Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Before posting a complaint about a user on this page:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Sign your post by adding 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Closed discussions should not usually be 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. (archivessearch)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
Incidents (archives, search)
1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104
1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452
453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303
304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313
Other links


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

Many users keep removing the image of Baháʼu'lláh from the infobox in his article above in question and use the claim that consenus is against it. This has recently been done by User:Cuñado and User:Smkolins. As you can see from [1] and [2].

However looking at Talk:Baháʼu'lláh, the only real complaint users seem to have is that it offends their religious feelings about not showing it to non-Bahais. This is clear censorship (removal isn't the only form of censorship, although they did remove another image of the subject added by me to the article). And also imposition of a religion's rules on Gpedia also violates it no matter how much consensus there is. Many users have also called for direct removal of the image on the talk page.

A comparable situation is when Gpedia rejected any attempts to remove images of Muhammad. Although it wasn't being asked to be demoted like for Baháʼu'lláh.

However the motive of those editing at Baháʼu'lláh too is imposing one's religious rules. The users also removed another image. Both the images are clearly real and have been acknowledged by the Universal House of Justice [3].

I request the admins to intervene. Since this is a issue about religious sentiments dictating editing of people, I believe admins need to be asked. People shouldn't get to impose anything on Gpedia at all over their religious feelings. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally support adding an FAQ section to the article's talk page explaining why we show an image of him, as is the case for Talk:Muhammad. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also MOS:LEADIMAGE clearly states that the lead image must give visual confirmation and must be an appropriate representation. A house with some architecture that doesn't look distinct cannot be not that. Only obscene or vulgar images are prohobited as offensive per MOS:OMIMG. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The actions to return to the consensus version, because the picture is itself a topic of discussion, was not related to the talk pages observed of many people put complaints. In fact many of us have put the picture *back* when someone deleted it or otherwise tweaked it - to maintain the consensus version. This has a long history, so reading recent talk pages will not be illuminating, nor even the collection of talk histories. But if you go through it you will see contributors supporting the concensus and against the wishes of many and actively telling them to stop that editing. Smkolins (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A biography of a religious leader that does not include a photo of the man in the lead and does not give his birth name in the lead, and refers to the person only by his honorific is more of a religious tract than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. A religious group's taboos should have zero impact on the content of a neutral encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody knows him by his given name. There are definitely improvements to neutrality needed in the article but that is not one of them. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His given name is basic encyclopedic information that should not be downplayed to elevate his honorific. That is a violation of the core content policy, the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first section of the article is "Name, title, and pronunciation" and describes in great detail his given name and why Baha'u'llah came to be the name for which he is exclusively now known. If your complaint is that the given name is not in the first sentence, that was an attempt to declutter. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's also the first thing in the infobox. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with User:Roman Reigns Fanboy's characterization of the situation. A lengthy debate years ago (including admins) settled on leaving the photo in the section dedicated to it and not at the top of the article. It is not censorship (it is still in the article), and it would be strange to call it censorship because it is not an offensive image, it is merely preference for Baha'is to avoid viewing it outside of special occasions. Having the image in the body of the article does assist with avoiding the image if someone wants to avoid it, but also the practice of avoiding it is noteworthy enough to get its own section in the article, and it's helpful to have the image next to the text talking about it. While an analogy to the images of Muhammad may come to mind, this is entirely different. There is no rule on Gpedia saying that a photograph has to go at the top of a biography. WP:LEADIMAGE also says, "Lead images are not required" and "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred."
User:Roman Reigns Fanboy up to now has not used the talk page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Arbitration Committee concluded Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. Including a photographic portrait of a person (when freely available) is standard operating procedure across this encyclopedia, right? Where is the "shock value" in putting a photo of the person in the lead? The only people who could be shocked are those trying to impose the taboos of this religious group on the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cuñado Can you link to this "lengthy debate years ago (including admins)" which "settled on leaving the photo in the section dedicated to it and not at the top of the article", please, because otherwise the useful encyclopedic image needs to go back in the infobox. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cuñado "it is merely preference for Baha'is to avoid viewing it outside of special occasions." This seems like an attempt to compromise the encyclopedia's mission to placate certain religious sensitivities that have no effect here. What religions like/don't like shouldn't have any effect on how we present an encyclopedic article IMO. JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This just seems like content dispute? I mean I have thoughts on whether and how the image should be included, but aren't we at the wrong place to have this discussion? –MJLTalk 00:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with Cullen328's take on the situation, but agree that this is a content dispute that doesn't really belong on ANI. Ravenswing 00:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that the discussion goes a bit beyond a simple content dispute. Is it proper for editors who are adherents of the Baháʼí Faith to create a local talk page consensus that is clearly at odds with project-wide consensus? I do not think that the article talk page where the consensus errors have been made is the best place to evaluate the validity of that claimed consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's where we are at, then I might as well say my piece. WP:NOTCENSORED isn't being violated here. There was a reasonable compromise to make the editorial decision to put the image in a place where it can be properly discussed in context, and that is completely appropriate for a local talk page to reach consensus on. MOS:IMAGELEAD allows for such compromises. I've supported similar measures to this on BLPs before (where I've opposed putting a pre-transition photo of a transgender person in the lead but reluctantly allowed it in the body of an article), and I don't see this controversy as meaningfully different in the grand scheme of things. It's just a content dispute at the end of the day, but no one has even tried the talk page yet. –MJLTalk 05:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MJL, I do not know how on God's green earth a discussion about a pre-transition photo of a transgender person can be used as justification to keep a photo of a religious figure out of the lead of this biography. In my view, it is unwarranted capitulation to the taboos of a religious sect, and therefore a clear-cut violation of the Neutral point of view. As for talk page discussion, we are told by the followers of this religion that there is extensive discussion in the article talk page archives that are too intricate and too detailed for mere mortals to understand. I reject that type of obfuscation. Where are the diffs that establish this so-called consensus? Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MJL: I suggest you read the policy: "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." "Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Gpedia, because Gpedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Gpedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic." Yes this is censorship where the only reason to keep out an image of the infobox is religious sentiments.
And using a transgender person's pre-transition image as an example to justify it is really strange to say the least. We don't just keep out the image because it "offends them", it's also a mark of bigotry to reject a person's identity. No such thing is being done here. I'm not seeing any real reason to keep the Baháʼu'lláh image out of the infobox. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328: Talk:Bahá'u'lláh/Photo for the decades-old consensus being referred to (again, this is an issue that can be solved by just starting a new discussion on the talk page). –MJLTalk 06:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see any consensus in that section User:MJL beyond one user saying non-believers shouldn't be allowed to look upon the image (something that we should not capitulate to). Another user states that if someone deleted the image then it shouldn't be restored. How is this anything similar to what Cuñazo said? And regardless we cannot let Gpedia be run by any group's feelings. No consensus needs to be had on this issue. Since the Arbitration Committee has already decided a local consensus cannot overrule a global one. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MJL, I do not see any legitimate consensus there. That is a 57 section talk page archive that consists mostly of followers of the Baháʼí Faith complaining that they do not like the photo because it violates their religious taboos. What does all of that have to do with Gpedia's core content policies like the Neutral point of view? Are you arguing that capitulation to religious taboos is somehow neutral? I certainly don't accept that argument. Am I missing something? Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also the matter that the archived "Photo" section MJL and the people on the article used to claim consensus is just one person saying the image shouldn't be shown to Non-Bahais over religious sentiments. A user before him said if the image was removed no one should restore it, but they do not say anything about personally supporting or opposing keeping the image out. This isn't even a real consensus. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Roman Reigns Fanboy and Cullen328: Look, I just don't see a compelling reason to include that photograph in the lead. That's just my opinion on the content dispute side of this based off my understanding of our policies (including MOS:SHOCKVALUE and MOS:LEADIMAGE). I also don't see the point in placing that specific image there when it's already being used and discussed further down the article in its own dedicated section.
The Photo subpage was summarizing a vote that happened in 2005 (link). That's why I referred to it as decades-old. It wasn't just Baháʼí users who participated, though (if Geni is Baháʼí, then that's news to me). –MJLTalk 08:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a highly inappropriate comment with no legitimate reasoning. The lead image is used to represent a person and give visual aid. That is what MOS:LEADIMAGE is about. The image of Baháʼu'lláh is unique. A house that looks like any modern house won't be immediately recognized by nearly anyone unless you write it out that it's his shrine.
As for "shock value", I do not see the shock value in the image other than some people trying to impose their religious views. Most people won't bother. The same MOS:SHOCKVALUE says images with shock value are sometimes unavoidable. Not everyone follows Bahai rules. And I don't see how a picture of some person is supposed to cause shock to any rational mind.
You linked another section titled "Photo" earlier which had no consenus. The option of demoting it received votes for sure on another section called "Vote".
But all the admins except one named Geni who did not become an admin until December 2021 [4] on that vote supported the third option of leaving the image in the upper corner. There are 9 votes to keep it as it is and 8 to demote it in the article. So I don't see what problem you have with it other than it hurts religious sentiments.
I'm sorry but this censorship cannot be allowed because you or anyone else doesn't like it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MJL, how can SHOCKVALUE possibly apply to a routine photo of a man in the 19th century? . There is no gore, there is no nudity and there is no sexual activity. There is literally nothing controversial about the photo to any rational person. It is a simple photo of a man. The only people who could possibly be shocked are those caught up in this religious groups' idiosyncratic taboos. Why should we cater to them? Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Vote" section he linked is also in favour of keeping the image in the upper corner than demoting it by 9-8. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can also see that his image does not exist in the article Baháʼí Faith despite the fact that his son's image is there. He's literally the founder of this religion; why is his image not there? Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Roman Reigns Fanboy: I'm not a guy. –MJLTalk 18:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to have to agree with Cullen on this one--or more specifically, with the clear community consensus and policies he alludes to: we unambiguously have established community principles that we do not tailor factual content purely to cater to groups with particular philosophical or theological sensitivities--no matter how sincerely held, and no matter the exact nature of the particular belief, or how benign its adherents hold it to be. Once we start down that road, the entire enterprise of attempting to present neutral, open, and accurate content (and context in particular), becomes deeply damaged. And yes, absolutely there are principles of established editorial norms which local consensus cannot abrogate: that too is long-established community consensus. And I see enough here about potential concerns with gatekeeping to established this as more than a mere content issue and justify this staying on ANI for at least the moment. SnowRise let's rap 09:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328: There's nothing idiosyncratic about the beliefs of a religious minority numbering 5–8 million adherents. It's obviously not just a routine photograph. The only reason we have access to it is because a a Christian missionary wrote an anti-Baháʼí screed trying to discredit its foundations (that characterization is according to an actual review of the book published by the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society lest you think I am being dramatic). So yeah, it may be a bit shocking for members of this faith. Either way, I've said my piece here and do not want to talk about this further. –MJLTalk 18:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MJL: MOS:SHOCKVALUE does not cover everything you might get offended or shocked by. The idea of what images can be considered offensive is covered in MOS:OMIMG (MOS:SHOCKVALUE explicitly redirects to that policy). You are also misleading by omitting that image that is the lead isn't from a Christian missionary who wrote an anti-Bahai creed. It's actually from the Baháʼí World Centre itself. [5]. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case of many religious figures or even other people before photography was invented, it makes sense to not use a portrait or painting as a lead image when there is no accepted position on how that person actually looked and no one is sure of whether it's even accurate to how they were. But that is clearly not the case here. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Just noting that the 2005 coverage of the debate has already been posted. To me, as I came in mostly after and or missed the debate, this was a consensus and i supported it by way of restoring the picture when others deleted it outright from the page and the comparative few times people wanted it at the top. Now I'm being accused of deleting the picture when i did not. Hyperbole seems to be winning the day. There is a failing standard of civility in here as there has been in the past. People can take great license to do things with they think they are right that they would not otherwise. I'm just trying to support real, honest, consensus, and the policies of Gpedia, even if that changes. To me this has nothing to do with religious views. Smkolins (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Smkolins, if "consensus" rejects the inclusion of that image (while using multiple weak arguments that can be found elsewhere), then that consensus can be ignored. Consensus that somehow developed on a talk page many years ago does not override WP:NOTCENSORED. If you visit the article Muhammad, you can clearly see potentially objectionable material; that is how Gpedia normally operates, we don't remove material because of religious reasons. (I'm not saying you oppose WP:NOTCENSORED.) As for Talk:Baháʼu'lláh, you are welcome to voice your opinion in the latest section on that talk page. Cheers, — Nythar (💬-🎃) 11:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • To present my views clearly, consensus is not required to include that image. WP:NOTCENSORED exists for a reason and shifting that image to a different part of the article is a textbook example of censoring articles for religious reasons. Removing that image is simply disruptive editing. Those removing the image have had policy explained to them numerous times above and are therefore sufficiently informed. (Please note I am not referring to you specifically, Smkolins; I'm speaking generally.) Cheers, — Nythar (💬-🎃) 11:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As i clearly stated above, I restored the picture. Review the history of the article looking for instances of the picture being deleted and you will see myself and Cuñado and others in other periods systematically restoring the picture and acting in good faith to what the avowed experience was as we entered into working in wikipedia and now more than 15 years. All this talk of censorship, deleting the picture, and religious interference is ignoring the point that we ourselves constantly put the picture back and have been using good reliable sources as they have been produced and contributed responsibly. That needs to be well appreciated in this discourse. Smkolins (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw MOS:IMAGEQUALITY clearly states "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people." I don't see any argument for keeping the image out. Even the consensus some people keep referring to from 15 years ago was in favour of leaving the image in the upper corner, not demoting it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is an instruction to not include certain types of images (those with other people), obviously not an insistence that it is *necessary* to include an image. (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP is right. Case in point, see the article for Muhammad.
