its ready-to-wear collection with the heritage and Western aesthetic of Wrangler, an American label with a passion for denim."
• Part 1 - "2024: Clarins acquires a new estate in the Gard region of France, with the aim of turning it into a resource site for sourcing exceptional raw materials."
• Part 2 - "In January 2023, Luca de Meo completed the first phase of his "Renaulution" program in less than two years. In 2023, de Meo's strategy was bringing about results as Renault's operating margin increased to 5.6% for the past year, compared to only 2.8% in 2021. When he first joined Renault Group, the company was losing €8 billion. Two and a half years after, Luca de Meo managed to make the Group witness a financial recovery."
• Part 3 - "In September 2022, Gucci received the Climate Action Award due to its devotion to environmental sustainability." / "The same year, Jackson won the Sue Brownson Award for 'Outstanding Leadership in Automotive'."
• Part 4 - "Another innovation by L'Oréal was announced at CES 2023 which is L'Oreal Brow Magic. This innovation is considered to be the 'first at-home' electronic applicator to facilitate eyebrow-makeup. In fact, it offers its users with immediate special and 'bespoke' brows."

Polygnotus (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this should be taken to WP:COIN as this is not an "urgent, chronic or intractable behaviour problem", it has only just been brought to light. If it turns out to be UPE and Hajar-12 does not take appropriate action then this would be a case for ANI. There is no consensus here, there has been no new evidence presented it has simply been presented in a different (less user friendly) format, and I for one am still very sceptical. Even if it turns out to be UPE, not many of the edits would need to be reverted. Orange sticker (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Commenting on ANI on topics in which you are not involved is usually a bad idea unless you have spent a lot of time researching and have an unique insight that others might miss. There has been new evidence presented, in a more userfriendly format, and it would be impossible to form a real consensus in the time between me posting the evidence and now. It is clearly chronic, and urgent if we think preserving neutrality is urgent. Polygnotus (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

We are all still waiting for your "unique insight". Who is paying Hajar-12? Orange sticker (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Facepalm Category:All_articles_lacking_sources. Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with SnowRise. Most of the editing here is based on slightly reworked press releases appearing in likely non-RS sources. It isn’t credible that a non-COI editor would consistently edit in that way. The suggested TBAN for commercial brands sounds like a good idea. Axad12 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

In this instance motivation doesn’t matter. UPE or not, the editor is disruptive and a drain on Wikipedia resources. A tban is appropriate. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocking has an advantage: it creates a precedent and makes blocking the next account easier. If you don't follow the Terms of Service you are not allowed to use the website. Those who don't follow WP:COI and WP:PAID and WP:NPOV are WP:NOTHERE and will never turn into productive editors. Polygnotus (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm really not making an argument to save the editor's account here - I don't think it's any great loss to the project (sorry) but the motiviation is important as very high profile, wealthy and likely litigious companies are being accused of using dishonest marketing methods. While I know it's not the worst offence ever committed in the corporate world, I don't think they'll be pleased with the insinuation. Orange sticker (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

are being accused of using dishonest marketing methods incorrect. Polygnotus (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Orange sticker, you may not feel this is "urgent", but it's certainly "chronic". Polygnotus has above provided five examples which should nauseate any experienced editor. The "L'Oréal Brow Magic" edit is particularly overt product-shilling that has no place on a Wikipedia page. This is serious misconduct on Hajer-12's part. Toughpigs (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that's a bad edit. I'm just not convinced that L'Oreal decided the best way to sell their cosmetics is by paying someone to write about it on Wikipedia. Orange sticker (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

By searching a few of these brands and PR agency, you will notice a particular agency that does "digital transformations", and lists many of these brands as their active clients. From there, it's a click away from doxxing so I won't link it myself.

Even if we assume this editor isn't employed at that agency, it is clear that it isn't unreasonable to suspect these brands of trying. 107.116.165.19 (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Great find, excellent sleuthing! Would you be so kind to email [email protected]? WP:PAID says" please email [email protected] with why you believe an editor is engaged in paid editing and there is private information. Polygnotus (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If you do not want to email them, please email me and I will. And if you have emailed them, please let me know. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've not been able to find that, are they on this list? While I'm well aware of Wikipedia's importance in terms of SEO and AI training models (which isn't necessarily what is meant by 'digital transformation' btw), all the instances of COI and UPE I've read about have not been by famous name brands (quite the opposite) who simply do not need to employ these type of methods and run the risk of reputation damage by doing so - as I told Polygnotus on my talk page if there is evidence that these companies are manipulating Wikipedia it would be a newsworthy story. What PR companies do do is put out press releases that make information look important and it's possible to assume that an editor could in good faith think that these things are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia and indeed I think a lot of Hajar-12's edits would have found their way on here one way or another anyway. I do appreciate that their edit history makes them look like a type of single purpose account, but I also don't think it's weird to be interested in famous businesses and without wanting to be disrespectful, I think these companies could afford to pay someone who is more skilled at covering their tracks. Orange sticker (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"have not been by famous name brands" -- Big brands rarely do all of their marketing inhouse. Big brands outsource part of it to marketing companies. Subcontractors of brands you know do a lot of shady stuff to market products. The subcontractors hired by big brands often do not have the same ability to manipulate the media.

"run the risk of reputation damage by doing so" -- Why do you think there is a massive risk to their reputation? We all know brands do terrible things. They can easily blame subcontractors. Nike, Inc. (look at that controversies section!) for example has done a lot of bad stuff but despite or because of it it is still worth a lot of money.

"it's possible to assume that an editor could in good faith..." -- there is no plausible explanation that does not involve ducks.

Polygnotus (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Orange Sticker: regarding your comment above that "if there is evidence that these companies are manipulating Wikipedia it would be a newsworthy story"...

Given the virtual impossibility of proving that Wikipedia account X is the same as real life individual Y, I don't really see how a major news outlet could ever feel that evidence of UPE on Wikipedia reached the bar required to go public.

Also, the general public probably consider the addition of promotional material here to be routine, so I'm inclined to doubt it would be considered newsworthy.

Different question perhaps if a company was persistently trying to remove critical material, especially if it related to stories that had been widely covered in the media. Axad12 (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

There's precedent of UPE/COI being newsworthy as recently as 2019. Other examples: [93][94][95]. It's a very risky practice that will backfire if discovered. Orange sticker (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks.

However, in the two instances that you give that relate to companies...

One instance only seems to have reached the media because the PR agency boasted about what they had done (it is described as a 'stunt' and the PR agency seems to have taken most of the flak).

And in the other instance the article relates almost solely to the PR agency itself (only one of their clients is fleetingly mentioned).

So the extent to which any reputational damage resulted to their clients in either case seems rather unclear.

If the media considered this sort of thing to be routinely newsworthy they would only need to look through the COIN archives to find 1000s of rather more mundane cases. Axad12 (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

well that's the thing, if you look through COIN you will see how this is generally a boring subject because it's nearly always carried out on behalf of unheard-of small businesses, aspiring actors or academics who want to increase their general notability and bump their search results. While this could be a case of SEO, it just doesn't seem likely that Dior, L'Oreal, Balenciaga and Calvin Klein would pay the same person to do that. Some people just stan brands the same way others do sports and celebrities. Orange sticker (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This is chronic. They were warned for this same behavior nearly a year ago, and have continued unchecked. [96] 107.116.165.19 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Ban for Hajer-12

• Hi! Uninvolved editor dropping in here. This is as clear a case of WP:UPE as I have ever seen. Its clear that they deserve a ban as such. There's a question as to whether Polygnotus was right in coming in guns blazing (even with such obvious misconduct, it is generally better to try and stay WP:CIVIL, but that's a separate discussion not really for this section. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed 100% that a ban is needed here. This is serious UPE. Axad12 (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yup. Polygnotus (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• I have indefinitely blocked Hajer-12 for persistent promotion. I want to make it clear that I have not found clear evidence of UPE or sockpuppetry, even after a very in-depth investigation of their edits; this is a regular block for advertising. I would oppose a community ban at this time. —Ingenuity (t • c) 03:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenuity: Thank you. How can we get the edits mass-reverted? Polygnotus (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Someone will need to go through the edits individually, determine which are promotional, and revert them manually. —Ingenuity (t • c) 03:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus, the easiest thing may be to make a list of the articles and post them to COIN. That way interested people can give them a look, maybe strike out those they check. The list here would probably work to identify the articles most likely to have such content. We probably don't actually need to revert everything. IMO it's often better to just read the article and remove anything that seems promotional, whether the editor in question added it or not. It looks like this editor may have been focusing on philanthropic activities and collaborations, which usually means there are specific sections we can look at. I took a look at the #1 on the list, Purina, and just basically stripped out all the promotional content. We'll see if anyone objects to that wholesale edit, but there were too many edits, some many months ago, and too many intervening ones to try to just revert. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Thank you. Purina looks a lot better now. On the history page I see that Mean as custard had also removed a bunch of promotional material and then the floodgates opened again. I think it may be wise to watchlist the stuff they are most interested in promoting. Polygnotus (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

COI has not been proven and Hajer-12 has been blocked for promotion, which I think is harsh but fair. I think Polygnotus and others in this thread need to pause for a moment and think about what is WP:UPE and what is WP:PROMO, and what is WP:COI and what is WP:BIASED. In both comparisons, there is a lot more proof needed to claim the former of the two and so far absolutely none has been provided for this case. Polygnotus is too quick to assume UPE and COI: see this diff (yet another undisclosed coi editor trying to be sneaky sigh) where has quite rightly reverted some edits by a user who has removed embarrassing information from a politician's profile, but accuses them of COI. Bias? Sure. COI - there is absolutely no indication anywhere that the editor has any links or affiliations to the politician in question. Orange sticker (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Orange, what are you arguing for here? An unblock for Hajer? Some sanction against Polygnotus for bringing this editor to our attention? Nobody is going to doxx Hajer here so that you feel comfortable that they are indeed guilty of something. It's time to let this thread get auto-archived unless any further decisions need made by the community. 107.116.165.19 (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I just want to make sure the correct outcome is reached, and that people realise the gravity of their accusations as when this sort of thing has been exposed it has attracted media attention. [97][98][99][100] Orange sticker (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker, what in your opinion is the correct outcome? All those media stories are about UPE. And the brand new editor at Simon Jupp made eleven small noncontroversial edits around the BBC, then removed 11K of negative info about Jupp with the disingenuous edit summary "Updating the profile to reflect the election result." That's not a typical pattern for a new editor. It is an extremely typical pattern for an experienced UPE. FTR, I agree with you about the edit summary you've quoted above -- putting accusations into edit summaries is a terrible idea, and Poly should stop doing that. But strongly suspecting from that edit pattern that the editor has at minimum a COI and is quite likely paid? That is IMO completely reasonable. Valereee (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I think to prove my point I'd have to ask you why you think the editor on the Simon Jupp page had COI and was not just biased? You could make favourable edits to any number of topics you are supportive of - filling celebrity bios with every good deed they've ever done, making your favourite city seem more important than its rival neighbours or like in this case, removing embarrassing details from a politician's article. That would be wrong. But it's not COI unless you can show to some level of certainty that the editor is the subject of the article themselves or has a relationship to them. If not, it's likely just biased editing, which is a common problem. And when you claim COI (or UPE, which is just professional COI) you're not just accusing (rightfully or wrongly) the editor but the subject of the article, implying they or their associates are manipulating Wikipedia against its policies and for their own benefit.

The outcome that the admins have chosen for Hajer-12 is, like I've said, imo harsh but that's not a hill I'm going to die on. I'm more concerned about people rushing to claim UPE or COI when there's no evidence as it could bring the whole project into disrepute when dealing with such famous, high profile companies. Look through WP:COIN or search WP:AFD for cases of COI and UPE - you'll struggle to find a single topic you've ever heard of before so if this is "as clear a case of WP:UPE as I have ever seen" as Allan_Nonymous said, and others have agreed calling it WP:DUCK, I would urge them to spend a bit more time making themselves familiar with the topic first and remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Orange sticker (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The block here was for WP:PROMO and was based on the effect of the edits rather than the intent. What anyone thinks about whether it was UPE or not is irrelevant. Sorry, it's time to move on... Axad12 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker, we're probably getting into a tangent here, but I'd be happy to respond at your talk. Valereee (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Orange, it is time to move on. The editor on the Jupp article is not a UPE, and no one claimed they were (afaik), but they do have a COI. No one accused big brands of anything nefarious afaik, and your fears of negative media attention because promotional activity is not allowed on Wikipedia are unfounded. Writing "I would urge them to spend a bit more time making themselves familiar with the topic first" is silly. Polygnotus (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

What is Stepbysteps's external relationship to Simon Jupp? Your suspicions may well prove correct, but where is the evidence? This is Wikipedia after all, citations are needed! Orange sticker (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:There's_a_reason_you_don't_know applies to both articles. And no, you do not have the "right" to know everything I know (and mindreading without consent is frowned upon). Polygnotus (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Action can be taken based on the effect of edits, without the need to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. You are mistaken about the evidential bar that needs to be reached for effective action to be taken against disruptive editors. That is one of several reasons why this thread should have ended some time ago. Axad12 (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against the action that was taken, but to make any accusation you need some evidence and I've seen that requested and offered in AfDs and on COIN so I disagree that I'm mistaken. Orange sticker (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

so I disagree that I'm mistaken you don't have to admit (or even believe) that you were wrong, you just have to move on before someone decides that your refusal to get the point and drop the stick is disruptive enough to do something about it. We agree and disagree about loads of things and thats to be expected in a diverse community. Polygnotus (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

you don't have to admit (or even believe) that you were wrong, you just have to move on after you! ;) I'm sorry you don't appreciate my contributions but I have as much right to make them as anyone else. Orange sticker (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, you were on the right track with the Reach PLC thing. Do you need help with that? Valereee possibly also has an opinion about that. Polygnotus (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's got absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Orange sticker (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Please drop your stick. People have a COI when editing articles about themselves. You were on the right track with the Reach PLC thing imo. If I can help you with that, please let me know. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk)

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

Wikihounding by User:Mosi Nuru

I first encountered this editor while working on Project 2025. Their first comment directed at me on the talk page contained a personal attack: [101] "I also notice that the user in question seems to be obsessively editing the Liber OZ page--he's responsible for 49 of the last 50 edits on this page."

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

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

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

I would also appreciate input from Admins.

Here is my version of events:

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

2. Skyerise reverted my edit.

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

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

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

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

I would also respond specifically to Skyerise's points:

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

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

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

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

I have never reverted Skyerise's edits

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

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

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

Relevant talk pages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for commenting, Snow Rise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will weigh in: you changed concise headings based on sources to headings containing long quotations from the document; problem with that is that a document first published in 1941 is still protected by copyright so you introduced a copyright violation into the article. Not good. Also, content issues are not decided on this board; they are decided on the article talk page. If you don't want to participate on the article talk pages, that's your right; but then you have no say in the consensus. Skyerise (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

a document first published in 1941 is still protected by copyright This is not necessarily true. In the case of Liber OZ specifically, Aleister Crowley died in 1947, so in the UK (where copyright duration is Life+70) it is out of copyright. Judging by this website cited in our article, the original pamphlet was published in both the US and the UK and without a copyright notice, which would mean that it is also out of copyright in the USA due to {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I searched for a clear statement that it was in PD, but none of the sites I found seemed to make a definitive statement that it is; still headings can't have citations in them and quotations must be cited. Skyerise (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to make one more update.

This entire ANI began after Skyerise accused me of "follow[ing] me to three article which they have never edited before based on my contributions."

@Skyerise just let the following on my talk page:

Oh, please also note that the manual of style prescribes that there should only be one link per item listed: that is, that every item should be listed on its own line, and there should be no additional links in the gloss for the entry. I refer to your edits to Brotherly love, which I have cleaned up for you. You're welcome. Skyerise (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Brotherly love is an article I was editing that Skyerise had never before edited. It was unrelated to any topic which the two of us had previously edited. In other words, Skyerise is doing to me precisely what they accused me of doing. Mosi Nuru (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking through Skyerise's recent contributions, this is not the only article on which they have done this. Since this dispute, Skyerise has followed me to:

Brotherly love

Barbara Bouchet Mosi Nuru (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mosi Nuru: I'm a regular editor of the Agape article, and that means I have had Brotherly love also on my watch list. As for Barbara Bouchet, there is no prohibition on following another editor's contribs unless it is to harass. I made improvements of the sort that I've done on a regular basis on the articles of multiple actors and actresses, with no intent to alarm MN or mutilate their work. I suggest than now it is MN who is not assuming good faith. Skyerise (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Continuing to look at this, it seems they've been playing the "new editor" card - while citing various policy and guideline pages – since the very begining of editing here: "I am a new editor noting what I believe is rude and uncivil behavior by a more senior editor, in a reply to the specific comment that I believe was rude and uncivil." [102]. The RfC itself was full of suspected sock and meatpuppetry, and MN eventually weighed in on the WP:FRINGE side [103]. Since this issue regards race and intelligence, perhaps all is not what it seems with this editor? I don't edit in that area, but I am sure there must be some admins and regular editors who are familiar with the SPA and LTA players in that field around Feb 2023. Skyerise (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor here, I do have to say that some of your comments, @Skyerise, are a bit beyond the pale --

• "I get that you apparently don't like the topic, but you are only here to hound me due to a disagreement elsewhere" is not the kindest of assumptions
• Try me. You are in the wrong here. isn't collaborative
• Telling Mosi Nuru Oh, and you're misgendering me. could be understood if you made known your gender identity to him/her. I'm looking on your userpage and couldn't have deduced it beyond seeing your pronouns in the article/userpage pop-up script I have installed. Otherwise, pronouns aren't obvious, especially if this is a new user.

I don't mean to judge or sound dismissive in any way, but if I were a new user and I had someone come to my talk page and report me here on top of that, accompanied by some of the comments above, I would not be encouraged to edit on Wikipedia ever again. Let's all be nice to one another. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledge that I could have been nicer. But I think the above shows that they were not a new user in February 2023; even if they were, that was 18 months ago. Is that really a "new user"? Skyerise (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

AfD spree by barely active user

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

---

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

They made four AfDs:

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

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

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

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

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

Seems an unnecessary escalation of a new user's actions. Recommend closure and revisiting down the line if there's an unsolvable problem. Star Mississippi 01:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

If someone is making a bunch of trash AfDs thirty seconds apart, generally they will be procedurally closed, but I don't know if these rise to that level. Certainly, it is a good idea to spend a bit more time looking at articles before nominating them, but if they only did those four in a row, it's totally possible they had the tabs open for a while doing research and looking stuff up, and then submitted them all at the same time. I do this a lot when I'm commenting on things: I'll have the four edit windows open for half an hour while I do my research and type up my comments, then save them all at the same time, and the edits are thirty seconds apart. jp×g🗯️ 03:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I see user talk pages for a lot of new editors and it's unfortunate how often even experienced editors post templates and ANI notices rather than start discussions with editors, explaining what is wrong. I'm not singling out this particular instance, I just see a general reluctance on the part of many editors to have an actual discussion with problematic editors and a preference for posting notices. I post my share of general welcome notices and conflict-of-interest notices but I try to also leave a personal note when it is suitable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, also what Liz said. jp×g🗯️ 05:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Cyanmax edit summary WP:ATTACK personal attack against me

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

• Special:Diff/1235343355
  • Summary Edit RIP, old man.
  • Misquote Edit On 16 October 2016, Picoux, 53, who taught French at the National Taiwan University, died after falling from the tenth floor of his Taipei apartment block. - mentioning my age 53 instead of source 67
  • Actual quote from cited The Guardian source Picoux, 67, who taught French at the National Taiwan University, died after falling from the tenth floor of his Taipei apartment block.

--- Cat12zu3 (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a personal attack WP:ATTACK against me by Cyanmax's Special:Diff/1235343355 summary edit RIP, old man.

Despite me just a simple contributor to LGBT rights in Taiwan about early Mainland China ROC period and currently now remainder of ROC after chinese civil war Taiwan, even after Cyanmax enters this article, during my correction edits after Special:Contributions/Cyanmax claim my use of WP:NOENG chinese source (both are even cited and remains still in chinese wiki, which explained normally in my summary edit and which Cyanmax refused to discuss and make massive reverts.

Thereafter even during my corrections on my usual involvement in LGBT Taiwan and South Korea, I had explained normally it in my edit summary.

At all times, Cyanmax seemed combative. Even after personal attack against me Special:Diff/1235343355, he re-revert back with ordinary but misleading summary edit Special:Diff/1235346624, which seemed unnecessary and shows he didn't admit his edit mistakes.

It's only I pointed out that his today edit was incorrect at incorrect section and also pointed his behaviors at Talk:#Legislative process & WP:BATTLEGROUND that he wishes me RIP as an old man. (I identified myself as gay boy, albeit 53, and do crossdresses at times). --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cat12zu3, that edit summary ("RIP, old man") appears to be referring to the death being added to the article in that edit. Schazjmd (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

the cited source The Guardian Picoux, 67, who taught French at the National Taiwan University, died after falling from the tenth floor of his Taipei apartment block. Friends believe he had taken his own life.. If that edit On 16 October 2016, Picoux, 53, who taught French at the National Taiwan University, If that edit is not misquoting that source (and refering to my age 53 not Prof Picoux 67)... then I don't know what count as misquoting.... --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeahhhh, this appears to be a misunderstanding at most. Edit summary seems to fairly obviously refer to the deceased professor. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

the thing is that personal attack edit Special:Diff/1235343355, Cyanmax added misquote/misleading statement mentioning my age 53 On 16 October 2016, Picoux, 53, who taught French at the National Taiwan University, died after falling from the tenth floor of his Taipei apartment block instead of actual The Guardian source citatiom Picoux age 67, Picoux, 67, who taught French at the National Taiwan University, died after falling from the tenth floor of his Taipei apartment block. That WP:ATTACK edit happened right after I restored last good revision. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s not a personal attack, that’s a simple mistake. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The user, from just past month encounter, and also from his past edit history, seemed to be making quarrels with most editors and combative and seemed to be treating wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. There also been numberous notices on his user talk page despite his WP:BLANKING of user talk page as of now, which while blanking, replied with various forms, especially most importantly, veering to the edges, GTH (glad to help), not just me (health issues) but also to some other editor's notices too. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Friend, I think you are reading a lot into their behavior based on very little substance. They are allowed to remove content from their own talk page. Remsense诉 02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes user are allowed to blank their own talk page (i had known about WP:BLANKING and also did blank my own talk page), I just mentioned there were actually numberous notices before his blanking. I also mentioned sometime while blanking Cyanmax also put a note in edit summary GTH (glad to help, to me and another editor, especially Cyanmax is trying to say I myself should go to...h...I don't want to say the h-word me myself having health issues. (could be heaven however fall short of myself as a former church-goer & as gay boy albeit 53) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You choose to disclose a lot of information about yourself but I don't see your age mentioned on your User page. If you want to keep this information private, then I would stop bringing it up everywhere, in userboxes and in ANI discussion threads where many, many editors end up seeing such discussions. But I agree, I think you are taking this too personally and I see no inclination thus far to impose sanctions on the other editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed you have two active discussions going on at ANI in the past two days. I hope this noticeboard isn't the default way for you to settle disagreements. You really don't want to be seen as an "ANI regular" (take if from me in my early years). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes I heard it is dramaboard, the 1st 2 are (persistent unsourced & sometime vandalism edits) and other is (spamming duplicated audio links). Actually been through (dispute resolution) and (blp noticeboard) before. Thank you for letting me know. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually I had age in my user talk way bottom of my talk page Special:Diff/1191218943, way below and not prominently for number of reasons, including not really in my character. Yes I had disclosed it so is no longer private...and I have other personal info & health issue I would keep it to myself private.