Either way, I think I've said enough. If people here want to go on this crusade to include this image, I've already made my objections known. –MJLTalk 18:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Mohammed comparison is invalid because nobody has any idea what he actually looked like, while in this case, we have a photo that shows quite clearly what Baháʼu'lláh looked like. "Crusade" is an inappropriate term with highly charged connotations. Yes, it is clear that you object, MJL, but your objections are not based on Gpedia's policies, guidelines or long-established best practices. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen, you've placed this comment in a subthread so that it appears that you are defending the (ridiculous) idea that MOS:IMAGEQUALITY mandates including a picture under certain circumstances, when in fact it proscribes including pictures under certain (different) circumstances. However one feels about other arguments in favor or against the picture, I think it would be good to clearly reject the particular bad argument offered at the beginning of this subthread. (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was responding to MJL, as can be seen by the fact that I pinged that editor. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ The policy clealry states should. So I don't see what circumstances you talk about. The part about "not including other people" is how the lead image should look like when pasting someone's photo. It is how a biography is supposed to begin. Yes it mandates, that's what a manual of style does. Also @MJL: the reason there is no portrait of Muhammad used is because there's no commonly accepted depiction that is considered as his representation [6]. Your anaology is highly flawed. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also MOS:LEADELEMENTS explicitly says the lead image should be relevant. The same MOS:LEADIMAGE is linked regarding what images should be linked where. It's not just for "certain circumstances" unlike what your claiming. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And actually, the Mohammed analogy is flawed in at least two other respects. First off, it is an WP:OTHERSTUFF statement at best, not an a priori argument for whether Baháʼu'lláh comports with policy and community consensus. Second off and more germane--and here I am going to slightly part with your interpretation as well, Cullen--the Mohammad article probably should have a lead image as well, if it were a simple matter of following our guidelines: yes, we don't know for sure what the man may have looked like, but that doesn't stop us from using images on the articles for the vast majority of his contemporaries for which we have historical depictions.
But I can well imagine why we don't have an image on that article: it would be a source of literally un-ending edit wars and talk page disruption. And, put plainly, it is even possible such edit conflicts on this particular article could raise to the level of threatened violence. Having had only tangential experience with that article in the past, I can only speculate, but I expect that the lack of an image there comes down to a pragmatic call on the part of the local editorial cohort, and probably a little bit of bias resulting from the fact that the number of (good faith) Muslim editors there is probably higher than on most any other article on the project. Let me re-emphasize that that is just a guess, though.
Now, believe me, I don't like saying that it is probable that some of our editors have likely been intimidated (by knowledge of the possible implications of their actions) away from placing a historical image on any article, even if I can understand and possibly even support that choice in a particular case. Nor do I like the latent implication of that conclusion that Bahá’ís are, in some sense, thus being penalized for having less of a reputation for militant extremism at the fringes of their religious establishment, relative to another religious group in a similarly-situated editorial context. But I like the idea of a spread of the notion of having content on articles discussing spiritual topics curtailed to capitulate to religious censorship even less. So it's really a least-ugly choice situation. Or put otherwise, another day on Gpedia. SnowRise let's rap 22:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Uninvolved comment Having read through this lengthy discussion, one thing appears clear: those arguing against the picture in the lead have no valid argument. For all the claims of some old "consensus", no such consensus has been shown (despite repeated requests). Furthermore, the argument advanced simply don't hold up. There is no shock value in this picture whatsoever. It would appear to it all boiling down to "it might hurt religious sensitivities". OK, but that's not a valid argument. Many articles here can hurt people's religious feelings, and that goes for all religions so no bias. We're not here to cater to religious censorship of articles. Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ^^^What Jeppiz said. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Amendment: I rechecked the vote User:MJL linked and I accidentally excluded a vote by HaeB because after reading his oppose vote I thought they was opposing the whole thing about hiding the picture. However while the vote may be 9-9, it is still a tie and not a consensus to hide the image. So the option of demoting the picture to the bottom still didn't have a consensus in its favour and users are clearly picking and choosing what they like instead of following any actual consensus. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:MJL has wrongly accused me of misgendering them again in the above comment. I was initially confused but soon realized their claims were wrong. Although I have edited the comment from earlier for correcting the number of votes I counted in the consensus, at no point did I misgender them in the above comment. I only called HaeB a "he" (I do that for anyone whose pronouns I don't know). I did call MJL as "he" earlier when I didn't know their gender, it's a force of habit as I call everyone whose gender I don't know as "he". It's not malevolent in any way. But regarding my latest reply above MJL is accusing me falsely of misgendering them again and made a sarcastic reply when I pointed it out [7]. They seem to be deliberately aggressive and rude. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Roman Reigns Fanboy: You should really start a new section about this. It's clearly a separate issue. (involved comment) –MJLTalk 20:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It concerns the same article and your behaviour on it. I don't see a need when it can attract the admins already involved here who can decide what to do. If you continue being more aggressive like you have been here too again [8], then I'd consider. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(uninvolved admin) the spat over misgendering seems like a non-issue. MJL's comments regarding it are well within the bounds of civility, and they acknowledged their error regarding the second alleged instance of misgendering. The belabored explanation regarding your use of "he" as a gender neutral pronoun is not covering you in glory; I would suggest you let this drop. signed, Rosguill talk 20:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not trying to cover myself in glory though but explaining why I used it. And they did accuse me wrongly. I don't see how their comments where they explicitly make the sarcastic comment about checking in with Cullen328 [9] (a dead giveaway that they're mocking that I'll complain), and mocking me earlier with "You're right. You only misgendered me once." [10] is civility. If more admins feel against it, I'll drop it. But MJL is clearly being hostile. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 1 December 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's because I know Cullen328 would've said the same thing as Rosguill. Just because I disagree with him in this thread's context doesn't mean I disrespect him or his opinions. (edit conflict)MJLTalk 20:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't predict someone's behaviour. And regardless that would make little sense regarding you making the statement smaller, which is a clear giveaway. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This line of discussion is clearly not productive. Yes, MJL erred in saying you misgendered them twice, and yes, I see no evidence that you did it even the first time in a malicious fashion (although you may want to rethink the practice of using "he" as your default on this project, imo), and yes MJL is being somewhat passive aggressive in how they acknowledged the mistake in the second instance. However, none of this rises anywhere near the level of something that is going to be considered actionable here, and in fact, I don't get the sense MJL is complaining in an obstructive, tendentious fashion. So this is all just muddying the waters on the actual editorial issues/behavioural complaints that might actually be of concern to this thread. And at this point, if you push it any further, you're going to clearly be perceived as the histrionic/unreasonable party here: I suggest you take the advice of un-inolved parties here and drop this matter unless MJL continues to engage upon it, which does not seem to be their intention if you're both on the same page about their preferred gender terms. SnowRise let's rap 21:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, it looks RRF was, if anything, mistergendering MJL. EEng 23:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Roman Reigns Fanboy: I passed RFA for the (first time) in 2004. What you are reading in the logs is me re-adding autopatrolled (it used to be automatic for admins). This needs to be settled on the article talk page. We're talking about initial events that are so old that they informed later policy. Something that old is very much eligible for re-opening unless perhaps it involves Gdańsk.©Geni (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Geni: There is already a consensus going on, on the talk page. The issue unfortunately didn't involve only content dispute, but dictating content solely over religious feelings. At least that's how I see it. Hence I complained. Even the consensus being cited is only a 9-9 tie. If involved admins decide it should be closed, then I have no problem. I'm not trying to endlessly argue. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Roman Reigns Fanboy started the ANI post without ever using the article talk page. This thread is pointless at this point and should be closed. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cuñado: I started this thread because the sole reason being used is religious sentiments. Sure not everyone opposing the picture may be Bahai, but they are solely doing it out of respecting the religion and the wishes of its followers. Nothing else. Complaining was appropriate and I do think the behaviour you and MJL have shown deserved banning. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You also refused to use the talk page and answer my concerns beyond saying on my page "it's not censorship" [11] after I contacted you to stop censoring [12]. All that was done beyond it by you and Smolkins was reverting. Had you actually tried a discussion, this would have been avoided and we would have taken this to talk page inevitably. I had asked you how it's not cesnorship after your comment [13], you refused to answer me anywhere. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cuñado, I disagree that this thread is altogether pointless, and I think you should be able to see from the community response above that this is not general impression. Roman Reigns Fanboy didn't exactly fall all over himself exhausting every form of dispute resolution before bringing the matter here, but he did at least reach out to you an explain his position that the image's exclusion is contrary to policy (if not in the most open-minded terms), and I agree with him that your response, which was little more than "Nuh-uh, is not!" is unsatisfactory, so I can understand why he was inclined to feel that talk page engagement might just be met with stonewalling (though he still should have tried, imo). And this impression is further supported by the fact that every uninvolved editor who has looked at the discussions that took place on that talk page previously concerning this matter has reached the conclusion that the assertion of a "consensus" is a false one.
All of that said... Is there some reason why neither side here has attempted to resolve this via WP:RfC? That would seem to be the obvious solution. SnowRise let's rap 23:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I felt what was happening needed to be heard by the admins, as it felt like a clear violation of rules to me. WP:CENSORSHIP and WP:NPOV. I agree RfC will be a good choice to finish this dispute. That said another user has already opened up a section to get consensus on the talk page. Should it be shut down with votes discarded or should the votes be factored into the RfC? Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this point just let the conversation play out. There will likely be a consensus there, and avoid the need for a full RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion is amazing. I reverted his initial change one time and haven't since. I responded to his ridiculous claim of censorship (on my talk page, BTW, not the article page). I civilly shared my preference to keep the status quo. The article has the image on top and I haven't opposed it. User:Roman Reigns Fanboy has been rude and accusatory and mischaracterized my intentions. Why are we still talking about this? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You didn't actually share any of your preference. You just stated that it's not censorship. If what you are doing something I believe falls within something, then I would be naturally accusing you of that. That's not rude. If I think a person is censoring, I will warn them and ask not to. After you replied without any explanation I asked politely for explaining how. I tried talking to you, but you refused to talk. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, not true. You claimed censorship when I was moving an image around on the page. That's not censorship. Censorship would be deleting the image, which happens all the time and I put it back on the page. I never refused to talk after that, you never started a conversation on the article's page, and it was not my revert that caused you to start this ANI. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not true. Censorship doesn't just mean deletion, although it is the most common definition. It also means to suppress something from public view. You are deliberately ensuring that most of the public won't see it. Also WP:NOTCENSORED redirects to HELP:NOSEE which is against hiding images in any form by editors. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yes your revert as well as refusing to talk was one of the causes, hence why I explicitly mentioned your name in the beginning. I knew that attempts at compromise would get stonewalled by you and others reverting as you are doing now. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AS I'M DOING NOW???? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your argument has been insistently about maintaing the same position on the photo. That too without offering any reason beyond offense to religious sentiments. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You also claimed nobody knows Bahaullah by his given name which is untrue. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Snow Rise: So what is this thread about? If it's about Cuñado then is there literally any evidence that user was acting in anything but good faith?
If the question is about whether a local consensus can override a global one, then we already know the answer. If it's about whether there ever was a local consensus at all, then I have to wonder why it matters. I've already presented evidence that one can at least argue there was.
My impression here is that any party involved in the actual content of the article at least believed there was. If there wasn't actually a local consensus, then what? Does it really matter if everyone involved was acting in good faith?
So what are we still doing here? What is there for the community to actually decide? –MJLTalk 00:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MJL, this entire thread began as a result of WP:CENSORSHIP and multiple-editor ownership of the article Baháʼu'lláh. (Please note I'm not accusing anyone specifically, so I won't provide evidence; let's just move on.) I think now this thread is becoming irrelevant, though. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 00:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I do completely believe in what I've said about censorship, NPOV and Cuñado not caring to discuss, I don't want to throw around more accusations like WP:OWNERSHIP. This thread does seem to be becoming pointless beyond arguments and counter-arguments over who did what and I don't think there's anything coming out of it as no admin is going to act. Better to close it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Forza bruta

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

 – Blocked 48 hours by Cullen328 Daniel Case (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forza bruta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above contributor has just posted this on my talk page: Stop your propaganda for communist dictators. You remove word "dictator" for communist criminals: Castro and Lenin were criminals. Forza bruta (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC) [14] This is in response to me reverting several of their posts, which consisted of removing the words 'dictator' and 'dictatorship' from the article on Fransesco Franco [15], and of adding it to articles on Vladimir Lenin [16] and Fidel Castro. [17] No attempt to justify the edits, no consideration of the broader context, just addition or removal of a few words. Nothing substantive as an edit summary. Just raw assertion regarding who is or isn't a 'dictator'. In articles that all discuss the nuances of such questions in considerably more detail.