Actually I'm was, too soft / (granted) too personal when Cyanmax wrongfully accuse me of disrupting [104], did told to Cyanmax about it at his talk page Special:Diff/1232267539, saw his WP:BLANKING edit summary Special:Diff/1232334941 GTH (glad to help) (I felt it's doesn't mean "go to heaven", I'm fallen former churchgoer and also as a gay boy albeit 53) and wrongly accused of disrupting edit [105]. Actually a reprimand to Cyanmax rather than usual sanction and reporting here for posterity. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Cat12zu3, you need to stop this. More than a day after at least three people here explained to you that you were misinterpreting Cyanmax's edits and comments, that you're reading a lot into Cyanmax's behavior that isn't there, Cyanmax made a similar edit to LGBT rights in Taiwan with the same "RIP, old man" edit summary, and you flew off into another fit. You reverted Cyanmax's edit with an uncivil edit summary of your own, calling them a "disruptive troll", and then added a trivial edit so you could summarize it with the repetitive rant WP:UNCIVIL WP:TROLL unconstructive WP:POINT WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:PERSONAL ATTACK - return last good 1234674722 - consecutively one unconstructive WP:POINT edit WP:BATTLEGROUND and another sloppy edit while with WP:UNCIVIL WP:TROLL almost WP:PERSONAL ATTACK summary edit WP:NPA by Cyanmax - re revisions by Cyanmax (talk). Your age (which is far from ancient, you invoke it as though you were 103 instead of 53), your health, and your sexual orientation have nothing to do with your behavior. (I'm more than a decade older than you and I'm also gay so don't even try responding that I couldn't possibly understand a 53-year-old gay person's experience of Cyanmax's edits or of dealing with disagreement on Wikipedia.) Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm just return to last good revision from 2 consecutive irrelevant without citation and another with questionable summary edit and content with sloppy improper format and and ain't going pursue for further action against Cyanmax. That's all I have to say. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that isn't just what you were doing, and the contribution that you reverted included a citation so your description of it as "without citation" is a lie. Largoplazo (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Cat12zu3, I've reinstated Cyanmax's edit at LGBT rights in Taiwan, with Jacques Picoux's full name, a clear explanation of relevance based on the source, and fixing the citation template. Yes, it was a bit sloppy, especially the citation template. But the edit summary is very clearly about Picoux and is not rude in any way; your edit summary quoted above by Largoplazo is extremely rude, and except for "sloppy", not remotely true. You should have fixed the edit, not reverted it. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

User:BauhausFan89 keeps "German" POV-PUSHING

BauhausFan89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who seems to be a problematic editor [106], keeps POV-PUSHING material from a "pro-German" POV.

At Radio - Made the unsupported claim Ferdinand Braun "invented the phased array antenna, which led to the development of radar, smart antennas, and MIMO" [107], was reverted [108], reverted it back in with a different non-supporting "Radio Astronomy" source [109], was reverted [110], added a blog source [111], was reverted noting blogs and WP:RS [112], reverted it back in citing the same blog [113], was reverted [114], reverted it back in using the "Radio Astronomy" source again [115]

History of radio - copy/pasted same "facts" (and erroneously copying hidden code) from Radio to History of radio without a reliable source but with the rational " Inserting Braun as the as the man who shared the nobel prize with Marconi" [116], Reverted it with "Not part of the introduction summary of wireless telegraphy", and expanded on the problems on their talk page [117], they reverted back saying the full story had to be told [118], reverted it out noting the multiple problems with the edit [119] and further explained in talk [120], they reverted and copied in more material from Karl Ferdinand Braun [121], was reverted noting the repeated blog problem [122], reverted it back - back to the rational "Marconi SHARED the nobel prize with him" [123].

Invention of radio - copy/pasted same "facts" (and erroneously copying hidden code) from Radio, was reverted then partially reverts back in "phased array antenna" claim [124].

Back at Karl Ferdinand Braun - copy/pasted same "facts" with same poor sourcing [125].

Also at Germans - large scale edit about the German diaspora groups [126], was reverted, reverted it back in [127], was reverted, copy/pasted every German who won a Nobel prize [128], was reverted [129], reverted part of it back as a gallery [130], was reverted [131].

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That user has multiple warnings for copying within Wikipedia, and they do not seem to understand or care. If they fail to respond to this ANI, we may have to resort to a WP:COI block until they acknowledge the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean CIR? Polygnotus (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Serial attacks have to stop

• because I think your lack of neutrality on that article is blatant and I think you are exactly the type of editor that WP works desperately to avoid since you apparently have zero objectivity, and when it appears you can't manipulate the rules enough you fall back onto ridiculous ploys like this. [132]
• I'm sorry but your argument that that shouldn't be added to the article because it sounds 'contrived' doesn't hold any water and blatantly contradicts NPOV as you are introducing editorial bias. At the very least, a section on his name which explains what his name really translates as vs. what he believed it did should be added. Also, original research either should or shouldn't be allowed. If you argue in certain places that OR shouldn't be allowed, and then turn around and say "oh, well a bit of OR is fine on a talk page," that's hypocrisy, and should be evident so people can see that you pick and choose when to use certain rules. [133]
• You should have your privileges to edit on this website revoked. [134]

These attacks have to stop. They are astoundingly clear that they want me indeffed for not allowing them to perform WP:SYNTH based upon Persian (Farsi) language dictionaries. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to specify because you don't identify them, this concerns User:Vindafarna and you did post a notification on their User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that anyone pitching in here should absolutely take a look at the initial conversation off of which these discussions are based (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abd-ru-shin). I think that the lack of neutrality in that specific article by the aforementioned user is entirely clear, and that anyone taking a look at that page would be able to come to that conclusion, employing certain WP rules and practices when the user sees them fit, but otherwise simply disregards them. Since this user has, by his own admission, explained his impartiality regarding this subject (on my talk page): "I'm not the biggest fan of Abd-ru-Shin," and since I don't know the individual the page is about and am only attempting to fix the errors in translation using legitimate dictionaries, I think that this user's work on that specific page should be reviewed as they are editorially biased in this specific topic. I understand that since the page regards a 'new religious movement', it can be difficult for proponents or opponents to do things without bias, but since, again, I am simply attempting to fix a bad translation, and this editor seems to have a personal stake in this (again, see the comment about the individual the page is about on my talk page), I think something needs to be done here. Vindafarna (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be 1. The "Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism" gives an etymology for Abd ru shin (a German new religious leader who adopted this name) that Vindafarma considers to be incorrect 2. Vindafarma is basing this off of his own knowledge and Persian dictionaries and has not provided an alternative source that directly discusses Abd ru shin, and is demanding that he be able to add Persian dictionaries as sources, which tg (in my own opinion, quite reasonably) objects to as original research/synthesis 3. tg has offered to just remove the Gnosis dictionary definition without adding the Persian dictionaries, which Vindafarma has rejected. Overall, I don't think tg's position in this dispute has been particularly unreasonable (ideally we would want to have a source about that discusses what Abd ru shin specifically thought the name meant, though I am unsure such sources exist) and I think that Vindafarma's comments that tg quotes above are unnecessarily personalising. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear: yes, I have a bias. People without biases don't exist. I don't know why Vindafarna thinks I seek to whitewash that article. My edits to the article indicate the contrary. I told them twice I don't like Abd-ru-shin, and they replied with I don't know if you're a member of the Grail Movement or what [135]. The Grail Movement being the cult around Abd-ru-shin. They are accusing me of It's like a child throwing a tantrum because they're wrong and can't deal with it. (same diff). They need a stern admin warning that such behavior has to stop (theirs, not mine). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone scrolling through is wondering: this has nothing whatsoever to do with the editor called "Serial". jp×g🗯️ 16:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by 24.46.26.32

24.46.26.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) IP has been persistent in doing edits that violate WP:DOB and WP:BADDATE as well as those that weaken the technical aspect of the articles, even if such edits have been undone countless times. EdrianJustine (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

They have a lot of unreverted edits. Can you identify, say, three recent edits that are a problem, with a brief explanation? If you could point to where an attempt was made to engage the IP, a block for continuing would be reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I went to their talk page to warn them about metro.co.uk being an unreliable source per WP:METRO, in this edit they made today (July 21), and saw three warnings already from 2024 about them adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, so what's the point of adding another warning when they have ignored the previous warnings. Additionally, they reverted an edit (same diff above) I made per MOS:COLLAPSE - content in an article should never be collapsed by default - without leaving an edit summary as to why they reverted my edit. They also removed a redirect today without leaving an edit summary in this edit, leaving the article unsourced. They also added an unsourced date of birth today in this edit and changed the date format being used in the article, again without an edit summary. And going back to October 2021, they have never responded to any of the warnings on their talk page, and in their last 500 edits, they have never left an edit summary explaining their edits. So I'd say that communication is required from them as to why they are repeatedly adding unsourced/poorly sourced content, and why they are changing date formats, and edit summaries sure are appreciated. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The point of trying to engage IPs is that it is not scalable to rely on admins to explain problems. However, you are right that the IP needs to communicate and deal with the issues raised on their talk. They have an interesting block log and I blocked for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Long term IP abuse

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

---

Hello, there has been long term abuse from a number of IPs on the /64 range of 2606:A800:C882:8E00:E5E9:525E:358C:D0E5/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), all in the professional wrestling sphere. Short blocks and warnings don't appear to do much and they continue on a new IP afterward. — Czello ^(music) 07:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked by ScottishFinnishRadish. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

73.22.232.126

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

---

73.22.232.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Vandalising List of countries by GNI (nominal) per capita. Needed to block immediately. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Please post on WP:AIV next time, if you are reporting vandalism. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• I’ve blocked for a couple of days. Re-report (at AIV) if they resume after the block expires. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Walco1 changing name line in infoboxes against guidelines

Noticed Walco1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone on a spree changing the Template:Infobox person parameters in some (200?) articles moving titles such as "Sir" from honorific_prefix = to the name = line (first example?) contrary to the guidelines at Template:Infobox person ---> name ---> "Do not put honorifics or alternative names in this parameter." Seems to be some kind of ongoing edit war across Wikipedia mentioned here, here and here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SIR seems to allow for it, and the MOS trumps the instructions in an infobox. Canterbury Tail talk 20:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SIR says "infobox heading", not "name" line. honorific_prefix line would be the heading. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Fountains here - we do not include Sir in the name parameter. GiantSnowman 21:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs). Allow me to clarify my position. A knighthood in the British honours system allows one to prefix one's name with the title "Sir or "Dame". This is not an alternative name but a title. This was discussed here and editors other than myself have begun to make the change to some of the most well known recipients of this honour in history, such as Sir Winston Churchill, Sir John A. Macdonald, and Sir Isaac Brock, just name a few. I had been frustrated by seeing Sir in the honorific prefix field in the past, as it is incorrect to place it beside styles such as "The Right Honourable" which are only referred to in the third person, but I had not made these changes as I knew, as incorrect as it was, it was not Wikipedia policy. I was glad to see changes made to the above mentioned knights. I was making these changes to make the pages of other knights consistent with the more high profile knights, such as Sir Keir Starmer, on whose pages edits are heavily scrutinized. This was done in good faith. Walco1 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually yes I agree with the others above in reading MOS:SIR again. MOS:SIR is quite clear that it's a title not a name, being knighted doesn't actually change your name. It's a prefix title, not a name. You'll need to get consensus to change MOS:SIR. Also note MOS:CONSISTENT doesn't say what you think it says, it says we need to be consistent within an article, not between articles. I don't question the good faith, but it's been brought to your attention now so unless there is an MOS consensus otherwise you need to stop in my opinion. I think the main problem here is different infoboxes approach what appears at the top in different ways and not all have the titles. Canterbury Tail talk 23:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, again, Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs). I appreciate you not seeing this as the great act of vandalism some think it to be be. Walco1 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

When you edit hundreds of article, including FAs such as Clements Markham, and continue to do so even when informed why you should cease, then it is disruptive. GiantSnowman 05:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the edits User:Walco1 made were simply to reverse disruptive edits by another editor, who moved thousands of "Sir" from "name" to "prefix". Take, at random, Sir Gilbert Parker, 1st Baronet. "Sir" was in the name field from 2015 to 2023 without objection, when an editor moved it as part of an edit spree involving thousands of articles. User:Walco1 was merely restoring the status quo ante. Atchom (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

the editor you are accusing of being disruptive appears to be @Omnipaedista:? GiantSnowman 11:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and he's been called out on several discussions. Another was User:Edward Jocob Philip Smith, who was blocked for used sockpuppets to advance his arguments on this. Atchom (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SIR says that "Sir" is to be placed in bold with the full name of the subject at the beginning of the article, so under the MOS "Sir" is clearly not treated in the same way as "His Excellency" and other similar predicates. Atchom (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the governing rule in this case is the parameter documentation for Template:Infobox person, which states for "honorific_prefix": "This is for honorifics of serious significance that are attached to the name in formal address, such as knighthoods, 'The Honourable', and 'His/Her Excellency'". The honorifics covered by MOS:SIR are a bit weird in that they can be used with the first name only, which most honorifics can't (e.g., referring to someone as "Sir John" is normal, as "Hon. John" is not), which is why that piece of MOS exists, I suppose. So perhaps you could make a case for changing the infobox documentation to put them in the "name" parameter, but as it stands, if we're going to be consistent, we should also be consistent with the documentation as written and put them in "honorific_prefix". Choess (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

But infobox documentation is explicitly not evidence of consensus under Wikipedia guidelines, so this seems like a case of the tail wagging the dog. Atchom (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion of this here and would invite Fountains of Bryn Mawr and GiantSnowman to participate there before continuing on this mass revert spree. Walco1 (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

User: Walco1, As you admitted above you knew this "was not Wikipedia policy" but you went ahead changing templates with out getting consensus on the guideline and/or a consensus change on the template because? Its a bold move but that puts us under WP:BRD, it gets reverted and then you can try for a consensus change. That's the way Wikipedia works. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I saw discussions of it on the talk pages of other articles, saw it in practices on other articles, so made the bold choice to apply it to other articles, in good faith, thinking it had changed. If you have objections to its placement there I again invite you to participate in the discussion. If your objection is merely with my actions, I have not many any such edits since the discussion on this board began and am seeking consensus. Walco1 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

All fine and good and see my comment about a dog. BRD means all the edits should properly be reverted (by you, me, or someone) especially since you knew they were all BOLD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Walco, by starting that discussion to change SIR, you have acknowledged that SIR does not support your changes, and it follows therefore that your edits were not supported by any policy or guidelines, and that you edited dozens and dozens of articles despite having that knowledge. Ergo, your edits were disruptive. GiantSnowman 10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Walco1 most certainly has not indulged in vandalism. The threat of blocking needs to be retracted and an apology issued. This is a clear case of an admin overstepping the mark. This is a highly controversial issue, as those involved are (or should be) aware, and the relevant guidelines contradict one another. MOS:SIR most certainly mandates it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Necrothesp, I appreciate your words. In hindsight I should not have attempted to make the change in one fell swoop but maintain it was done in good faith and given the uncertainty between Infobox guidelines, MOS, etc. not an expressly forbidden act. Walco1 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya

The user User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya is inserting adding errors to Mahabharata character pages. User:245CMR has already warned him User_talk:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya?vanarticle=Kunti#Get_out,_If_you_are_here_just_to_disrupt_the_integrity_of_Wikipedia, but the vandalism/ disruptive editing continues. He has been reverted multiple times on Kunti, but the vandalism continues. [136], [137], [138]. Other pages affected Madri, Yuyutsu, Sahadeva, Nakula. This also seems to a sockpuppet. Earlier User:NairaAadhya had added errors in Mahabharata character pages.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kairakairav.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Content dispute at Gino Jennings article and talk page

Joefromrandb has been engaged in a content dispute alongside at least two other contributors and I regarding verifiable content on the article, Gino Jennings. They have been quite belligerent with their methods too, and it stems to their commentary on the talk page by using vulgar, combative language such as "happy horseshit" for starters. I began reverting them several times, but I do not wish to suffer punishment for a WP:EDITWAR. All of the information came from reputable sources, yet were removed for the sake of the person the article is named after self-identifying as what they ironically don't identify as. In sum, I left a warning on their talk page that stated, "Please stop. If you continue to censor or remove encyclopedic content based on the fact that it is offensive to some readers, as you did at Gino Jennings, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not censored, and attempts to censor encyclopedic content will be regarded as vandalism." It would seem, however, that they would rather be combative about this, as so many IP addresses and other accounts which apparently are Ginoites have done. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not an urgent incident that requires admin intervention. Like you said, it is a content dispute, and that needs to be resolved on the talk page, so go there and start discussing the changes you want to make. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to make the changes. It's @Joefromrandb trying to make the changes against what has been upheld by other contributors. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, they have been doing this since May, but some IPs may need to be IP-checked as well for similar edits. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If the reverting continues page protection would be in order. Please discuss the issues with the article on its talk page. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This was the effort before, which stopped these things from happening. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Editor behaviour question

Wolffff vandalized A Grande Conquista 2 yesterday, changing its introduction from "A Grande Conquista 2 is the second season of the Brazilian reality television series A Grande Conquista, which premiered on Monday, April 22, 2024, on RecordTV." to "The big dick 328197 is the endless hundred two season of the nazist reality television series A Grande Conquista, which premiered on May 2, 1027 AD, on medieval Pornhub TV.", and then doing a series of illogical page moves on it until it ended up at the obvious nonsense title MediaWiki talk:Zjq0qlkqjqjab ?..

I've reverted and revdelled everything, so that the article is now back where it was and has the original introduction instead of the pornhubized one, but obviously the fact that this happened at all is a problem. However, given the contrast between this and their prior edit history up until now, which mainly comprised non-problematic wikignomery (including prior edits to the same article that didn't introduce anything about Nazis or Pornhub), I have no idea whether to file this under "good editor gone bad" or "good editor whose account got hacked", and I'm not an expert in investigating that sort of thing.

So wanted to ask if somebody could look into this and determine whether it's serious enough to warrant consequences or not, but also the page could probably use a few extra watchlisters just in case something like this gets tried again by that editor or somebody else. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

He should have been sent straight to AIV. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that they weren't immediately caught in the act, and all of it was only found and sorted out many hours later. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The account has been blocked as a sock which I suppose answers the question. Might still be worth keeping an eye on the article. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

IP pushing blatant Turkish nationalism by 188.119.21.2

This IP sprang out of the woodwork after HistoryofIran opened a complaint alleging WP:GS/AA violations. They have reverted good faith efforts to fix an article, but also engaged in insulting and frankly racist behavior. Special:Diff/1235653518. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanityclown1 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like @ScottishFinnishRadish already dealt with the problem. Insanityclown1 (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive transphobia, incivility, WP:NOTFORUM, MOS:GENDERID, and WP:AGF issues from User:Dtobias

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

---

Anytime there’s a discussion involving an article that falls under GENSEX topics, User:dtobias comes in and more or less just rants about the evil transgenders in a way that contributes nothing to the article’s talk page and only serves to espouse his views on trans rights. Examples include randomly going on rants about his general hatred and contempt for ‘trans activists’ in a way that has nothing to do with the page,[139][140], how properly gendering trans people is newspeak,[141], how trans people are comparable to people who think they’re literally Napoleon,[142], and how the rise in gender critical beliefs is because “transgenderism” is no longer fringe[143] - along with the occasional unnecessary comment in an otherwise relevant rant, such as The feminist movement includes all women, regardless of their identifications (as “transgender men” or any other label).[144]

He also frequently either directly accuses or through a paper thin pretense accuses other editors of being trans activists without the wiki’s best interests at heart. This includes saying that properly gendering trans people in line with MOS:GENDERID is comparable to a Muslim user forcing his religious beliefs on Wikipedia,[145] and accusing users of trying to discount any source that’s not PinkNews even when the sources in question are very demonstrably unreliable and/or employ the use of anti-trans slurs.[146][147] On at least one occasion, he has also made edits to GENSEX articles themselves, referring to trans women using he/him pronouns.[148]

A search of ANI and AE archives shows that he’s been to both before for much similar behavior on GENSEX topics, and has only been let off after promising to do better.[149][150] I think it’s fair to say that he has not, and that this is behavior that a glance at his userpage seems to indicate some measure of pride in. Snokalok (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The complainant here is one of several editors who do a heavy degree of POV-promotion in gender-related articles, then get all sanctimonious when somebody takes the other side. The cited diffs, while I probably did get a bit too heated, were in response to various assertions that trans activist positions needed to be treated as fact and mainstream media outlets dismissed as "transphobic" because they disagreed with them. Is sauce for the goose not sauce for the gander? As for specific cites above, the "occasional unnecessary comment in an otherwise relevant rant" was part of a direct quote from a paper being discussed, not my own comment; the "referring to trans women using he/him pronouns" was an error on my part that I corrected one minute later; I fully intend to comply with all Wikipedia policies and style guidelines whether I agree with them or not. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

(I don't think my user page makes any reference to sex/gender issues, but it does have some mention of squabbles on other subjects I've been in over my nearly 20 years on Wikipedia, including being given various unsavory labels. I've got some scars from the WikiWars of the last couple of decades, but somehow emerged with an entirely clear block/ban record so far.) *Dan T.* (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Snokalok: I haven't looked at the merits of your complaint yet but I would recommend closing this ANI section and filing a report at WP:AE instead. Given its subject matter, threaded discussion is unlikely to useful. Abecedare (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Was at dinner. I’ll take your advice. Also, how do I close a thread? Snokalok (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

BenSchmidt7439

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

---

Can someone block BenSchmidt7439? Obvious block evasion of User:BenSchmidt6666 and User:Username6394. Thanks, C F A 💬 21:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked them after I noticed them posting to Ad Orientem's talk page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Impersonation account, with all probability created by WIkipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis

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

---

Thonnas.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See username, edits and their thanks log (rhanked me for all edits I've made in an RfC-discussion, an RfC that was vandalised by Evlekis IPs for the sole reason that I had posted in that discussion, which is typical Evlekis MO since it pops up in my notifications but doesn't trigger edit filters...). Not notified, for obvious reasons. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 21:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup, done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

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

CurryTime7-24

 Note: DaRealPrinceZuko copied the first few posts in this discussion (including others' replies) from WT:XRV § CurryTime7-24. DanCherek (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

CurryTime7-24 is engaging in forms of disruptive editing regarding the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony and Mainland Japan articles solely to suit his personal opinions and ignoring the counterevidence that debunks his claims by obfuscating historical accounts and dismissing a source I provided. See User talk:DaRealPrinceZuko#July 2024 DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sigh... other user is talking about this edit; they added Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony to a list of territories legally defined by the Empire of Japan as gaichi (constituent external colonies and territories). According to this Kotobank entry, the term specifically referred to territories that were under Japan's legal control prior to its defeat in 1945. The meaning of this term is very narrow. This study on Japanese colonialism by Kan Kimura discusses the 1920 and 1943 laws that legally defined what the naichi ("Japan proper") and gaichi were: this farm is never mentioned. Neither any of the cited sources in the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony article nor elsewhere I checked in a quick web search turned up anything that confirmed the other user's assertion, which seems to be based on their misunderstanding of the term "colony". According to Webster's Dictionary, a "colony" is defined as "an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control", as well as a "a group of people who settle together in a new place". All evidence makes clear that the latter usage was certainly intended in the naming of this colony.