I note that this is seems to be something of a pattern for Forza bruta, who back in September started a thread on WP:ANI [18] regarding a dispute over whether Josip Broz Tito should be described as a 'dictator' - a dispute where Forza bruta characterised another contributor as a 'stalker' and a 'hypocrite'. And again, showing what appears to be some sort of point-scoring or retaliation involving the removal of the term 'dictator' from an article on Mussolini. [19] It seems to me that Forza bruta regards Gpedia as some sort of arena for playground political article-tagging games, rather than an (attempted) encyclopaedia, and given their refusal to engage in substantive debate on such matters, it might well prove wise to consider topic-banning Forza bruta from articles concerning real or alleged dictators, real or alleged dictatorships , and probably politics of the last hundred years or so in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dictator is a commonly abused subjective label that should never be used in wikivoice, as established with the precedent for removing several incarnations of List of dictators and Category:Dictators. Based on this precedent, Forza bruta's labeling of certain heads of state as dictators is already problematic in itself, but their refusal to label Francisco Franco as a dictator suggests an ideological slant as well. Though, Franco's article shouldn't use the term dictator in wikivoice, as it currently does 10 times for Franco and 6 times for other governments. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 06:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a reasonable argument, though there are other perspectives on the matter. It has certainly been argued that (at least in his early years in power) Franco was a 'dictator' in formal legalistic terms, in a way that neither Stalin or even Hitler were, making it more than a 'subjective label'. That's a discussion for article talk pages though, and my objection to Forza bruta is based around an apparent refusal to use such things, or to admit the possibility that other people's opinions may be based on more subtle matters than their position on a political spectrum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- You called him a dictator, can't you be polite!? - I was being polite, that's why I added the "tator"! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made ANI because an user labeled me as "hypocrite". Regarding word "dictator" I request neutral POV in related introductions of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza bruta (talkcontribs) 18:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are better ways to 'request neutral POV' than by accusing people of making 'propaganda for communist dictators'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Daniel Case: None of the users in this thread are indefinitely blocked; Forza bruta received only a 2-day block that is now expired. In the meantime, I just received a statement by Forza at User_talk:LaundryPizza03#Dictator, complaining about other users who use the term dictator selectively:

I like your comment in page of ANI: the political abuse of label "dictator" by many editors is a flag of ideological slant by many accounts and this is huge problem regarding neutral version of articles about historical personages. I made several actions or edits in articles and related talk pages versus this kind of editors who have a blatant ideological slant regarding communist dictators: they remove sistematically label "dictator" near names of communist personages but they put same label "dictator" near names of fascist personages in maniacal manner! From this problematic situation I started several discussions with various users but I just want to find a friendly agreement with them, but it is a complicated operation via ANI for request of block versus my account for alleged accusations regarding silly facts.
— User:Forza bruta 23:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies; I probably read the block notice too superficially. Will amend note above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing users in iPhone SE (3rd generation) article

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

2607:FEA8:3D41:D700:AD6B:EE18:E346:101E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2607:FEA8:3D41:D700:B978:15F7:E9DC:CF5A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Iphone8fan (talk · contribs)

These users vandalized in iPhone SE (3rd generation) article and changed wrong name without reason regularly. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]Hajoon0102 💬 15:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've protected the article for a couple of days. Canterbury Tail talk 15:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, first of all we have to discuss if the name is correct. Secondly, a lot of people say different names for the iphone SE so in my opinion it is helpfull to discuss with the user
I hope it helps, Mr. Willaim 2806:267:148A:1517:753F:44CA:F0D9:F0DD (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You appear to be changing the name to "iPhone 8", which is very obviously a different device to the iPhone SE 3rd Generation. There is nothing to discuss here. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 22:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing other people's user page and personal attacks

GalantFan made this edit on User:Green547, a user who been inactive for 5 years. They restored an older version of their userpage and copied an old discussion this user had on a different page. They then added commentary at the bottom mocking Green547: "Look at this. ^ This guy claims he's "propagating truth", yet he's upset that most of Wiki editors oppose a celebrity famous for spending his entire adult life lying, cheating, stealing, and conning." GalantFan restored text on the Second Battle of Fallujah that Green547 had removed years ago. I reported GalantFan over a week ago: Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#GalantFan POV pushing and retaliatory reverts because of disruptive editing and I also suspected them of engaging in sockpuppetry: Gpedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GalantFan, but the dispute had since fizzled out. However, they continue to be disruptive and editing someone else's userpage in this manner with personal attacks is beyond inappropriate. GreenCows (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For someone who accuses others, incorrectly, of engaging in sockpuppetry, GreenCows, you sure seem very interested in Green547 and what I think about him.GalantFan (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @GalantFan: Don't screw around with other editor's user pages unless you have a POLICY-BASED reason to do so - I have reverted your changes. I have restored the stable version of Second Battle of Fallujah until your changes can be discussed on the article's talk page. If you suspect that GreenCows is a sockpuppet, please file a report on WP:SPI with your evidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am absolutely not the same user as Green547. That user isn't even blocked and what evidence is there? We both have Green in our usernames? And we have both edited the Second Battle of Fallujah?. Beyond My Ken, GalantFan also copied the text they added to the user page, including the personal attack, to to Green547's talk page and their own talk page. They also just made this edit again, seemingly mocking Green547. GreenCows (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You think it is a personal attack "mocking" that I simply illustrated irony? That seems a little strong for "This guy claims he's "propagating truth", yet he's upset that most of Wiki editors oppose a celebrity famous for spending his entire adult life lying, cheating, stealing, and conning."GalantFan (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt there is any solid evidence, but he sure makes similar edits on the same subjects.
My changes to the Fallujah article are well sourced, well organized, and accurate, unlike much of the info that was there.GalantFan (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @GalantFan: - I have no view on any content dispute that you are involved in. However, editing other editors' userpages without their express permission is not on. Trying to pick arguments with accounts that have not edited for over five years is pointless. It does not matter whether GreenCows and Green547 are the same person - policy allows for people to abandon one account and continue editing with another. I don't know why you are interested in Green547's editing, but I would advise you to lose interest in it going forward. Girth Summit (blether) 16:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is there any content I added to the Fallujah article that you find objectionable?GalantFan (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I said, I have no view on that, I have not looked at it - this noticeboard is here to address issues surrounding editors' conduct, not to resolve content disputes. Your conduct in this matter has been questionable - I don't know what you're trying to achieve, but it looks like trying to pick a fight with a long-dormant account. Whatever it is, knock it off. Girth Summit (blether) 16:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Speaking of editor's conduct, why is it that I am supposed to ask one particular editor for permission to make changes to an article he has previously edited? Nobody else has any objection to anything I wrote. GreenCows is apparently watching what I put on my own talk page, and other pages that he has never even edited on.GalantFan (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And speaking of editor's conduct, GreenCows is persistently doing the textbook definition of whitewashing_(censorship)
    glossing over or covering up vices, crimes or scandals or exonerating by means of a perfunctory investigation or biased presentation of data.
    Then he accuses me and other people of POV pushing when he does classic examples of it, using whitewashing as well as "expressions of doubt" (supposed, alleged)
    Then he accuses me of sockpuppet when it really looks like he has the same behavior, the same accusations, the same vocabulary as the old account which should not be named.GalantFan (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And he accuses me of edit warring when I spend hours reading and gathering good citations and he just comes along and reverts it all, or asks somebody else to revert it all, and tells me I'm supposed to see if he approves of something I write.GalantFan (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GalantFan, why did you revert Beyond My Ken when they have told you to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page and why are you responding to a 7 year old comment by Green547 when Girth Summit has just advised you to stop picking a fight with a long-dormant account? I actually think some of the changes you made to the article were good, while there were issues with other changes, and I would've been willing to discuss it on the article talk page. GreenCows (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean besides the fact that nobody objected to any of the content I added.
Since you claim not to be Green547, why did you make the misleading claim that the information I added to the article was what he deleted? How would you know what he deleted?
And no I most certainly did NOT "restored text ... that Green547 had removed". I wrote new content of what the controversies were and supported the content with good sources I found on google and other articles.
Whereas YOU deleted the fact that US forces fired DU and downplayed WP when THOSE ARE THE CONTROVERSIES.GalantFan (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What good is having a controversy section when whitewashers keep deleting the controversy or acting like it was no big deal?GalantFan (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take the discussion of the content of the article to the article's talk page. Don't bother trying to breathe life into discussions that trailed off years ago - nobody will read them. Start a new section if needs be. And drop the question of whether GreenCows is Green547 - there is no overlap in the dates of their editing, and the old account is under no editing restrictions, so there would be no policy-based reason why they couldn't have abandoned one account and created a new one. Just engage on the talk page with active accounts/discussions. (Somebody probably ought to set that talkpage up to auto-archive - there's no good reason to have years-old discussions on an active page.) Girth Summit (blether) 17:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How would GreenCows know what Green547 deleted? Eeesh, by looking at the edit history. Anyone can do that, and one would think that someone registered on Gpedia for fifteen years would know that. Ravenswing 22:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First all, GreenCows was completely incorrect that I merely restored what Green547 deleted. I spent hours finding sources and writing new content that improved the accuracy, as well as reviewing other wiki articles on related subjects.
Why would GreenCows care about what Green547 deleted?
How did GreenCows even notice what I wrote on my own talk page or Green547's when he had no reason to be watching either one?
And lastly, supposedly this had nothing to do with my Fallujah edit in the first place, which is the article that GreenCows was watching.
GalantFan (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before you go removing the controversies from the section titled Controversies, you should please open a topic on the talk page of WHY you think the controversies should be removed from the section titled Controversies.GalantFan (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Beyond My Ken: Nobody even has any interest in discussing the content of the article with me, except the guy who completely deleted the fact that US fired depleted uranium ammunition, and that civilians did in fact die from white phosphorus from an article about Fallujah. That's the guy you think I need to get permission to edit the article from. GalantFan (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I never said, and would never say, that you had to get permission from a specific editor. What I said was, that since you made a major change to an article, and it was disputed, you should therefore get a consensus for your changes from discussion with other editors on the article's talk page. This is Gpedia's S.O.P., please abide by it, and -- for your own sake - please follow what an admin told you above and drop your claims about GreenCows and Green547. If you keep it up, it will only lead to your being blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @GalantFan and GreenCows: You have both posted on my user talk page about this. Please do not do so again. This is the place where discussion about this disagreement should take place if it concerns editor behavior (the article talk page is where to discuss content) - I have no interest in expanding or prolonging this discussion onto my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beyond My Ken, once again, I apologise for commenting on your talk page. The main issue is GalantFan's behaviour as opposed to a content dispute and it's getting out of hand. I have made sure to be as civil as possible and not edit war. GalantFan hasn't done the same. I haven't even edited the Second Battle of Fallujah page in two weeks and the content that GalantFan has added is not the main issue. I opened this thread initially because they essentially vandalized another user's userpage with mocking commentary added which is so wildly inappropriate. I commented on Beyond My Ken's talk page about why I wasn't responding to every point GalantFan was making and for advice because it's very stressful dealing with a situation like this. GalantFan responded there with even more very uncivil and combative comments attacking me and false accusations as they have in this thread. They completely missed or ignored the point that their edits on the Fallujah article are not the main issue and it's other behavioural issues that are the key problem. They also falsely accused me of reverting all their edits on that article when I haven't edited the article in two weeks. They edit warred and reverted both BMK and GabberFlasted on that article and restored their favored version. They continued to falsely accuse me of being Green547 despite being told to stop by multiple editors including an admin Girth Summit. They have thrown so many blatantly false accusations at me and they have not listened to any other editors. This is really getting out of hand. GreenCows (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no edit war that you didn't create, nobody reverted any of my edits who you didn't ask them to. BMK and GabberFlasted have no complaint about the article if you would stop bringing it up.
If you actually wanted to make a discussion of the content of what I wrote, there isn't any need to revert me before doing it. If you want a talk page discussion about content, why haven't YOU made that discussion, before YOU make changes?
But frankly you are a big part of the reason the article section was so poor in the first place, as displayed by the edits you make here and elsewhere. You spend more time tearing content down than you do building it. And you don't see it in yourself but YOU are the POV pusher. WP:CIR
I admit I made a mistake in editing an abandoned user page. That mistake won't happen again.
GalantFan (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and speaking of you being civil, you ought to read this because it's totally you GalantFan (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GalantFan has opened up a thread on talk about the controversies section on Second Battle of Fallujah as Bonadea and others suggested which I would be willing to contribute to. As I said before, some of GalantFan's additions were good but there were major issues aswell. However, GalantFan has also started another section: Talk:Second Battle of Fallujah#Content removed from the article by GreenCows - disruptive?. The section title is false as I didn't remove the content in question. This section contains a list by GalantFan of either misleading or blatantly false accusations regarding me. They were even warned by Bonadea to "make very sure that you comment only on content and make no comments on your fellow editors". They continue to attack me and throw out false accusations about me. This is completely unacceptable.GreenCows (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wow, just wow GalantFan (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, "Wow", indeed. "Wow" that you posted about user behavior on an article talk page, where it has no business being. Here on AN/I is where user behavioral problems are discussed -- such as yours, for instance. It's good that you removed your comments about GreenCows from the article talk page, because if you hadn't, I'm pretty sure a proposal for sanctions against you would have been posted here. If you keep on your crusade against GC, then I'm certain that such a proposal will be posted here which will ask for you to be blocked in order to stop ongoing disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] GalantFan (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beyond My Ken, sanctions are definitely needed now to stop their disruptive behaviour. They have been given so many chances but they're continuing and have refused to listen and have taken almost zero account for their own disruptive behaviour. Their above posting a single diff of mine, without context, in response to you is a clear continuation of their crusade against me, as are their latest comments on the talk page at the Second Battle of Fallujah about "APPROVED WIKI CONTENT", which are clearly indirectly aimed at me and the other editors involved. They even posted on Bonadea's talk about the content of the article. Furthermore, they have also since deleted these discussions at Mexican-American War, incorrectly claiming to be archiving old discussions. This discussion between me, GalantFan, and CaptainEek was opened only two weeks ago and contains other instances of GalantFan's disruptive editing and is related to my first dispute with them. Curiously they didn't delete other older inactive discussions or the other section where they had copy pasted masses of text from another article. GreenCows (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've de-file-linked GalantFan's link to a gore image on Talk:Second Battle of Fallujah. I will AGF that he didn't intend to make the image so in-your-face (easy mistake with file link syntax), but the associated comment solidifies my impression that he's treating Gpedia as a battleground. I've blocked for one week for disruptive editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 11:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So, GalantFan embedded the gore image on his Talk page (after spending quite some time ranting about how unfair the block is), has explicitly refused to submit an unblock request, and tried to use a failed proposal from 2005 to argue he should be allow to embed the gore pic on his Talk page, after Tamzin changed it to a link.
    At this point, I don't think he's capable of understanding our policies & abiding by them, and he's just not here to edit collaboratively. I'd suggest upping his block to indef & removing talk page access, because we're just going to be right back here in a week with a full community-ban proposal when he starts editing again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I did just remove TPA for the continued battleground antics, but held off on the indef. For now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am obviously involved here, but I do want to say that I think GalantFan has the capability to be a positively productive editor here. Their behavior in this instance toward GreenCows has been far from ideal, and their -- I guess -- idealism has led them into serious battleground behavior, but if they can keep that under control, I think they can be a net asset. I would urge GalantFan to take a deep breath, and use their enforced WikiBreak to read some of the advice they've been given and take it seriously to change their attitude and way of working. Editors whose total focus is on aggressively WP:Righting great wrongs rarely do well here, but those that commit to working collaboratively and collegially can do a lot of good without receiving the blowback that comes with battleground behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandal IP