To be clear, I'd have no problem with this user's edit if they simply provided evidence to prove their assertion that this farm in central California was a legal constituent territory of the Empire of Japan. I'd gladly retract my objections if they did. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Just realized that the source the other user says I dismissed is this one from the website of Walk the Farm, a Nisei farming organization established in 2011 to assist farmers affected by natural disasters. They do not run the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony (that would be California State Parks). Even if they did, the cited link states that the Japanese immigrants that founded Wakamatsu did so in order to pursue "[their] unique version of the American dream". Nowhere does it say that these settlers sought to establish a gaichi colony for the Empire of Japan, which according to other cited sources in the article they were fleeing because they ended up on the losing side of the Boshin War. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason the settlement is never mentioned in Kan Kimura's study is likely due to a lack of knowledge of the settlement. Also, both definitions of "colony" by Merriam-Webster fit the bill for the settlement. The farm was controlled by still-active samurai, which means that it was under Japanese control. A military is, by definition, an extension of a government. So the fact that the samurai were fleeing from the Japanese government does not change anything, as they did not renounce their service as samurai. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@DaRealPrinceZuko: You are expected to notify CurryTime7-24 on their talk page that you have started a discussion about them at this noticeboard. DanCherek (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Just noting that when I closed they other thread, I did not, as DRPZ claims on CT’s talk page, recommend he bring this here. I recommended they discuss at the article talk pages, and then follow WP:DR if that didn’t work. I still don’t understand why so few new editors that run into conflict listen to advice, and think they know better. -Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You said that I could theoretically discuss this here, even if this would get rejected as a simple "content dispute". DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read the next sentence I wrote after that. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, the sources I cited above confirm that the other editor's assertion that the Wakamatsu farm in California was a legal constituent territory of the Empire of Japan is incorrect. Moreover, as I said before, the terms naichi ("inner lands", "mainland", or what in the immediate postwar would be referred to as the "home islands") and gaichi (colonies and concessions under the legal control of the empire) were strictly defined and encoded in laws passed in 1920 and 1943. Contrary to the other editor's belief, the farm in California was never mentioned in any of those laws and, therefore, does not qualify as a colony of the Empire of Japan as recognized by the country itself. Whether there were former military among these immigrants is irrelevant. (Their presence is questioned in one of the sources below.)

Wakamatsu was an important milestone not in the history of Japanese colonialism, to which it is irrelevant, but to the Japanese immigrant experience in the United States. Various sources confirm this; none mention anything about these immigrants acting as agents of Japanese colonialism. For example:

• California State Parks webpage on the Wakamatsu farm: "This pioneering settlement is the first Japanese community to establish themselves in California." Also, according to the photo of the plaque from the site itself: "First settlement of pioneer Japanese immigrants".
• Pacific Pioneers: Japanese Journeys to America and Hawaii, 1850–1880 by John E. van Sant, p. 118: "The Wakamatsu colonists are, however, historically important for three reasons. First, they established the largest Japanese enclave in the United States before the beginning of systematic Japanese immigration in the mid-1880s. Second, they were the first group of Japanese intending to permanently settle in the country. Finally, although they did not directly influence the process of emigration from Japan, they were the vanguard of Issei (first-generation Japanese immigrants) to the United States."
• Farm history from the American River Conservancy, which owns the property: "On June 8, 1869, the first Japanese settlers in North America arrived in a region named 'Gold Hill' near Coloma where the California gold rush began ... Recognized by many as the 'Japanese American Plymouth Rock', Wakamatsu Farm holds three distinctive first honors: site of the first Japanese colony in America, birthplace of the first birthright Japanese American citizen, [and] Resting place of Okei, the first Japanese immigrant and woman buried on American soil. When she died at the age of 19 in 1871, Okei became a symbol of dignity and sacrifice for future Japanese immigrants pursuing the American dream..."
• Wakamatsu Farm and the Birth of Japanese America by Daniel A. Métraux re. samurai immigrants at Wakamatsu: "There is a legend that many of the Japanese workers were from the samurai class. This is impossible to verify because there are insufficient details concerning the identity of the workers, but the U.S. Census of 1870 does provide some clues. It lists 22 Japanese with Schnell in the Gold Hill District of Coloma, including 14 men, six women and two children. Their occupations are listed as carpenters and farm workers, which in most cases is probably accurate. It is entirely possible, however, that one or more of the Japanese were indeed of samurai rank, but we cannot be absolutely sure".
• Also according to Métraux, Wakamatsu was founded on the initiative of a German businessman resident in early Meiji Japan, not Japanese: "Although Wakamatsu Farm was the first Japanese colony in North America, it seems that the scheme was directed by John Henry. It is likely that he conceived the idea, recruited the Japanese workers, bought agricultural supplies to bring to California, financed the transport of Japanese, bought the land at Gold Hill, and directed all the operations from June 1869 to June 1871". Its founding was likely based on the hope of establishing a lucrative silk industry in California (p. 134). It had nothing to do with furthering Japan's colonialist aims, which were non-existent at this very early stage in its modernization.
• A contemporary news source quoted in Métraux (p. 134) state that the immigrants arrived to help boost local industry: "With their industry and highly developed skills, they have come with their families to help develop our resources". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because the settlement was not recognized as legally belonging does not mean that it was not owned by Japan. And again, the samurai who administered the colony were still serving as military personnel and therefore, the settlement was a legal constituency. You also ignored the other examples I provided, such as Fort Ross, California being an unrecognized constituency of the Russian Empire. Wakamatsu was both important as a mere settler community and as a territory governed by military personnel, whether they were loyal to their government or not. The fact that the farm was not categorized as a colony does not prove your point, as, again, it was governed by soldiers, even if it was not recognized by the Japanese government. The farm did not have to be colonial in order to be considered a possession of Japan. Even if the idea of a Japanese colony was financed by John Henry, that does not change the fact that the settlement was administered by Japanese samurai.

Also, I did consider dispute resolution if this didn't work here. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

According to Métraux, samurai cannot even be confirmed among the Wakamatsu immigrants, let alone in control of the farm. You haven't provided anything to support your opinion, other than WP:OTHERCONTENT. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Content dispute! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

John Henry, the German businessman who initiated the establishment of the settlement, was a samurai himself. And again, a military is an extension of a government, regardless of loyalty. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an invalid source according to WP:UGC and WP:CIRC ("I gather ideas for this website from a wide range of sources, but these are my favourites: Wikipedia..."). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aizu and Shonai Domains during the Meiji Restoration Turned to Diplomacy: Confirmed in German Archives. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@DaRealPrinceZuko: Again, ANI is not the place for content disputes. Remsense诉 01:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

IP constantly reverting good edits

User:81.168.2.69 has been constantly reverting good edits. They have called them BS (although they didn't use the acronym) and said that they were reverting LTA (even though they were reverting an unbanned user with a long history of good edits). They are also very persistent to say the least. Gaismagorm (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

nevermind they were blocked, we all good, should iI still leave a notice on their talk page? Gaismagorm (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No Maestrofin (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Account for sale

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

---

Spotted this: https://swapd.co/t/6-year-aged-wikipedia-account-for-sale-4000-edits/555036. Yes, it's a two-year-old thread.

The account on the screenshots is UA3.

The account has been inactive lately, but a preventive block might be considered as its reactivation would fly under the radar.

I've had an unfortunate displeasure of facing a group of ostensibly resold accounts banding together at WP:Articles for deletion/Tamil genocide, and I'm quite keen on reducing such risks for the future. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This was previously reported in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361#Account being sold. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks. Still, I suggest to block this account. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Delectable1 CIR issues

Delectable1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a poor grasp of English, yet insists on changing grammar on a wide array of articles. They are also on an apparent mission to go against WP:Red link. They will do things like improperly replace "this" with "the" and "these" with "they", and a favorite error is to needlessly use a person's full name in the body of a biographical article as well as change the proper use of their last name with informal and unencyclopedic use of their first name ([151], [152], among others). The rest of their edits are littered with grammatical errors, and this bizarre interaction on my talk page speaks for itself. Talk page warnings are blanked and ignored, and their edit summaries are almost always a single-word non-sequitur. They clearly don't have a sufficient grasp of English to make the edits they make, and seem unwilling to acknowledge that. --Sable232 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

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

This user have personally attacked me after I warned them about their violation of the WP:NPOV at the WP:ITN/C here. This was not their first warning. They have been warned before. Instead of complying by those warning, they decided to call me a janitor, twice even after I warned them about no such personal attacks. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 14:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting they also claim that you destroy [Wikipedia] with your politics, regarded views and annoying personalities. - while not the most reliable source obviously, in certain corners of the internet, "regarded" has become a workaround substitute for "retarded." The Kip ^(contribs) 15:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Long for a first time, but they show no indication of heeding the warnings, and 31 hours seemed too lenient. Star Mississippi 15:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

NOTHERE (and potential sock) IP is back at it again

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

---

24.125.98.89 was previously blocked multiple times for disruptive NOTHERE comments, most recently a three-month block in April that expired just recently. At their last ANI report, myself and others also expressed concern that, based on behavior, the IP could possibly be a sock of CBANned user LaserLegs, who himself was blocked for racist comments a while back.

As said previously, the three-month block expired on July 7. They shortly returned with some comments at Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, which, while semi-questionable in nature, aren't really block-worthy - that said, they followed that up today with this edit at ITNC, a former domain of LaserLegs, with this comment:

Students in Bangladesh fight for merit based employment while in the West radicalized anti-White marxists struggle to preserve hateful woke DEI exclusionary policies.

While in a vacuum I don't think one edit like this would be quite enough for another sanction, it's pretty clear they've learned absolutely nothing from prior blocks for this exact sort of thing - they've used up their entire WP:ROPE by this point. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked the apparently stable IP for a year. For future reference, best not to quote trollish comments verbatim; a simple link suffices. WP:DFTT and WP:RBI. Abecedare (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. Normally wouldn’t post it, but the diff is of an attempted full addition to ITN/C, so figured it may get lost in the pile, so to speak. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Note that the IP created a parallel ITN/C discussion to an already existing discussion from few days back, just adding the trollish rationale and with a non-specific link to protests. Seemingly not done in good faith, but rather an issue of WP:POINT indirectly commenting on that the Bangladesh protests not being placed on main page yet. --Soman (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@The Kip: I have struck the gratuitous advice since I see your reason for quoting in this instance. Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

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

AR-15–style rifle

• AR-15–style rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Imgreatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure where to go with this, but it's it contentious topic and under arbitration enforcement, so here's as good as anywhere. This new editor dislikes the term "Armalite Rifle", and is editing the article to remove it and add their assertion that the term is a misconception. Neither part is being sourced, and sources on the page do indeed use "Armalite Rifle" as a term.

Since it's under enforcement, I'm obviously sticking at 1RR as the edit notice says. The other editor who reverted them has also stuck there. They, of course, have not.

Some further eyes, and perhaps a light tapping with a cluestick, would seem to be useful at this point so we don't end up having a big business over something so seemingly minor. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:FDBB:D885:56F4:B3F5 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Bit premature, I have only just issued an edit war warning. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I typed this during the same period it turns out you were warning them. Seeing the 1RR restriction on the article, I had no idea anybody was allowed to revert them twice, and as an IP editor I really didn't want to go in with both feet with the new editor about a CT/AE article. That way lies madness all round. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:FDBB:D885:56F4:B3F5 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I should not have reverted, and reported them for edit warring. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Tabet

Was patrolling the edit requests and stumbled upon this comment which contains a legal threat at the end being used to "defend" the removal of some relevant disambiguation entries. Never encountered this type of thing before and not too sure how to deal with it, so bringing it here for community/administrative attention. Left guide (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Ghostofjustice for the legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Some eyes on AfD please

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

---

Not sure about @Knitsey or @Isabelle Belato but I'm going to log off before too long and some extra hands to revert and block would be helpful. Star Mississippi 00:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I will be about for another hour or so. Knitsey (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and the help. I should be on for a couple more hours. I'd recommend editors to simply report the problem accounts at WP:AIV. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

and if it dies down and my semis are no long needed, feel free to unprotect. Was in the moment to stop the worst of the nonsense. There's an SPI awaiting a clerk, but after round 2 I didn't log them there. Just blocking and reverting. Star Mississippi 00:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll be around the next few hours or so. There is a great recent changes filter I use on my personal laptop, but don't have at work. Will see if I can find it in the archives and share if I do. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Something like this. It has the new AIV bot in it unfortunately, but is still effective at picking the AfD silliness. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been closing today's AFDs and saw no problems. What was this in reference to? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: the usual - search contribs for Munbazuioe, Munbouios and Muboeruio. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Ckanopueme: 15 year SPA-ish

Subject editor is bludgeoning DRV for Segun Toyin Dawodu, not taking friendly advice, and looking back on past contributions and talk page, appears to resemble a 15-year SPA with a passionate interest in this article that is sufficiently outside the norm that I'd encourage an UPE investigation. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I just wrote a comment along these lines at the DRV unrelated to the above report, and was coming here to report pretty much the same thing. It is very disruptive at this point, and if I wasn't borderline involved (by virtue of advocating 'endorse deletion') I'd have considered a pblock to allow the DRV to get back on track. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Doczilla#Deletion_review_for_Segun_Toyin_Dawodu. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I took note of this diff while temp-undeleting the talk page. This user is either the subject of the article, or was already behaving enough like the subject would in 2013 that DragonflySixtyseven tagged them as such. —Cryptic 02:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

commons:File:Segund Toyin Dawodu.jpg lists it as Ckanopueme's "own work". Mmmmmm. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I asked at the DRV. The subject did not answer the question. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The evasiveness of the (non-)reply speaks volumes. Absolutely no desire to answer the question. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I said at the DRV that I haven't reviewed the deleted article in detail and do not have an opinion on the notability of the subject. I do have opinions on a content issue, which I expressed at the DRV, and on a conduct issue. The content issue is that the closer correctly assessed consensus. The conduct issue is that the subject editor is being disruptive, as reported by the nominator, by bludgeoning the DRV. I recommend, at a minimum, a partial block of the subject from the DRV. That's the minimum sanction. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we are at the point that (at a minimum) a pblock is required from the DRV page. A full siteblock might also be merited for the UPE/COI general disruption also. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and a pretty anti-intellectual one at that, that could be summarized as "Look, we're volunteers here; I've got two minutes max to consider this matter, I did that and made my decision, and I don't have time or interest to have a big back-and-forth about it". Which is true; we pretty much have to make snap decisions here a lot. I wouldn't make a virtue of this necessity tho, particularly as people can just skip anything they don't want to read last I heard. So I'm not a big fan of the you'll-shut-up-and-like-it approach to dealing with opponents in discussions.

It looks to me that subject might well rate an article, based on there's a full biographical article in an extremely widely-read newspaper, just for starters. Of course an editor is going to get excited when their legit work is deleted for what may be insufficient cause. What do you expect. Do we want editors who don't care about their work. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, if you can intervene as a disinterested party and explain the behavioral issues to this editor, I'm happy. Of course, the response so far is pretty much what I would expect from a dual doctor/lawyer, so I'm not optimistic that you, or anyone, can get this editor to learn how to approach issues productively. Still, if you succeeded? Awesome. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Having looked things over, I concur in every respect. Therefore, how about this as a minimal solution? I propose a topic ban from any edits involving Segun Toyin Dawodu, broadly construed. We can see if Ckanopueme has a mind to contribute to Wikipedia in any other way. Ravenswing 05:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is the correct solution. (It's kind of moot since the article is gone and is going to stay gone whether it should or not.) Herostratus (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not all that moot. He can recreate it with a name tweak, and a number of his edits over the years have been inserting his name into other articles. Better to be safe than sorry. Ravenswing 09:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If this could get 30 seconds of attention from a not-already-involved admin, that would be great, because now I'm being likened to the fucking mafia for trying to describe the concept of duplicate citations. [153] —Cryptic 12:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ckanopueme despite everything, assume good faith and being civil are a must here. Focus on the content and not on the editors here. Being likened to the mafia here is a personal attack. I suggest that striking out the comment and that an apology is in order. – robertsky (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

y'all know what... I am blocking @Ckanopueme for doubling down on WP:NPA for 31 hours. This is not the first instance of making personal attacks. It seems that they do not pay attention to well-meaning warnings. Come back when you are in better frame of mind. The apology is still expected. – robertsky (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I hadn't !voted so I'd have p-blocked from the DRV to allow consensus to form, but I don't want to mess up Robertsky's broader block (which I endorse, but don't think the disruption will stop after 31h. Star Mississippi 13:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  i would endorse a p block too. If only one could layer blocks efficient. – robertsky (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm beginning to think your way as well. This guy has a serious case of WP:IDHT, from his ongoing remarks at the DRV. Ravenswing 15:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  The ongoing conduct despite various attempts at changing it from a very experienced group of editors and admins, is nothing short of astonishing. Something definitely needs to be done to allow a functional DRV to occur. Daniel (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruption by SPA editor

Bobsource123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA editor. Of their 35 contributions, 33 have been to Þorgrímur Þráinsson. Their additions look to have been largely unproblematic. Unfortunately, they have repeatedly removed a Template:POV tag added by @Buidhe: in November 2019 without explaining why: June 2022, October 2022, August 2023, June 2024, June 2024, July 2024. They have avoided responding to messages left on their Talk page and instead blanked their entire Talk page today: [154]. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Persistent incivility by EEng

Hello, I've been seeking consensus at Talk:Sacred Cod#Good Article reassessment (2) and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/2, but user EEng has continued to resort to ad hominem and profanity. I've tried to resolve this with him but it's getting very frustrating. Can somebody take a look here, because I feel like this is a clear violation of WP:UNCIVIL. Cpotisch (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Profanity, is not itself against the rules, and I am not seeing anything actionable, at worst its borderline. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to read closely what EEng has written, particularly because you haven't provided any diffs of the statements you find uncivil. What I did see was a thorough analysis by EEng intermixed with complaints about you expecting others to do your work for you. Some of it, not surprisingly knowing EEng, is acerbic and blunt, but if I were you, I'd try to learn from EEng's experience. Frankly, it looks like you're unhappy that EEng is not impressed with what you've done - and I believe they're not alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

EEng’s comments are extremely and unnecessarily uncivil.

Please use a dictionary in the future to learn what things mean without requiring your fellow editors to educate you. Maybe improve your googling skills [15], but honestly, your native shrewdness should have allowed you to work the meaning out for yourself by using what your teacher probably calls "using context clues".

The article body recites that "the State House burned". When you say something "burned", you're saying it was destroyed by fire. I would have thought you'd have known that without having to be told.

First of all, presumably where you say unequivocating, you really mean unequivocal -- you might try looking those up in a dictionary (maybe while you're looking up "to the life").

It's simple. A course on logic might help you.

you may want to review 8th-grade English.

Oh sorry, you're not a high school student? You'll forgive my mistake.

No, smartypants, … You've got a lot to learn, see, and the sooner you start talking less and listening more, the better.

I’m sorry, but what the fuck is this supposed to be? It’s completely bizarre, and obviously unnecessary. Most editors have learned to respond to criticism they find undue without doing a Young Sheldon impression. I don’t see any reason why this bullying (no matter how limp) does not detract from the project—especially considering that any newer editor speaking this way to a veteran would be blocked in thirty seconds. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound chiding, but rather than providing out of context presumed quotes, I highly recommend that you provide diffs, which will enable editors to directly review what EEng might have said. DonIago (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

True. I’m not going to dig for diffs right now, as I’m on mobile, but all of these come from the first discussion linked in the original post. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Doniago what is the point of simultaneously suggesting quotes are taken out of context and requiring diffs? The entire context is provided in the above link, and reading the entire thing is a more useful exercise than trying to boil things down to a single edit.