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

Unregistered IP is engaged in vandalism and harassing of genuine editors ([28], [29], [30]). MurrayGreshler (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that this edit, a comment by you on the IP's user talk page, is an uncivil personal attack on another editor, whether or not an IP. Whether or not the warning placed on your Talk page by the IP was constructive or valid, you are not permitted to address the IP in this fashion. General Ization Talk 04:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP in question has been described as "This is a long-term troll that indiscriminately reverts edits" by @User:Someone who's wrong on the internet. That's what this IP is. I don't take kindly to nor do I have time for harassment. If "WTF" and "jerk" are uncivil, then I apologize -- not to the IP but to WP. Fortunately, I was being restrained. MurrayGreshler (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edit on the IP's talk page was made a full 3 minutes before the comment by another editor on your Talk page about the IP being "a long-term troll". That being said, it is unlikely that the IP singled you out for harassment based on their other edits. I can appreciate your annoyance, but I'd encourage you to avoid making this kind of comment even when annoyed. General Ization Talk 05:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't think I was being singled out. The other editor confirmed that. I just felt the IP's actions should be sanctioned. I mean it is disconcerting to be abruptly accused of something then have to recheck your edits when you know you didn't intentionally do anything wrong. And almost intolerable to come from an unregistered IP. MurrayGreshler (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI I saw the WP:AIV report and blocked the IP as they were making apparently bad-faith edits including spurious warnings on other user's pages, before seeing this ANI report. I agree that the message on the IP's talk page was uncalled for and believe that whether the edits are from an IP or a registered account shouldn't make a big difference. -SpuriousQ (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said, I apologize for using terms like "WTF" (one of which I changed to "WTH") and "jerk". I would not wish to do anything that would reflect poorly on either WP or myself. I lost my cool. First time I ever used borderline bad words. It won't happen again. MurrayGreshler (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, no worries. I did not mean to direct my comment at you and sorry for sounding so. I was just explaining my block rationale while acknowledging the above discussion, and in particular documenting that unregistered IP vs registered user did not factor into the decision. Thank you for reporting. -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might want to consider a longer block or an open proxy check per this. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MurrayGreshler: The IP was a derp vandal, randomly reverts and warns for no reason. I agree that this is a very nasty sort of vandalism. I understand why you lost your cool. It's like having a group of people roaming through your neighbourhood smashing windows at random, and they happen to arbitrarily choose one of yours. From experience, it feels targeted (even if subconsciously), but it's just random senseless vandalism.
They may return to your talkpage, as they seem to like to go after editors who they've already interacted with. If so, just revert them (no need to warn them) and send them to AIV and explain that it's an LTA who reverts and warns at random. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mako001 -- thanks, again. MurrayGreshler (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MurrayGreshler - As General Ization stated above, you don't want to be making comments or messages toward anyone like this. :-) Think of it this way: Let's say that the IP user is 100% trying to be a troll and cause frustration and stress upon other users on Gpedia. By leaving the message that you did, you just gave them the "food" that they desparately crave and you just showed them that what they're doing is working. It only encourages them to continue at it. Remember: Don't feed the trolls. ;-)
On a serious note, I'm happy to see that you realized your mistake, admitted to it and owned up to it, that you understand, and that you committed to improving how you handle difficult situations like this moving forward. Honestly, I view you much more favorably as a Wikipedian for your responses here than unfavorably for the message you left - no joke! It takes a lot for someone to recognize their mistakes, own up to them publicly like you did, and use it as an opportunity to improve. You'd be surprised as to how many users on here absolutlely cannot and will not simply admit to being in the wrong with something, apologize, and promise to do better (actually following through is another matter lol). They instead resort to blaming others, pointing fingers, and insisting that they're not at fault - even when the evidence shows completely otherwise and when 15 other editors are trying to tell them so. It speaks highly of your character when I see how you reacted above, and I just wanted to commend you greatly for this. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New harassment

@General Ization Talk
@Someone who's wrong on the internet

OK. NOW, I AM Being Singled Out For Harassment by above-referenced IP now calling itself Dutch Seelen ([31]) undoing my edits without explanation. I am working by phone and cannot just revert so can someone block this creature indefinitely and rollback? Also, obviously related IP is also reverting my edits without explanation ([32]), which I have to manually re-revert as I am working by phone. This IP reverted 4 edits without explanation. Coincidentally, @FMSky, who had left me a message taking great umbrage at an edit I had made to one bio (changing Irish to Anglo-Irish), just happened to come by immediately after the IP vandalism in three out of the four instances (ignoring the vandalism but making further edits). MurrayGreshler (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The account is six years old, which makes this rather strange; I guess the account has been compromised and have blocked it from editing. Please do not refer to other editors, including vandals, as "creature"s in this way though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP Range 114.122.13 -.-- further vandalism -- ROLLBACK requested

Subsequent to above, reverts of my edits by vandal IP from range 114.122.13-.-- ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37]).

Thanks. MurrayGreshler (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*@Someone who's wrong on the internet
Vandal is baaacck!!!!! Now using the username Hyacintha Dabney (see [38]). Please do ROLLBACK! Thanks. Sockpuppet has already been blocked indefinitely at AIV but it likely has more old dormant accounts so maybe all accounts created up to six years ago that are inactive/have been inactive until this week should be closed. The vandal wants the rangeblock lifted (see link below after "wannabe") so they may not have an indefinite supply of old dormant accounts. (I feel just like Avery Ryan on CSI: Cyber, LOL!) Also, vandal is a wannabe extortionist. MurrayGreshler (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MurrayGreshler - I've blocked the account, but can you provide evidence that this is a sock puppet or that they're evading the rangeblock made above? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oshwah: The latest incarnation (Hyacintha Dabney) was already blocked at ANI. All that's needed is for ROLLBACK. I don't know how but if someone wants to show me, I am willing to try to learn. The evidence of vandalism starts at [39]. Also, please read this. Do you think two separate vandals are following me? MurrayGreshler (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to draw attention to trolls. Just revert, report to AIV and be done with it. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is part of the problem. I edit by phone and can't revert hence my need for ROLLBACK. Even if I could, it would pbly lead to tit for tat. Besides, this particular vandal with its blatantly extortionate demands and six year old dormant accounts is NOT your garden variety vandal that can be so easily dispensed with, evidently. MurrayGreshler (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, certainly not if you keep providing entertainment value. Also I don't know what "I edit by phone and can't revert" is supposed to mean, I sometimes edit on my phone and it's certainly possible to revert -- maybe you should seek assistance at WP:TEAHOUSE or something. JBL (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JBL. Thanks for the suggestion. MurrayGreshler (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you need help reverting, see Help:Reverting. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Someone who's wrong on the internet, I will consult Reverting. MurrayGreshler (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Someone who's wrong on the internet, working like a charm. MurrayGreshler (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

My issue at hand is this user keeps removing a featuring artist on the article Dreamers. Even though, the artist is credited as a collaborator with the main artist, they don't want the featuring artist mentioned for whatever reason. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 01:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the official FIFA official website, this song is not a featured song. Read the article. In the first sentence of the article, it is a solo song sung by Jungkook and states that he collaborates with a Qatar singer just for the performance.
Here's what the official article says:
1.Dreamers, an inspirational song by Jung Kook of 21st century pop icons BTS, today becomes the latest FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ Official Soundtrack release, stoking excitement for the big kick-off.
2.Jung Kook, a member of 21st century pop icons BTS, is behind Dreamers, the new song released to mark the start of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™
3.The superstar will be joined by Qatari singer Fahad Al-Kubaisi for a performance of the song during the tournament’s Opening Ceremony on Sunday 20 November
refer to :
and refer to the official streaming services link
Don't ruin song credit. Dreamers111 (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+ You can check the song title and singer and song credit at the following streaming service site, etc.
<Dreamers [Music from the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 Official Soundtrack] - Jung Kook.>
1. spotify link :
2. apple music link :
3. itunes store link :
4. melon link:
5. genie link :
6. vibe link:
etc. Dreamers111 (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OP, you didn’t even try discussing this on the talk page. Instead you just templated this user and came to ANI? Totally inappropriate. Dreamers is trying to discuss the issue. Go to the talk page. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:5050:37C:A2A6:B7E5 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This appears to be a content dispute. Discuss it on the talk page according to Dispute resolution. It doesn't belong here. ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent editing against consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This IP user is attempting to place an external link on Andrew Anglin to Anglin's twitter account. This has been opposed by multiple editors for a number of reasons, including WP:NOSOCIAL.[40]

This same edit was attempted by similar IP, who was blocked for edit warring over this edit [41] Previously was attempting a similar external link edit to place a link to the daily stormer website, which is in the blocked sites list.

It would appear that this is the same user, and that they are WP:NOTHERE. ButlerBlog (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My position is that the Anglin twitter account link fulfills the two criteria stated under "official page" section in wiki external links page and is thus not subjected to the "no social media" rule.
Official links
An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:
The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Gpedia article.
The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided...
Anglin isn't notable for posting on Twitter. It's nothing but a link to social media, adding precisely nothing to encyclopaedic coverage of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The linked content primarily covers the area
As long as the content on Anglin twitter page primarily covers the area in which Anglin is famous for, that should be good enough. I feel that you are distorting the criteria. You are saying that the account ITSELF must be notable. I don't think such an interpretation is correct. Even if the account is completely unknown to anyone in this world, but it contains info on which the subject is famous for, that fulfills the criteria. The issue here is the CONTENT of the account and NOT whether the ACCOUNT is notable or not. Your claim that the account adds "precisely nothing to encyclopaedic coverage of the subject." This also appears to be totally at odds with the "official links" statement that "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself."

Your agurments completely goes against the statements and the spirit of the "official links" section. It is total distortion and fraudulent argument. (talk) 08:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gpedia is under no obligation to provide links to neo-Nazi conspiracy-theorist Twitter accounts. Anyone wanting encyclopaedic information on Anglin is unlikely to get it from him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you are admitting that your arguments are invalid and thus your objections cannot be sustained and my arguments that Anglin account is indeed exempted from the "no social media rule"? (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I am not 'admitting' anything. Learn to read. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If no one else has any objections, I am restoring the Anglin account to his wiki page. (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't his Wiki page, it is ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP user, you have not even tried to get a consensus on the article talk page in favour of including the link. That's where you need to discuss the article content. Do not edit war to restore it in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 08:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My arguments for adding the link is on the Anglin edit history page itself. I also tried to get consensus on talkpage. (talk) He made no coherent replies to my questions and suddenly started a conflict posting here and I was forced to come here and defend the edit. 08:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have been reverted by multiple people. Consensus is against you. Discuss on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They reverted me, yes that is true. But none of the people who reverted me could make any sort of argument against my claim that the link is valid under "official links" rules and is exempted from the "no social media" rule. They just revert at will with no effort to rebut my arguments. (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FTR, you don't get consensus by discussing things on a user's talk page. You need(ed) to discuss it on the article's talk page. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When our article Andrew Anglin describes this person as a neo-Nazi, we are being far too kind. Anglin is an overt and proud Nazi who advocates for the extermination of all Jews, including me, my wife, our sons and my beautiful five year old granddaughter. He is a overtly vehement racist and sexist who advocates for the destruction of democracy and for an authoritarian dictatorship. His publication The Daily Stormer emulates the crudest and most disgusting Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer. The fact that this criminal is even on Twitter is sadly illuminating. It would be crazy of us to link to the Twitter feed of an overt advocate of mass murder. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure about Anglin's past deeds. I only began aware of the guy for a few weeks. My question is whether the Anglin account is valid or not valid, does it violate any wiki rules or not? If there are no legitimate wiki rules violations, the link should be restored. Otherwise what are the wiki rules for? (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Past deeds? What utter bullshit. I think this is industrial strength trolling when most editors are asleep. WP:NONAZIS Cullen328 (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. It would beg the question of "Why do you give a damn about this article if you don't know anything about the subject?" if we wanted to feed the trolls any further. Ravenswing 11:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(after edit conflicts) I note that you have posted nothing on the article talk page. Without consensus there the link should not be included, per WP:NOCON. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Multiple people have removed the content so consensus is for the article not to include that information. At this point the only path to get it included would be to raise a WP:RFC on the Talk page. P.S. I do not believe that it would add to the article and if such a RfC is raised then I would !vote against including it. Gusfriend (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would the article fall under post 1992 DS sanctions? I was considering adding the notice to the talk page but wasn't sure. Gusfriend (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My final words: no consensus, no link. I'm off to listen to the Dead Kennedys... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless of who is right, the IP is definitely edit warring. To encourage them to follow the advice above to discuss on talk, I have semi-protected the article for three days. Let me know if further is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johnuniq: Let's see what happens, but the IP disruption goes back to at least September. It's pretty consistently ongoing and all the IPs involved appear to be the same SPA editor, so I would guess that something longer will be needed at some point, especially since there doesn't seem to be any significant amount of productive IP activity on the article. I'd actually suggest perhaps 3 months of semi-protection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johnuniq: I appreciate the semi-protection as I believe that is what is needed here, but I would agree with BMK that a longer term may be necessary. I had previously requested page protection via WP:RPP, and in good faith the responding administrator noted that the 2 IPs involved at that time were already blocked. However, those were short term blocks for 3RR violations, and this new different IP is evidently the same user. All three show a trend to SPA. Regardless, it has been and continues to be on my watchlist (and I believe it is in BMK's as well), so ultimately not much is going to slip by. I'm just looking to be preemptive based on the recent history. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure more will be needed. Ping me when that occurs and more will happen although I might be slow. I'm getting jaded and would be inclined to block IPs or new accounts like this for six months minimum but a ridiculous (IMHO) amount of AGF is the norm. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Hopefully, it won't come to that. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Requesting block of User:LNPH as WP:NOTHERE. I warned: [42] them about SOAPBOXING: [43] on Talk:Paris Peace Accords, but they ignored my warning and have continued to SOAPBOX there: [44] and [45]. In addition has made POV pushing unreffed edits here: [46] and SOAPBOXing on the Talk Page here: [47] Mztourist (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editor, personal attacks.

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

Per [48], [49], [50] and [51]. This user has persistently engaged in personal attacks against a user he disagrees with, and is just the latest in a long line of controversial users on that page. Does this seem like a user who is on here to WP:BUILDWP? Wareno (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well... publicly accusing another user of sockpuppetry in the article's talk page simply based on your assumptions isn't a good way to de-escalate tensions. And such an accusation without solid evidence is a form of personal attack in itself. Based on your suspicion, opening an SPI as you did is fine, but don't toss out public accusations based on assumptions since those can turn out to be quite wrong, and that only serves raise tensions. There does seem to be a language barrier issue, which would be WP:CIR. But some of the escalation on this issue appears to be self-inflicted. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot to mention this edit [52]. I take it you think nothing of commencing activity on Gpedia by accusing another editor of being biased, a nationalist and a vandal and demanding that a previous - very inadequate - version be reinstated? And I'll have you know I not only very much maintain my suspicion, but my request as well. Wareno (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said nothing of the sort. Having suspicions about users is fine. Publicly airing them on the article's talk page when they are merely suspicions isn't. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really, I "publicly voiced my suspicions" that a recently created account who began his activity by calling me a biased vandal and a nationalist is a sockpuppet? Thanks for the heads up for as much as that's worth, perhaps I was indeed too patient for not having reported him already. Wareno (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Wareno: per the red banner at the top of this page you should have notified the editor about this ANI; I have done so for you.
To be clear, Theguywholearnhistory's first edit was to start a thread at the teahouse called Need help with biased editing of a article about Battle Of benadir, and their third edit started off by stating that this article has been vandalized by a Portuguese nationalist. Wareno was only pinged to the page a day later by Colonestarrice (who was there responding to Theguywholearnhistory's edit request), after Theguywholearnhistory had made clear that the person who i suppose did it is "Wareno" He has been warned for vandalism before on the battle of sincouwaan. [...] He has changed this article many times to manipulate history of what actually happened. I am very sure of this guy vandalizing this.
Theguywholearnhistory also said that they are very new to using wikipedia and that they looked at this article 1 month ago and it was very much different and with better detailed proof and references. The revision they happened to see and have asked now to be reinstated through an edit request was one that an LTA has been trying to push into the article through countless socks [53] vs [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]. Despite this, for various reasons SPI has now made it clear that Theguywholearnhistory is probably not this sockmaster.
I think the best solution going forward is to try and have a civil and productive discussion about the disputed content. In particular, the word 'vandalism' has a very specific meaning here on Gpedia (please read Gpedia:Vandalism) and should never be used outside of this context. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 13:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would recommend actually reading the "disputed" content with supposedly "better detailed proof and references", and it should make things clear. Does it not seem strange that someone who is supposedly "very new using wikipedia" just so happens to have a rather broad background knowledge about another user he's supposedly never met and the articles he has edited elsewhere on Gpedia a long time ago? Which he uses to direct personal attacks? This whole situation is frankly ridiculous, this sort of behaviour is unfortunately more than common among barely-created accounts who wish to alter that page, which is protected for this very reason, and users have been blocked for far, far less as we can see here. A supposedly "new user" whose first activity is to direct personal attacks at another user he's supposedly "never met", yet he hasn't already been blocked for WP:NOTHERE, WP:PERSONAL, WP:DISRUPTIVE, business as usual? I'd like to ping @Oshwah: because he happens to already be familiar with the activities on this page from a while back, in the hopes this issue will be speedily resolved and done with. Wareno (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wareno: ANI is for behavioral issues, not content disputes, so you can leave out all of the I would recommend actually reading the "disputed" content with supposedly "better detailed proof and references" stuff. While I am in no way excusing anything said or done by the Theguywholearnhistory, another editor's behavior is not an excuse for you to respond in kind - period. You need to start with AFG that their indication they were new was truthful and thus certain policies such as user conduct may need to be pointed out. Dragging it into ANI should be a last resort after an actual attempt has been made to de-escalate the tensions and you have made no effort to do so. Your very first engagement was to threaten to drag it into ANI and accuse them of sockpuppetry without evidence: [61]. Your own actions are also under scrutiny when you bring it here (WP:BOOMERANG) and some of your responses fall under guidelines you're suggesting they be blocked for. Seriously, do some introspection, read WP:RTI and WP:CIVIL, especially the section on dealing with incivility (and I mean really read it) and spend some time reflecting on that. (It wouldn't hurt to familiarize yourself with WP:ANIADVICE, too.) Had you followed some of those guidelines, you might have been able to avoid all of this. As Apaugasma noted, your best course of action is to start by trying to work out the content issues with Theguywholearnhistory, focused on content not behavior. If they say something you deem to be incivility, point it out gently (AGF). Make an actual effort to de-escalate the tensions and try to move forward. If the other user is truly WP:NOTHERE, that will actually become evident. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Your best course of action is to start by trying to work out the issues with the account which started its activity by directing insults at you in very poor English, demanding that very inadequate edits also in very poor English be reinstated again, in the page that's been plagued by persistent vandalism for years since it's inception". You know what, thanks for the advice but you obviously haven't looked into the issue you're trying to pass judgement on. Have a good day. Wareno (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that Wareno has a point about actually reading the disputed content. When comparing the current revision [62] with the revision proposed by Theguywholearnhistory [63] (cf. [64]), the proposed revision does in fact read like a tendentious mirror-universe fantasy. Content is important, and egregious violations of content policy should not be tolerated. If the proposed revision turns out to be what it looks like, it would be valid to ask whether Theguywholearnhistory has the right competencies and/or mindset to build an encyclopedia.
But of course, that has to turn out first. Where I agree with ButlerBlog is that the way to deal with this is patience and waiting it out, not by throwing AGF out of the window and refusing to engage in civil discussion. Users who are truly NOTHERE always reveal themselves as such in the mid to long term. Talk about what sources are saying what for a bit on the talk page (literal quotes work well!), and see where that gets you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 18:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I absolutely agree that there is a WP:CIR issue here regarding Theguywholearnhistory - FTR, that's something I noted at the very beginning, when I read the edits in question. ;-)ButlerBlog (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Michael60634

This user has repeated reverted a (perfectly reasonable) edit to Town. The first two times, he claimed (incorrectly) that this was "reverting vandalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the history of IP vandalism, I don't blame them for classifying the removal as vandalism. Per WP:BRD, the onus is on the IP editor to explain why the towns should not be mentioned by name. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are supposed to notify me if you open a WP:ANI discussion about me. You did not. What you did do is send me the "disruptive editor" template.