This is a usual pattern: someone brings up critiques, and rather than just refute them, Eeng decides to raise the temperature of the discussion to 100 degrees by insulting and belittling the other editor. I'm not sure what context would make that better, and I'm not sure how there's any necessity for Weng's response. This is ultimately about a longtime editor who cannot brook any criticism of "their" work without responding in this egregious manner (and it's not just the above editor who's raised it, since the critiques go back to the [GAR] and other uninvolved editors raised other concerns.[155]) We absolutely would block a new editor who tried this. I don't see why Eeng is not held to the same standard as an adult, since he's got no issue critiquing others' maturity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We can argue all day long whether the quotes are a breach of our WP:NPA policies, but the reality is that they show a battleground behavior from the editor, which I understand has happened before in this same context, when a different editor raised concerns about that article. This kind of behavior invariably leads to ANI threads being opened, and eventually closed, as enough users find that kind of behavior more amusing than disruptive. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that we would block a new editor for this, and I challenge anyone to produce three recent examples of any such case that they think is similar. Levivich (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Boner has different meanings, it can mean a cockup, or a cock up. I hope this isn't something that would get me blocked, because its one of EEng's points when he decided the conversation should be about penis for some reason. [156] 107.116.165.78 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, in the above diff EEng talks about the original poster having an erection in school, and that this is shameful. EEng said he thought they were a kid, then wants to make the conversation erection-centric? This feels gross on many levels. 107.116.165.78 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. I wondered if "boner" has some other meaning I wasn't familiar with. The open comparison to an erection in class makes it clear that, no, EEng is trying to frame content issues as sexual fixations. Weird, wrong, abusive. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree that the comments, especially in this diff, are unconstructive and rude. Last I checked, the goal of GAN and GAR is still improving articles collaboratively, and tossing playground-level insults at one another does nothing to achieve that goal. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

As EEng's longstanding ANI defense counsel, I must disagree with Cpotisch's claim that I've been seeking consensus, as the edit history shows otherwise:

• Dec 29 tags the article
• New Year's Eve removes almost half the article (from 1800 words to 950 words).
• EEng reverts on Jan 1, with edit summary Take it to the talk page
• Cpotisch makes no other edits to the article before or since [157]
• Despite the invitation in EEng's edit summary, Cpotisch makes no talk page edits to the article at all, until July 20 [158]
• Seven months later, on July 20, with apparently no interaction with the article other than those two edits in December, Cpotisch starts (incorrectly) a GAR at Talk:Sacred Cod#Good Article reassessment (2)
• The next day, July 21, starts a formal GAR at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/2. Does not notify the article's major contributors, nor the GA nominator, nor the GA reviewer, nor the relevant WikiProjects, as instructed by WP:GAR. However, Cpotisch does notify the editor who opened up the first GAR two years ago, even though that editor hasn't edited in almost a year. (GAR coordinators were also notified.)
• AFAICT, Cpotisch has never nominated an article for GA, never reviewed a GA nom, never participated in a GAR, and never nominated an article for GAR, except this one. It seems this is the one and only time Cpotisch has interacted with GA.
• In sum, Cpotisch made (basically) one edit to an article, then came back 7 months later and launched a GAR, as their first-ever interaction with the GA process, without ever before posting anything on its talk page
• And the substantive GAR complaints: it's not that the article fails verification, contains copyvio, or isn't NPOV... it's all complaints about how this sentence or that sentence is written. Arguably, that's WP:GACRIT#1, but the examples consist of a few phrases from the first few paragraphs. These are minor disagreements over wording, not the kind of thing people go to GAR over.
• The kicker: here is the combined diff showing all changes made between May 2022 (when the last GAR was closed as "keep") and July 2024 (when GAR #2 was opened): the article barely changed. Clearly, Cpotisch was aware of GAR #1 (since they notified the editor who opened it), and yet they opened a second GAR despite there being no substantive change to the article in the interim. There is no argument here for WP:CCC; a second GAR is just a disruptive waste of time in this circumstance.

This isn't "seeking consensus," this is seeking disruption. This is GARing an article in response to having a re-write reverted, and seven months later to boot, without proper notifications, and with no attempt whatsoever at actually achieving consensus.

And -- surprise! -- EEng gets snippy in his responses. I would be snippy if someone did this to an article I had written, and so would you, dear reader. And then Cpotisch goes to ANI with an incivility complaint with no diffs. This isn't trying to reach consensus, this is trying to use Wikipedia's various processes (GAR, ANI) to win a content dispute. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That all seems to be quite a red herring. Maybe they hadn't done much to seek consensus previously. I don't think any of the history you cite explains EEng's angry reaction. And it's more than "snippy", it's ballistic. I don't think WP:CIVIL is the issue either - seems to be more about WP:BATTLE. User:Ɱ (no longer active) seems to have got pretty much the same treatment in the first GAR on the talk page. Having read both the GARs, the level of animosity directed against Ɱ and Cpotisch is baffling and unnecessary. When one reads the two threads, even if one were not to agree with Cpotisch and Ɱ or even think they were a bit dumb, the extent of the anger is inexplicable. (Btw, that first sentence of the article is just awful!) DeCausa (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

In my book, going from a single edit straight to a GAR is much more WP:BATTLE than calling someone "smartypants." Levivich (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If there was a pattern of disruption by Cpotisch, why didn't Eeng or anyone else take them to a noticeboard or try and engage in another location? Are you really suggesting "the solution to behavior I find disruptive is to launch as many personal attacks as I can until they go away"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Why? Maybe because they were pissed off. Maybe because you can't take someone to ANI for being wrong, or for nitpicking too much, or for launching a GAR without trying to resolve things on the user talk page first (at least not as a one-time thing). And of course I'm not suggesting that personal attacks are the solution to disruptive behavior, I'm suggesting they're a natural response to disruptive behavior. I'm suggesting don't expect editors to maintain politeness in the face of someone launching a disruptive GAR out of nowhere (especially if it's happened more than once). Levivich (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

When the only common factor in a bunch of disputes is the one person behaving "pissed off" regularly, that suggests the problem is the person who has anger issues, rather than the random people coming into contact and receiving the blowback. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That's one possible interpretation. Another is that it's not random people. A third is that an editor's impatience is not necessarily an issue at all. What I notice about EEng ANI threads is that they are always joined by IPs and new accounts, as is this one. To me, it's plain as day that EEng is targeted by some LTA(s), in a way that most editors are not (notice there has still been edit warring from IPs over the self-referential humor joke since we were here last). That's my interpretation of why he's at ANI twice a year or so. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an LTA starting this thread, unless you're suggesting the editor with more than 5 years on wiki and thousands of edits is one. Sometimes the simplest answer (that Eeng flies off the handle far more than the average editor) is the one that fits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh EEng definitely flies off the handle more than the average editor. I don't think we should sanction him for having less than average patience. Particularly because he is also provoked more than the average editor.

Have you ever had an editor make one drastic rewrite edit on an article you wrote, then post on an admin's UTP about it, then the UTP of an inactive editor who previously took it to GAR, then take it to GAR, without ever having posted on the talk page even once, but falsely claiming that they had, and that you were rude to them? I've never had that happen to me and if it did, I'd be pissed off and would likely use sharp language. Be honest here: wouldn't you, too?

I'm not suggesting OP is an LTA, I'm suggesting OP took a very hostile, uncollegial, and disruptive, battleground approach here, and so they shouldn't complain that they were met with sharp words. "Read a dictionary" and "smartypants" isn't really that bad in context. Levivich (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no. Concocting an insane retort about me having an erection in school does not merely constitute “impatience”. I’m reviewing my edits to identify what it is that I misremembered as a talk page post, but regardless I have never encountered an editor resort to such bizarre ad hominem. Cpotisch (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am not a new account. I’ve been on Wiki for five (six?) years and have a long history of well-received edits. This is my first GAR so apologies if it’s out of order. That doesn’t make EEng’s response any more justified. And complaining about diffs strikes me as irrelevant; I linked both pages in question (which don’t constitute all that much text), and everything he’s said is still there. Cpotisch (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not out of order. Once you had it on the right page, it was all proper. It's quite common for people to throw the OP under the bus at ANI to bail out their friends. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What did you mean, in what appears to me to be your first talk page edit, by I think responded to in a fairly hostile manner when I sought out consensus on the talk page? When did you seek out consensus on the talk page and were responded to in a fairly hostile manner, prior to making that edit? Levivich (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What about calling someone a high schooler and talking about humiliating erections in class? How much of that is permitted before it starts becoming a problem? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I missed a few things:

• The opening paragraph of Cpotisch's (AFAICT) first-ever talk page post:

  I attempted to make these edits and was promptly reverted (and I think responded to in a fairly hostile manner when I sought out consensus on the talk page). These issues persist, and I've found that editors in favor of the current structure of the article are falling back on its Good Article status as a cudgel to push away critics.

  • How is responded to in a fairly hostile manner when I sought out consensus on the talk page possibly an accurate statement, since there were no prior posts on the talk page by Cpotisch? The only way Cpotisch's statements would make sense is if they participated previously.
  • And editors in favor of the current structure of the article are falling back on its Good Article status as a cudgel to push away critics also seems to be totally inaccurate, since there has been no talk page discussion -- literally nobody except EEng posted on the talk page -- since the 2022 GAR. The talk page history shows that in 10 years there has been no talk page discussion except for the 2022 GAR and this 2024 GAR.
• After being reverted in January, posted on Cullen328's talk page (User talk:Cullen328/Archive 100#EEng and Sacred Cod) and was advised to go to the article talk page
• In March, posted at User talk:Ɱ#Sacred Cod (the editor who opened the first GAR)

Levivich (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not important if User:Cpotisch or any other user is an incompetent or bad editor or even a vandal, as it changes nothing about User:EEng's conduct.

Your comments are very Ad hominem. AlexBobCharles (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Even if he was uncivil, the community has proven time and time again they are incapable of handling behavioral issues related to EEng. If an admin things a warning or block is warranted, then that is certainly within their discretion. Might as well close this down before it spirals out of control like it usually does. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• EEng's repeated and deliberate use of sexual metaphors on Talk:Sacred Cod is the kind of thing that got The C of E banned from DYK. It's juvenile and non-constructive. More to the point, it's discretionary: EEng chose to do it; nothing about Cpotisch's conduct drew it out. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  This comment is just insane:

  Cpotisch, in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, do I need to draw you a picture? In the criteria, where the guideline says, "b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation", CLICK THE GODDAM WORDS 'Lead sections' AND SEE WHERE YOU END UP. This, specifically, constitutes a boner in that it's very much like when you got an erection in class and everyone could see it and you were very embarrassed and ashamed, as you should be now.[1] And BTW, criteria is plural -- criteria themselves -- Mr. Writing Expert. You're beginning to look like a WP:CIR case.

  This is baffling and unacceptable. The correct amount of invocation of the shamefulness of erection in content disputes on wiki is zero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like standard EEng to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also, I am frankly amused at what EEng has been able to get away with since 2014. His block history is... extensive. I guess his hyperbole is endearing, in a way. The talk and user pages certainly are. In any case, I would agree that he needs to tone it down a bit. I'm also seeing some WP:OWN from him here that needs to be rebuffed. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  If that’s standard, he should be blocked, because nobody needs to put up with boner accusations on Wikipedia. You might find it cute, but this is a totally deranged example of a very harmful phenomenon for editor retention and recruitment, which is long-time editors being bullies—and the community tolerating it, due to the delicious cleverness of “you have a freakin BONER!” ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Some background: This isn't the first time EEng has disrupted an article evaluation when he didn't like the direction it was going. EEng is part of a tag-team of editors who filibuster certain good article reassessments for articles they like. The last time this was an issue (which did not include EEng), I made it clear that going forward I would open an ANI discussion whenever someone was harassed for initiating a reassessment. My response was informed by a previous incident where these editors, including EEng, turned a routine evaluation into an uncivil 17,000 word argument. I have never seen a good article reassessment anywhere within an order of magnitude of this, except for the ones where these particular editors barge in. As there seem to be some misrepresentations of how the good article reassessment process works, I'm going to notify the good article nomination talk page so people more active in that area can weigh in should they chose to do so. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Remember no one cares, so ignore troublemakers Moxy🍁 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  • I agree that EEng & others' behavior at the John von Neumann GAR was very poor indeed, and perhaps he should have been sanctioned for it, but for this particular incident it seems Cpotisch has been the "initiator" goading EEng (whether intentionally or not). But even setting that aside... Opening a GAR is fine, disagreeing with EEng is fine, and EEng should been less salty in his replies, but Cpotisch's essential argument has been "EEng, your writing is crap". And this is potentially even a valid GAR complaint (there are GAs with poor prose), but unfortunately, defending against it essentially requires some amount of "no it's not, it's your preference that is crap," even if we imagine a hypothetical perfectly polite EEng. I say this as someone who is not part of the EEng defense tag-team and thinks he probably should have been sanctioned for some of the past shenanigans, but probably not this one, where his replies, while not optimal, are actually on-topic and something of a natural outgrowth of Cpotisch's own critique. SnowFire (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    “You have a boner” is a necessary negation of prose criticisms? It has nothing to do with content; it’s just an attempt at humiliation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Let's make things easy. We know already, of course, that God has a hard-on per a reliable source. There is literally a law—it's even called the Boner Law—for EEng to invoke vis à vis boning, boneur, boneurism, boneristical or embonement when required. Get with the bonergram, people. ——Serial Number 54129 19:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: What. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• First, my first gut reaction was that EEng has put in maybe 1000 times more time and work on this article than Cpotisch. Even considering WP:OWN, that still means something. Cpotisch is being something of a jerk. EEng is being a giant jerk here. I'm more willing than most to look the other way if this was a one-off and there was clear baiting, or if EEng was meeting snark with the same general level of snark, but this does seem to fit a long-term pattern, and EEng escalated things dramatically. AtG was recently blocked by someone for a week for a similar continuation of long-term behavior. I suppose We could do that, with no one unblocking early? I wouldn't support an indef, but also don't support "that's just EEng being EEng". There are simply zero optimal solutions when a productive long-term editor reserves the right to just go off on a hapless editor who made a few mistakes, instead of showing some modicum of grace. We need to do the suboptimal thing and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  EEng has put in maybe 1000 times more time and work on this article than Cpotisch.