What I did was reverted an unjustified removal of content. If you read the article, it says "New Zealand's towns vary greatly in size and importance, ranging from small rural service centres to significant regional centres such as Blenheim and Taupō." You cannot claim that Blenheim and Taupō are notnotable and should not be included, while tat the same time he article quite literally says these towns are significant regional centres. Michael60634 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I applied pending changed to the article. The rest must be discussed at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User MaryKember1675

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

This user has a history of vandalising pages through many accounts, all of which have been blocked. She's back, through block evading, and has been doing what she's know on here for, vandalising pages. Many of her previous accounts were sockpuppets of an original account. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dipper Dalmatian - I've indefinitely blocked the account for disruptive editing, but my initial search of the articles edited by this user don't yield any that show a history of being vandalized by multiple accounts. How do you know that this account is a sock puppet? Who is this account a sock puppet of? Can you list the other accounts? What proof do you have that this account is a sock puppet? You need to provide evidence to support your accusations if you make them here or on other noticeboards. I would appreciate it if you could respond, elaborate, and provide evidence. :-) Thanks - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for blocking her. This is the original account of hers: User:Marykember. Here’s the link to a category showcasing all of the sock puppet accounts of the original account: Category:Gpedia sockpuppets of Marykember. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Can someone else please try to explain to User:Footwiks that they are not allowed to remove speedy deletion notices from pages they created[65][66][67]? Judging from that article, it may be time to consider whether they even have the necessary competence to write articles in English in the first place. Fram (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have deleted Shirt swapping per WP:G12 and left a note explaining why. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Footwiks normally means well, but I am unsure what went wrong exactly other than some copyvio, as I can't see those edits. But as for Shirt swapping, that happens a lot in football, could be a valid topic. No need to be so harsh on the guy. Govvy (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not? They don't understand about copyright, they apparently don't understand that they are not allowed to remove the deletion notice, and they write sentences like "Since this shirt swapping, facilitate shirt swapping in widely." That they mean well and that the topic may be valid doesn't change anything about their apparent lack of competence. Fram (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See e.g. the result of their recent edits here. They mean well, no one disputes this, but it looks to me as if their knowledge of English is somewhat insufficient. Fram (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think what Govvy means, and indeed WP:CIRNOT says directly, that we should strive to be as patient as possible and avoid hostility. I've left an explanation for why I deleted the article, and I'll respond to any follow-up questions from Footwiks as and when they arrive. There's no need to beat him up over it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not beating him up about the copyvio, but about his problematic contributions when they tried to add actual text (and not just facts and names in tables and so on). Feel free to inform then that "If poor English prevents an editor from writing comprehensible text directly in articles, they can instead post an edit request on the article talk page.". Perhaps they will understand this, although their lack of understanding of "Do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" makes this doubtful. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can be easy to miss the obvious sometimes, and when English is not your primary language that can be even-more-so. But Ritchie pretty much said above what I wanted to say. Govvy (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, administrator. I created Shirt swapping article. I used the source from [dailymail article].
So User Fram attached speedy deletion template as belows.
This article may meet Gpedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement(Copyvios report) of
I exchanged the source from dailymail article to South Korean newspaper article and removed the speedy deletion template.
I didn't know that we do no use dailymail article as source in Gpedia.
Did I do so wrong? I don't think so. Footwiks (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem isn't that you used the Daily Mail per se, it's that the text you put in the article was directly copied and pasted from it, and that's why it was deleted. It's not a question of "wrong" so much as Gpedia is a free encyclopedia, and by that we mean "free" as in "speech". I deleted the article purely because the text directly conflicted with our ethos of a free encyclopedia. As Govvy has said above, there's no reason we can't have an article on shirt swapping generally, but we can't use this plagiarised one. I hope that makes sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please explain my fault in detail.
(1) Using of dailymail source in article:
-> I didn't know that and I'll do not use dailymail source
(2) Poor English sentence?
-> I created article and about 10 minitues later, Fram attachched speedy deleiotion template. I didnt have plenty of time to polish the sentence.
Footwiks (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Footwiks It's none of these - it's because the page violated Gpedia's copyright policy. Please read User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios carefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... and Footwiks then proceeded to post a copyvio of the Daily Mail source to Ritchie's talk page[68]... Fram (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think that below sentence is copyvio of the Daily Mail source?
The 1931 association football match between the national teams of Fracne vs England is known to origin and In 1970 FIFA World Cup, Pelé and Bobby Moore swapped shirt. Since this shirt swapping, shirt swapping is spreaded widely.
South Korean newspaper also had same sentence.[1] Footwiks (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shirt swapping term. Is this plagiarism?
In sports, especailly association football, swap shirt is common tradition.
I thought Shirt swapping term is general term.
Please Check out FIFA website as swap shirt
Please Check out the videos as swap football shirt
Please check out NFL website
Dailymaill didn't invent Shirt swapping term.
If you think that Shirt swapping term is plagiarism
I can exchange article title as belows.
  • Jersey swap
  • Shirt exchange
  • Exchange of football shirt and so on.

Please check out my draft

Shirt swapping is long tradition in association football.

  • Origin

The 1931 association football match between the national teams of Fracne vs England is known to origin a In FIFA World Cup, at 1954 FIFA World Cup, shirt swapping begin first and Pelé and Bobby Moore swapped shirt in 1970 FIFA World Cup. Since this shirt swapping, shirt swapping is spreaded widely.[2]

  • Notable shirt swapping
Competition Matches Players Discription
1970 FIFA World Cup Group stage Brazil vs England Pelé Bobby Moore Triggerd general shirt swapping
2022 FIFA World Cup Round of 16 Brazil vs Australia Lionel Messi Cameron Devlin Shirt worn Lionel Messi's 1000th match[3]
  • Other sports

In National Football League, Players also swap shirts.[4]

  • References

According to your advice, I replaced the Daily Mail source. Shirt swapping is general term. All sentence have reliable source. I think that my draft don't have more Violaion of Gpedia's copyright policy. If my draft have Violaion of Gpedia's copyright policy, Please explain detail.

Footwiks (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Footwiks: Enough already, this isn't the place to post all of that. If you need help with football stuff goto WT:FOOTBALL. Regards. Govvy (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi, Govvy, If issue is notability and so on. I'll need help from Gpedia talk:WikiProject Football. But Fram attached speedy deletion template and Ritchie333 deleted my article.
    OK, My former article had copywright issue. But I corrected the problem according to your advice. Now Why do administrators look away?
    I'll get straight to the point. Do my draft have still violation of Gpedia's copyright policy? If you still look away. I think that my draft don't have problem and I'll create the article again. Footwiks (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing wrong with starting the article again in your user space or draft space, just avoid direct copying of anything. Always make sure you construct your own words. However, ANI is for serious issues that need addressing. For article content, you should consult the appropriate projects. Govvy (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, Thanks for your advice. Have a good day. Footwiks (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Footwiks, for the THIRD TIME, I deleted your article BECAUSE IT VIOLATED COPYRIGHT. Stop personally attacking me for things I did not do. I have rewritten the re-created Shirt swapping so it does not violate copyright, and in retrospect it would have been simpler if I'd have done this in the first place, as it would have avoided this lengthy ANI thread. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and harrassment

Three train station editors have recently shown up to harrass me, by changing the template colour scheme and using the bogus reason that template colours were wrong and then edit-warred to change them. I checked them under the contrast checker and seemed to ok. I've seen every colour scheme under sun while reviewing articles at NPP and AFC. This feels like harrassment to me. scope_creepTalk 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting, firstly, that none of us three was notified of this on our talk pages, but anyway... I think MOS:CONTRAST is a helpful link here. Face-smile.svg Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've sent the link. Garuda3, formely NemesisAT was following me about several months ago and deprodding articles I'd prodded. I feel its harrassment under the harrassment policy, specifically WP:HOUND. Its immensely disruptive. scope_creepTalk 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template:People of the German Rote Kapelle resistance group and Template:People of the Soviet Rote Drei resistance group are the other two templates involved. XAM2175 (T) 19:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also surprised that scope_creep has now reverted the edits (not the issue at hand but I think that's gone over WP:3RR), even after 3 editors disagree based on core WP policy, whilst the discussion here is ongoing. See, e.g., here. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reviewed about 30-50 articles this morning and been doing since August. Every combination of colour in the html colour palette is being used. All colours. I've not seen any kind of gnomish work where the template colour have been changed back to the defaults, nor have I seen any WikiProject nor have I read any kind of research in the last 2 years that indicate that readers are having trouble reading Gpedia templates. More so, I ran the template the under the contrast checker, and none of the colours as particularly bad. Yet, three seemingly independent editors, all train folk turn up at the same time to warn me the template colours are wrong, to support each other. It seems weird. It seems they're collaborating. Its WP:HOUNDING. scope_creepTalk 20:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re the accusation of hounding: I discovered the issue with the template when I happened upon it in use at Wilhelm Tranow. Upon finding it was Scope_creep who made the colour change, I checked to see if they had done it in other places too – something explicitly permitted by the WP:HOUNDING policy. I did not canvass for any support so I cannot suggest how @Mattdaviesfsic or @Garuda3 happened to become involved, other than to say that it's possible that one or both of them watch my talk page and so became aware of the dispute when you made a post there.
The other arguments are addressed in my posts on their talk page. XAM2175 (T) 21:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeez, Don't edit war over the colour of templates. I don't really care who's right and who's wrong over this, but Scope_creep, if you make one more revert on Template:German signal intelligence organisations before and during World War II, you can be expected to be blocked per policy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ritchie333: With respect, the last line of that essay – There's one caveat: colour contrast is of particular importance to people with poor vision, including those who are colourblind. Please preserve the accessibility of Gpedia, per the colour guideline – is the exact issue at hand here. I don't appreciate the apparent implication that I bear some responsibility in this for being a time-waster. XAM2175 (T) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's really scope_creep who I think is in the wrong here; going up to to the line of 3RR and making unfounded allegations of harassment. In your case, I can see you made an argument for why you changed the template on a talk page, and stopped reverting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. XAM2175 (T) 21:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hounding is a very unpleasant form of harassment, and not something I would be willing to ignore; however, while this report mentions some issues with Garuda3 in the past, no links are provided, and there is no mention of past issues with the other two editors. Unless this is a pattern of behaviour, I don't think that hounding applies. Perhaps wait and see whether they persist? As an aside, I'd say that the current version of that template is exceedingly difficult to read. The blue hyperlinked text is very similar to the blue background colour. I have exceptionally good vision (or I did when I was a young man - haven't been tested for a few years now), and I have to squint at the screen to read it. With apologies to Scope creep, I have to say that I think the change is a substantial improvement. Girth Summit (blether) 20:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The same problem exists at these other templates edited by Scope_creep. I'm reluctant to edit them myself now.
    The latter also has a MOS:DECADES problem with possessive apostrophes. XAM2175 (T) 23:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Non-administrator comment) I agree with Girth Summit here, as well as the other editors who had concerns about the template header colors. I also feel that this is a fairly trivial matter to report to ANI, especially when the editors reported, to my knowledge, have only expressed their concerns regarding color contrast in good faith. Regarding Scope_creep's statement that There is every colour under the sun on Gpedia, that response is completely inappropriate when someone comes to you expressing policy-based concerns regarding color choice and contrast (not just "muhhh color ugly"). XtraJovial (talkcontribs) 22:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hounding, or the feeling of being hounded, is not trivial, and it is not inappropriate to bring concerns like that here. I do not feel that the evidence presented here is sufficient to substantiate that accusation, but let's not pile onto the OP who is obviously feeling got at. I see that XtraJovial is another member of WP:TRAINS, mentioned in the original posting; I am sure that this is innocent, but I can understand why the OP might be feeling that there is collusion when so many editors from the same project decide to chime in with one another on the same subject. Girth Summit (blether) 22:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another (Non-administrator comment). I had to revert the German signal intelligence template because, well, the second word in the header was blue on blue and, hence, invisible. @Scope creep:, please note the WP:3RR policy you'd be in violation of with your next reversion of said template. Seasider53 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    100% agree the blue on blue is very difficult to read. I say that as someone with 20/10 vision (slightly better than average). It's just a difficult issue of color discrimination per MOS:CONTRAST. I changed the above templates to the default style. — Shibbolethink ( ) 23:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While I'm far from an expert on accessibility I have to agree that the older version was hard to read. If it passed some the contrast checker test, this is perhaps a good time to remember that automated tools are often imperfect and can miss stuff that is still a problem. You can probably mostly ignore the problem of false positives since it's difficult to be sure it's a false positive unless you have studied this stuff in detail to be sure about the interaction of the myriad of devices with the myriad of different vision limitations. But if someone says that something is a problem despite passing the test, you really should engage with this editor. I'd also note that these tools need to be used correctly. The problem with this template seems to be with links and it doesn't look like the link colour is defined by the template, I assume it's the default for the skin used or whatever. So any test would need to consider these links colour. Finally remember per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST we have a lot of problems all over including MOS:ACCESSIBILITY violations. These are unfortunate but their exist shouldn't be taken as a reasont o continue to violate accessibility guidelines elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I tested the link text in the WebAIM contrast checker with both the old default colour #0645AD, and the new slightly-different one (#3366CC) used in the Vector skin, and both returned contrast ratios of less than 1.8:1 (when WCAG AAA specifies a minimum of 4.5:1 for large text and 7:1 for small).
    I notice now that Scope_creep has removed the messages from his talk page describing them as "disruptive", and has left a comment below here that includes White on blue is extremely easy to read, both of which suggest that they are very unwilling to actually engage with the discussion given that it's been mentioned several times now that the problem is the blue-on-blue text. XAM2175 (T) 10:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Last year or the beginning of this year, Garuda3 formerly NemesisAT, tried to get me blocked for edit warring. I would like interaction ban on this editor as I don't want him near me or on the talk page. He is disruptive and is harrassing me. It is a continual hassle with this editor. These article that use these templates have been comprehensively edited for copyedit and not once has this problem come up, in the many years that these articles have existed. The reason I changed them in the first places is that don't have good eyesight. White on blue is extremely easy to read. scope_creepTalk 09:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Last year or the beginning of this year, Garuda3 formerly NemesisAT, tried to get me blocked for edit warring." That would be Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive444#User:Scope creep reported by User:NemesisAT (Result: Warned) where you were warned by EdJohnston that you had violated 3RR on Interlake Maritime Services, and the only reason you were not blocked is that the issue was stale. This came after Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Interlake Maritime Services, which you started with the (IMHO) weak rationale "Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP" and which was closed as "Keep" despite your attempts to bludgeon those who disagreed with you. Do not accuse any more editors of harassment without hard evidence (ie: diffs) or they may be considered personal attacks and sanctioned accordingly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Garuda3's habit of deprodding and contesting any attempts to deal with non-notable train articles is a massive pain, but I'm not sure that rises to the point of being sanctionable. This editor makes a habit of deproding anything that gets PRODed, to the point it drives NPPers crazy. But PRODs can be removed for any reason, even if it's a stupid reason. I don't see what there is for ANI to do here. Garuda3 has little understanding of notability, but again that isn't inherently sanctionable, just annoying. There have been some previous ANI discussions about Garuda3, including one where an editor attempted to get an interaction ban with them. I'd have to spend some time digging to find those threads. But if you think Garuda3 saying Just revert all these ugly navboxes back to the default colours IMO. That resolevs the problem and will make them easier to read. is harassment, I don't know what to tell you. I am NOT a fan of Garuda3, again, but as far as I can tell they've done nothing wrong here.
    If you believe Garuda3's conduct in the deletion areas is an issue (and you might find some agreement on that point from me), then start a thread about that issue. And please don't group everyone under the banner "train station editors". I routinely edit such articles and my views are quite different than some of the users mentioned. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's also Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#User:Scope_creep Revenge and disruptive editing for which scope_creep got an indefinite block for harassment (that was rescinded after an apology). Scope_creep, I genuinely do not understand why someone with your level of skill and experience is choosing this particular hill to die on. It makes no sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Re-reading what I wrote, I think it was misinterpreted. I was referring to all navboxes, as in, I think it may be best to get rid of custom colours for navboxes altogether. I didn't mean to specifically pick on these particular navboxes. Anyway, I'm sorry for the upset caused. I had scope creep's user talk page on my watchlist as we spoke previously but I have now removed it. Garuda3 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I second Scope_creep, I genuinely do not understand why someone with your level of skill and experience is choosing this particular hill to die on. It makes no sense.. As with all accessability issues, if someone raises a legitimate concern that a particular format is causing problems and remedying the concern won't cause problems or take a disproportionate effort, we should make the change regardless of whether it's explicitly spelled out in MOS:ACCESS—since it isn't going to have any negative impact on any reader and will potentially help some readers, it should be a complete no-brainer. I don't understand how there's even an argument here. ‑ Iridescent 06:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

 – User indefinitely blocked as VOA by Bbb23 Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See their contributions  // Timothy :: talk  20:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next time, take this to WP:AIV where summary reports are appropriate. I've indeffed the user as VOA.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP User:

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

 – IP editor blocked 31 hours, edit summary revdel'ed and sock blocked Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: referring to editors as 'Ultra nationalist wankers' [[69]] (while deleting properly sourced content), and then came to my talk page to accuse me of 'Returning edits of fascists.' [[70]], after being informed of WP:AGF. Not acceptable! JeffUK (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked 31 hours, and revdel'd that edit summary. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, bad words are not accepted in Gpedia because people from all ages see this. We all know that this isn't the next time he will do this since Jeff did not do anything rather than help. If with 2 incidents you are getting a ban, and getting political because you are from Baku that is a dictatorship we have some suspicions to believe that you not are an individual, but more as an organization. You were also editing the Armenian-Azerbaijani war article with the other account, and that is a delicate subject since you are Azerbaijani. I don't want to offend anybody, but I just want to tell you what I discovered, and the next time you offend or make disruptive editing, you will be permanently banned. If you are not an organization please continue to edit responsably.
I hope this helps, William Specter. Williamspecter (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above account was created 58 minutes ago, and this is the only edit they've made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see why William's edit here needs to be hidden. I've indeffed the accoount.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TPA revocation

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

 – Talk page access revoked by Seddon Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need an administrator to please revoke this user's TPA; continuous personal attacks and the like. Thank you. Nythar (💬-❄️) 02:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see a problem. It's not unreasonable that a blocked IP would vent a little and would respond to repeated comments made at their talk. Let's see if there is a problem if they are left alone. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've TPA'd but generally I'd advise you in these situations to avoid continued engagement as its unlikely to lead to deescalation. Seddon talk 02:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism on Visa Inc. by many, many (almost certainly connected) IP editors

I'm not going to list all of them, because there are so many, but you can pull up the article's revision history and see for yourself. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) All IPs involved are in the range 2601:249:9381:5a80::/64. It has been blocked for 2 weeks. — B. L. I. R. 04:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:

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

Can someone please revoke TPA from this IP. IP keeps making threats and personal attacks. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. Please see WP:EMERGENCY if you believe it rises to that level. I don't, I think this is run-of-the-mill edgelord trolling. --Yamla (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s what I thought too. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maliner false information

This is a continuation of Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114, where I reported User:Maliner's problematic editing which involved spreading false information by using unrelated and dubious sources. User:Inomyabcs very kindly attempted to resolve the situation on the article's talk page, but whilst the discussion continues to happen, Maliner continues to add false information in the article. I don't want to start an edit war again, but it's shocking that action is not being taken against Maliner's edits. It's clear that he isn't open to discussion and does not want to admit that he is connecting two different things to alter the reality of a concept. SalamAlayka (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can anyone please check the presented sources in article's text, this user's is not following the wikipedia guidelines of reliable sources and pushing his or her own original research. Maliner (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and may I know who has given you the authority to designate me with the pronoun "he". Maliner (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have a different preferred pronoun? It can be a bit tough to tell around here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I always use they as a non-specific pronoun, it's how I was brought up. Was always taught to never use a gender specific pronoun unless the usage of that is actually important to the point being made, which it very rarely is. Canterbury Tail talk 15:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably the best way to go, and I try to do the same, but I am old enough that sometimes I slip into old habits. Always happy to be corrected, though. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is polite to use the user’s preferred pronoun if you know what it is. I installed User:BrandonXLF/ShowUserGender, which shows that next to the username in conversations. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(blinks) There aren't many people out there young enough to be raised to use non-specific pronouns; it's a quite recent practice. Calling people what they ask you to call them is the way to go, of course, but the hostility of Maliner's response doesn't precisely allay the worries raised by the OP. (That aside, I'm raising an eyebrow over a newbie editor with just 52 mainspace edits declaring themselves a recent changes patroller.) Ravenswing 18:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been pretty common in British English, and local varieties under that, for a few centuries. It seems like it's mostly American English and Canadian English that's having a growth period over it. Unless the gender is important to the point, use they as a singular pronoun. Unconnected to self-identification which is where all varieties of English are experiencing a change and growth. Canterbury Tail talk 20:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: @Bbb23: @JayBeeEll: @Phil Bridger: @Yngvadottir: Essentially what is going on here is that Maliner wants to present the Barelvi subsect as being equivalent to, or being the authentic form of, Sunni Islam (known in Arabic as Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l-Jamā'ah). For an analogy, think of the Church of England and wider Protestantism. The evidence of this can be seen in the talk page where he suggests that the Barelvi article be rename to the latter (which is just the name of Sunni Islam in Arabic). This is a very dishonest approach from Maliner as anyone that can do basic research on such a topic will release that there are a wide variety of movements under Sunni Islam. The Barelvi movement is mostly limited to India and Pakistan, with an extensive diaspora community. However, Maliner adds information to the article using sources which mention the term Ahl as-Sunnah wa'l-Jamā'ah since he considers it to be the same as the Barelvi movement. This is like an "Our movement is right, all the others are wrong" sort of idea which is dangerous to the neutrality of Gpedia. SalamAlayka (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user has again started removing well sourced content from Barelvi. Can admin help in this bad behaviour. Maliner (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maliner: Myself and two other editors have agreed that your paragraph is not relevant and is too generic. The removal of such content is not vandalism, and I urge you to stop this edit war. SalamAlayka (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion is still going and you are repeatedly removing the content. This show your bad faith intentions to vandalize Gpedia. Your actions are under moderation now as you are on ANI now. None of the participants is satisfied with your behavior per talk:Barelvi. Maliner (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Chrma626 and User:45mml.23 on Article Baccarat (company)

I do not know if this is the correct place for this discussion. However, these 2 users have been frequently edit warring on this article since October 2022. With Chrma claiming 45mml is a paid editor for Baccarat. (Revision 1126098293), with 45mml claiming that Chrma is violating community and copyright guidelines. This has continued and is still occurring.

Proposal: A PB on both of these editors, either for a temporary or permanent amount of time on this specific article to prevent further incidents. Alternative: Attempt to resolve the situation between the editors, such as finding an alternative source for one of their claims.

Im unsure what the best method to resolve this is. I do not see any evidence that Baccarat is a paid editor, However I also do not see any evidence that Chrma is violating guidelines.

Once again, I am unsure if this is the correct place for this discussion, but I am posting it here regardless. I hope we can resolve this situation calmly. Cheers. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hasan-aga (talk · contribs) personal attacks + edit warring

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

This user on Turkish War of Independence calls me Turkish racial supremacist and not me only another one damn Turkish nationalists are racist pigs worse than Hitler some other user. Also So I will keep changing it, and I have the right to do so. Deal with that! on another article. Beshogur (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hasan-aga has called Beshogur a Turkish racial supremacist in this edit summary. I report him myself so Beshogur is left in peace. I believe a stern warning by an Admin would be appropriate, even a hefty block. To call one a racist supremacist is just not the wikipedia spirit.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ups, Beshogur was faster and also with additional diffs. Thanks Beshogur. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, in an edit summary in October this editor called another editor a "Turco-Nazi pig". I have blocked Hasan-aga for one week for personal attacks and harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Iathien & Talk:Mediterranean Sea,

User:Iathien seems to have a problem with Turkey being mentioned in areas they consider purely Greek, see Talk:Mediterranean Sea & Talk:Mediterranean Sea. The editor seems to be Greek and is fighting the Greek/Turkey dispute on these pages. I think it is likely breaching WP:NPOV as well as being tedious. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kitchen Knife, you have yourself levelled personal attacks against other editors in the talk page threads you are referring to. I am not saying that Iathien's conduct has been acceptable - it has not - but yours is also seriously substandard. I don't have a view on the content dispute that is at the heart of this, but you need to take a look at your own behaviour here, regardless of who is right and who is wrong on the content. Girth Summit (blether) 22:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I suggest you put a complaint in about me, rather than use this one to vent your pent-up anger.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not an ideal response. I thought the username was familiar - I realise that I blocked Kitchen Knife myself for personal attacks earlier this year. Since then, they have been blocked again in November for PAs, and had TPA revoked for abuse of their talk page while blocked, and their fifth edit after that block expired was to call another editor a ridiculous and laughable Greek Propagandist, who cannot even read a map. Since they seem not to understand what the problem is, I have blocked Kitchen Knife indefinitely. I currently have no view on whether any action is needed with regard to Iathien: they certainly seem to be casting aspersions about other editors inappropriately, but the account has very few edits so this might be down to inexperience. Girth Summit (blether) 22:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's quasi-moot since your block, but you're not an ANI rookie, and you have no excuse for not understanding how ANI works. Any participant is liable to have their own record reviewed and questioned, and no participant gets to dictate what is or is not discussed. Ravenswing 23:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The OP has been indef with TPA revoked for continued harassment and combative editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not need militant, aggressive nationalists of any nationality on this encyclopedia. I would happily block three Greeks and three Turks, and an Armenian, an Azerbaijani. a Kurd, a Syrian and an Israeli too. Even an American or a Mexican. Oh, a Pakistani and an Indian too. Edit neutrally and calmly, collaborating and building consensus with people witn different views, or you are going to get blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:

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

Wondering if someone can elevate this block, IP continues to only add an unblock request with an attack made towards Cluebot. Izzy MoonyHi new friend! 04:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Izzy Moony: It's already been addressed. General Ization Talk 04:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Spilia4; POV-pushing; Not assuming good faith; inappropriate, retaliatory templates

While editing Carey Price tonight, I noticed this edit summary that was left by Spilia4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not assuming good faith. I politely, but sternly, reminded them of the AGF policy using a level-2 template as the user does appear to have been using Gpedia for a while. I then reverted the edit in question, as I disagreed with them that the "wording is more supported by the source". I was surprised when they retaliated by copying and pasting verbatim what I had left on their talk page onto mine. Concerned by the totality of the behaviour, I checked out some other edits they made to Carey Price and have found what I believe to be POV-pushing.