  That does not and should not matter, @Floquenbeam. It’s not his article, we all put our time in editing for the sake of the good of the project, not for any self interest. There IS an optimal solution here, and that is to castigate both editors (EEng more so than Cpotisch). I’m also seeing comments from other people here saying that this is Cpo’s first segue into GAs and GARing—that again should not matter, and it’s a bit disturbing that EEng seems to be given greater deference purely by virtue of him being an established editor. We all need to be treated equally.

  As I mentioned above, his block history is extensive, and he’s gotten away with more than what any standard or newer editor certainly would’ve I’ve seen people indeffed for a lot less than what EEng has done and been doing. At the very least, a reprimand is in order. It isn’t appropriate to just drop this, as charming as EEng can be. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Since this was indented as a reply to me, I'll just say I disagree with a lot of this. I have no desire to try to convince you, but just didn't want my silence to imply to others I've been convinced. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  That’s quite alright, I don’t need convincing nor did my reply intend to convince you— I’m just making what I think to be an obvious point.

  So, as a sysop, do you have a response regarding EEng’s chronic behavior, or will it just be, as one editor put it, the usual "EEng is funny and/or he was provoked"? — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

These quotes are personally insulting an editor, regardless of the context. Not needed or useful. An analysis of the context (which I didn't do) might come up with mitigating circumstances which make this minor. It's unrealistic for all discussions to occur on the upper levels of the debate pyramid (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Debate_Pyramid_v2_Detailed_TT_Norms_Bold_Text_Outlined.svg) , but those are at the bottom 1 or 2 levels. EEng might look back on this as a good experience if they just apologized, learned a bit from it and we moved on. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I find the comments from EEng to be far in excess of whatever possible provocation that the OP may have provided. Frankly, the erection comments are quite beyond what any editor (male, female, or nonbinary) should have to put up with. I'd be in favor of something, but I fear that the usual "EEng is funny and/or he was provoked" will win out and nothing will be done, again. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm on IRL deadline right now, so if I may I'd like overnight to post something. Or maybe in the end I'll decide to let the matter speak for itself (for those who read closely enough). Anyway, I'll see y'all tomorrow. EEng 21:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo: aspersions, misrepresentation, and canvassing

Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been persistently uncivil at Talk:Human history and related pages:

• In response to me and User:Joe Roe disagreeing with them at this discussion, they have left what one uninvolved editor described as "vague polemics" at four WikiProject talkpages alleging that "several users" are pursuing an "openly disparaging and hostile campaign" against "academic historians" and in favour of fringe theories, making the article "a nadir of problems that English Wikipedia has with writing about history". They refused User:Doug Weller's request to retract these canvassing attempts, saying they didn't have specific individuals in mind, an odd claim considering the number of people in the discussion.
• They have persistently misrepresented comments from myself and others, such as User:Phlsph7, to push their argument that the article is fundamentally flawed: they have misunderstood replies so often that one would be a fool not to think it intentional. Much of this verges on sealioning, as you can see from the talk page. On another page, they characterised an AFD as an attempt to circumvent WP:N (!), which I found rather funny.
• When the misrepresentation failed to have an effect, they issued numerous aspersions: they have accused editors of, inter alia, having "an axe to grind with anyone who supports academic historiography", "overtly engaging in POV:ing the article", trying "to exclude a whole field of academic study", and "effectively shutting down discussion". Joe Roe characterised their communication as an "escalating series of aspersions, personal attacks, and now accusations of a conspiracy". Peter feels these are nothing more than "perceived slights" by people who haven't taken him seriously, when in reality he has consistently taken advantage of the goodwill of other editors to belittle their arguments and dismantle the atmosphere of a previously-collegial talk page.

I would like to see a formal commitment from Peter to improving their behaviour, as they have so far refused to. If that commitment has to come from the sharp end of ANI, so be it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

My purpose for canvassing was to get attention to the talkpage and try to involve other editors. My comments are based on general behavior I've seen for a long time and which isn't limited either to last few weeks or even human history. If it was about just a few specific users, I would be singling out those users, but I think the problem goes beyond this. Peter ^Isotalo 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they were "calls to action" intended to influence editors' opinions before reading the discussion. As explained at WP:CANVASS, that compromises the consensus-making process, and is entirely inappropriate. Please state that you understand the above. Please also comment on the aspersions within the canvassing messages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Without getting too far into things just yet, of the 3 points above, the latter 2 lack diffs. Specifically for the accusations of misrepresentation and that of casting aspersions. JackTheSecond (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been involved in those talk page discussions and some of Peter's controversial comments were directed at me, so I am not an impartial judge of this situation. With this disclaimer in mind, my impression is that AirshipJungleman29's description is a good summary of what has been happening. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This behavior is so unfortunately typical it feels archetypal. Disgruntled editor can't be bothered to be patient or courteous: spams tags, canvasses (always unsuccessfully), and takes productivity to new lows. How can Peter expect anyone to work with him under such circumstances? If they want to actually move forward, they could start by removing their clearly retaliatory tags, acknowledging and apologizing for their behavior, and offering actionable suggestions—not vague accusations. – Aza24 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• On the merits of the content, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Modernity_articles_are_a_hot_mess. The short version is that periodization is not nearly as important as Peter Isotalo believes it is. He seems to see it as some catastrophic error, but it isn't. The important thing is the content, not the arbitrary divisions. Wikipedia divides up content for all sorts of reasons, including WP:Summary style and WP:SIZE. Or for the human history article example, just for division into reader-useful sections. There is not some ideal, Platonic set of sections / divisions to use that deviation from is terrible. Even if there was, Peter Isotalo routinely refuses to actually give concrete examples of what he does want to replace it. So I strongly disagree with these edits on human history - again, these are Wikipedia section headers, not statements of divine fact. It's not "OR" to subdivide articles.
• On editor behavior, even if we accept for a moment that Peter is in some way correct, he needs to translate his nebulous wishes into concrete proposals, and not tag-bomb everything he doesn't like. If Peter says "hey, here's an alternate periodization scheme, it's supported by historians X, Y, and Z, let's change the articles to use that", then fine, that's something that can be concretely discussed. Instead he's currently simply asserted that "historians" en masse reject the good faith efforts of other editors, even when this doesn't appear to be true. It's not a collegial approach to matters. SnowFire (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Accusations and personal attacks - HighDunker

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

I'm facing persistent issues with edit warring on the article Voice of Reason. SPA HighDunker has repeatedly attacked me, and despite my attempts to seek mediation and address the removal of cited content, the situation has worsened. The latest personal attack involves false accusations, including terms like 'paid propagandist,' [159] which I have never used. I have asked the individual several times to remove or retract these claims [160] [161], but they have ignored my requests, doubling down [162]. Their disruptive editing behaviour is ongoing; they refuse to engage in meaningful discussion,[163] provide diffs, or explain their rationale. Previously, they falsely claimed to have built consensus, a claim which has been challenged by multiple other users. I am seeking assistance with this issue. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Your last link does not show anyone accusing HighDunker of vandalism. I was telling them not to call your edits in this dispute vandalism. --Onorem (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You were right in correcting me about this, I have stopped calling his edits vandalism. That he admitted to waiting out a day to abuse the 3 revert rule though, is clearly visible in that talk page. HighDunker (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, you are right about this @Onorem. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

According to @Michalis1994 's own words about me: "You keep spewing lies to support your obvious bias and likely connection to the party.". This is not a personal attack, it is a mere acknowledgement of a personal attack *you* made against me. As for your edits, you have been told *numerous times* to stop reverting a very contentious part of a specific article until it can be properly discussed. You ignored those warnings and make your edits anyway. As for the consensus you mention lastly: It was there, me and another editor did agree on a specific edit, which you then reverted. It wasn't a large amount of editors, but it was a plurality of editors nevertheless. This very topic you created is a false accusation against me, which I implore any admin who sees this to take some action against. This specific user has overstepped the boundaries of civil discussion with me *multiple times*. HighDunker (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Your failure to provide any differences indicates that you cannot substantiate your claims, which will likely lead to ongoing issues. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's clear that SPA HigherDunker continues to persist, despite being asked three times now to remove the falsified quotations. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop with the single purpose account accusations, my account is months old and I simply found my login and used it now. I have also edited the greek Wikipedia for other articles. These accusations are simply unfounded. HighDunker (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• I, Onorem and VQuakr, have tried to talk sense into these two editors, in terms of edit-warring, personal attacks and dispute resolution, but to no avail. I'd block both of them and may do that; they've wasted several editors' time, and now they want to waste the broader community's time.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Wow. I've asked for support regarding accusations where I specifically CC'ed you to request that the other editor remove quotations suggesting I labelled them a paid propagandist. Could you clarify why I am being blocked and on what grounds this decision is being proposed? Michalis1994 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I showed exactly what part I was referring to, this was not a false accusation and the one who should be reprimanded is you! HighDunker (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Woah I just said I'm not going to continue the edit war and apologized for calling the other editor's edits vandalism. There is no need for any of that. HighDunker (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Michalis1994: Political articles in general, including Greek political articles, are a difficult subject area to edit because of the frequency and intractability of disputes. I suggested a path forward, WP:DRN, which is advice you appear to have ignored. To be frank, I feel that you lack the requisite experience to edit successfully in a contentious topic area at this time. My suggestion would be to edit in other subject areas for a few months, get into a few minor disagreements and get accustomed with our community norms on how content disputes are resolved without edit warring or getting personal or nasty. That will put you in a much better position to edit successfully in any area. I noted earlier to you, it's difficult to overstate how tenuous your situation is here. Your situation has not improved with this report, and you are right on the ragged edge of Bbb23's substantial patience. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I have taken your advice into consideration and have already requested mediation. In this section, I have reported false accusations regarding quotations I have never used on WP. Also, why am I being targeted here? I specifically asked for help concerning words I have never used. How is this related to political articles on WP? Did I accuse anyone of being a 'paid propagandist'? Michalis1994 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA 1RR

u:Qplb191 refuses to follow 1RR in ARBPIA, in spite of being warned about it and the lack of consensus for the changes they've been making. See User_talk:Qplb191#1RR_violation. Reverts: [164] [165]. Alaexis_¿question? 21:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)