  • [71] - This edit violates NPOV as A) it omits the fact that Price received backlash for his comments and B) It misrepresents the legislation in question, which the source used does not at all say "would outlaw the majority of hunting firearms."
  • [72] - Reverts an editor attempting to make the paragraph more neutral by giving attribution to the claim.
  • Additionally, the first diff I linked to was similarly a revert of an attempt to bring more neutrality into the article.

I have no issue with discussion on the talk page, but not if the other user is going to vandalize my talk page like that. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 05:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been an active and respected Gpedia editor for nearly 9 years with thousands of contributions, as my userpage, talk and contributions list will show. I have never had an incident with any user on Gpedia before this libelous post. My edits are in line with the promotion of Gpedia's policy of NPOV. My edits were not combative, were not driven by agenda, and were not driven by ulterior motives. My edits are supportive by the majority of sources on the topic, including the ones linked within the article in question. The second edit in question removes original research which was not supportive by the sources. I reject this notion of POV pushing, which it appears the user who instigated this incident may themselves be engaging in, and do not believe I need to comment further on the issue. I will welcome others comments, of course, in determining how to proceed, although as stands, I question the grounds on which this 'incident' was brought forth. Spilia4 (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please provide diffs of *my* supposed POV-pushing. I'd love to hear it. I was able to provide three. I would also argue that you were the one who introduced the original research when you wrote "...which would outlaw the majority of hunting firearms." Furthermore, there was absolutely no reason to write the full statement including naming Justin Trudeau.. Those two facets combined make it seem as if you're trying to push an anti-gun control/anti-Liberal Party of Canada narrative. Being here for 9 years also does not give you the excuse to accuse the IP you reverted of acting in bad faith just because you disagree with them. Also, I wish you would address the vandalism to my talk page. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 02:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Cardboardboxhd is continuously inserting content sourced to an unreliable source

Cardboardboxhd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuously adding the following statement to Telegram (software), which is sourced to The Fat Emperor, which doesn't seem to meet WP:RS, even after it has been reverted.

"This claim is dubious however due to the intentionally vague meaning of the term "far-right" and also considering the financial backers of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue being a large conflict of interest.[1]"


  1. ^ Cummings, Ivor (2021-12-01). "Institute for Strategic Dialogue Overview" (PDF). FatEmperor. Archived from the original on 23 January 2022. Retrieved 1 December 2021.

When it was previously reverted by other editors (@Jokrez, @ASpacemanFalls, @Pirk), Cardboardboxhd restored the content, including the justification as "undoing vandalism" in the edit summary.

In the article's talk page, Cardboardboxhd said: "Your claim that it is "not a reliable source" when it is merely a collection of publicly available stats in a single, easy to access location is misguided. Until a legitimate case is made for this sections' removal I will continue to reinstate it as it adds critically important context to the previous piece in the paragraph. Another option would be to remove the previous section too as it's only there to try to tarnish Telegram's reputation. It could easily be argued (and it is by some) that the ISD is not a reliable source itself so if you have issue with the part I am reinstating over and over, consider removing the previous part too. I considered removing it originally but opted to add additional context to it instead as I didn't want to be seen to "sanitize" the page so to speak." Isi96 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I will add is that I have addressed Cardboardboxhd on their Talk page and received a rather, erm, inappropriate response. I guided them to the Talk page and encouraged them and Isi96 to start a conversation but nothing came of it. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, and I do believe this whole discussion belongs to Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, @Isi96. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My bad. This is my first time doing this. Could it be moved there? Isi96 (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @ASpacemanFalls, I wasn't involved in the discussion you speak of. Isi96 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've removed it again. It's editorialising and synthesis, and the source doesn't really back it up even if it is reliable. I've also warned them not to reinsert it. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptive page moves of African leaders

@Setswana: has recently been moving the pages of African leadership positions (President of X, Prime Minister of X) to "List of presidents/leaders etc....." (see Prime Minister of Zimbabwe for an example). Most of these can be reverted but I noticed yesterday on President of Zambia where the page was moved to a "List of" and then recreated as a duplicate (this was sorted by @Asukite: at WP:RM) but given the history of this user doing this in their logs as well as their apparent refusal to engage when I asked about it, suggests we may need to have a discussion about this as well as possible wholesale reversals of their undiscussed moves. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(What a coincidence, I just requested TPA revocation for an IP and I see this in the section above)
If they're back up to this nonsense again, an indefinite block for disruptive editing is needed, until such time as they are willing to actually engage with other editors. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mako001: I had thought about that being a possibility under WP:NOTHERE but i'd like to see what the admins think. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Already blocked for 3 days by Ad Orientem. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Setswana has now returned to edit war whilst logged out using multiple IPs, clear DUCKS, on List of prime ministers of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). See 2405:205:150a:3f71::939:8a0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can we now make the necessary indef? And block the IPs too. Honestly, I thought that they'd at least wait out the block before getting back up to their nonsense, but apparently not. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yet another twist. We have socking.
Quacking is coming from the following accounts:
Botswana Gaborone (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki) (for those unaware, Setswana is a major language in Botswana)
Suiste mollar filtri (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki)
May add some more, this will probably need splitting off to a proper SPI at some point. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Setswana indeffed. IP's blocked. List of prime ministers of India protected x 2 years. Two sock accounts already indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk)
Thanks. It seems that they have been evading scrutiny for a while. See 2405:205:1000:0:0:0:0:0/36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Back in August, Tamzin gave this range a week off. Maybe it might do to watch this range, but blocking the /36 doesn't seem necessary (yet). Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for the record – I tagged Setswana and Suiste mollar filtri with appropriate sock-related tags, but I was unable to do the same with Botswana Gaborone, due to their Wikimedia account. When I tried to tag the Wikimedia account, it was refused and I got a message that some of my rights (apparently my autoconfirmed status) are temporarily revoked. I am really not familiar with all of this, so it would be appreciated if someone can look into this issue. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 14:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I figured out how to properly tag Botswana Gaborone on the English Gpedia, so I did it. The existence of their Wikimedia account caused come confusion on my part. Someone should look into the issue of whether its necessary to tag the Wikimedia account as well, and the issue of my rights status, as I said in the post above. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 14:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TPA revocation needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This one needs TPA revoked. This IP was blocked and decided to add a personal attack against the blocking admin to their talkpage. They were warned very explicitly that doing so would result in revocation of TPA, but subsequently restored the personal attack. They have not used the unblock template and are solely using their talkpage to make personal attacks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

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

User:FlorinCB has been blocked indefinitely on Romanian Gpedia for posting legal threats against me (March 16, 2022). On November 30, he posted a new message on his English Gpedia user talk page this time (that message was subsequently deleted by User:ToBeFree). The same text has been posted by FlorinCB on his sandbox too, showing his clear intention to keep it for some other use. The English language of that text is not always easy to understand, but the references to `fraud`, `prison`, ‘penal complaint’ and ‘PARKET NEAR COURT OF APPEAL’ indicate without any doubt that the user is reiterating the same legal threats as before. Please take the appropriate measures according to WP:LEGAL and WP:BLOCK. Thank you, --Pafsanias (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pafsanias, I hadn't noticed the sandbox modification after my removal yet. I have now warned the user not to continue. It I understand correctly, they are currently not threatening you with any future action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, I was advanced by Romanian Police to continue the penal complaint only for "harassment" and I did not agreed since I'm blocked since February on Romanian Gpedia for his edit were he reserved a note in French. If is about others and not just him I have at least four complaints about state entities similar to the two organizations that I'm leading. After the post here I see they conducted vandalism from IP. FlorinCB (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure that I understand, even though your English is better than my Romanian. Are you saying that you may take legal action against Pafsanias, or any other editor of English Gpedia? If so you must choose not to edit here, or be blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ToBeFree: Thank you for your intervention and the warning message. As you can see, I didn’t react immediately and I thought that waiting for a while could give FlorinCB the opportunity to change his mind and remove the threatening comment. He did not so, for more than a week, and I strongly doubt that he would have done anything if you hadn’t deleted the text yourself. Please note that he had made a similar attempt to intimidate me by legal threat on Romanian Gpedia and he cannot claim that he hasn’t been warned before. Moreover, I'm affraid that his above answer confirms that he has already taken legal action against me. --Pafsanias (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blocked, as they say they have legal actions underway. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User User: needs blocking and contributions revdelling

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

They've been 'bot reported' on AIV but no-one's taken action and it's also a conduct issue, please see their talk page User_talk:

JeffUK (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The IP has been blocked for 31 hours by Blablubbs. It seems like their TPA is revoked as well. Sarrail (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Einahr repeatedly adding unsourced WP:DOBs

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

Einahr (talk · contribs) has a history of adding unsourced WP:DOBs to articles, one of the more serious areas of WP:BLP.

The editor has had the need to cite sources politely explained to them more than once, and warned repeatedly [73] [74] [75] but has continued to ignore this policy after final warning.

The edit summary indicates complete disregard for the need for citing sources on personal info. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Blocked 1 week. Any admin may unblock if user expresses any reasonable understanding of the policies involved. If they resume when the block expires, it'll probably have to be indefinite. --Jayron32 16:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP range block

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

An IP editor who was range blocked back in August has recently reemerged (see block log for 2601:40:0:0:0:0:0:0/40). Per the duck test, IP range 2601:46 is the same individual. Example diffs:

So, yeah. I'd like to request another range block for vandalism/disruptive editing/ban evasion. Wani (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 DoneI blocked the /40 for this one as well: [76]. Clearly the same person. --Jayron32 16:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

User with a similar username has copied my userpage and is claiming to be my alternate account. It is not my alternate account. This is probably another sock of Gustin Kelly who has been pestering me about my username [77] [78]. –ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Blocked — JJMC89(T·C) 17:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paul Whelan (security director)

An admin is needed over there due to the usual Gpedia US political fuckery ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artificial Nagger (talkcontribs)

Sorry, @Artificial Nagger: you're going to need to be a bit more specific. It is unclear what fuckery you think needs admin attention. Can you provide some diffs that highlight any problems? Thanks. --Jayron32 19:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I’m unable to do diffs at this time. Seems to be some edit warring the lead to include/occlude information on this BLP that might lead people to believe this is a very bad man. That and they’re screwing up the formatting in the process. Artificial Nagger (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There may be some sockpuppetry going on. I'll take another look later for a formal report if someone else doesn't but an SPA and some newly created accounts hanging around this BLP. Slywriter (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is now under pending changes protection for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find that PC is a poor choice when there are many edits and BLP implications, but I suppose we'll see.-- Ponyobons mots 21:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone should probably take a look at Paul Whelan (security director). There is a very obvious attempt at WP:SOCK going on, a half dozen IPs (I'll pretend I know how /64s work) and a few accounts, that are clearly being cycled through. This page is making nearly hourly appearances in the Pending Changes Log with nonsensical edits. Etrius ( Us) 22:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*sigh* Yeah, I didn't think PC was going to work well, but there were anons in there fighting the vandalism too, so I thought I'd give it a try. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reverted the pending changes for now. It was a 'hodge-podge' of constructive edits, nonconstructive edits, and corrections to the aforementioned edits. Frankly, it would've been pointless to parse through it all since the original pending edit was unsourced and, at this point, reaching edit war territory. Etrius ( Us) 03:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added semi-protection for three days, there are really too many bad edits for the moment. Pending changes protection is still there, when the semi expired pending changes remain active for a few days.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

IP User: has been on a rapid vandalism spreed. In only ~30 minutes, they've managed to rack up a number of reverts and warnings on their talk page. Not a single edit in their short time has been productive. Contributions are here, obviously WP:NOTHERE. Some of these vandalism attempts have gotten a chuckle out of me, so I guess its not all bad. Etrius ( Us) 19:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Gpedia:Articles for deletion/3 Damansara Shopping Mall (2nd nomination)

I would appreciate some input from experienced editors at this discussion; particularly those familiar with WP:CORPDEPTH. I suspect, although I have no proof, that possibly some of the editors participating at this AFD may have an undisclosed WP:COI with this for-profit business. Regardless, anyone with knowledge and experience dealing with the notability of pages on for-profit businesses that are willing to comment about the notability of this mall in particular would be appreciated. All opinions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@4meter4: While there was nothing wrong with posting a neutral notice on the notability guideline talk page I find it very concerning that you appear to have tried to canvass an "expert" to that discussion. Please don't do that again, it's simply no acceptable and is enough to topic ban you from AfDs IMO. Keep notifications to wikiprojects and similar, and only notify individual editors if are notifying all editors with experience with the article or previous AfDs on the same article something where you can fairly demonstrate you were not biased in you selection. Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Equally concerning, despite accusing 3 editors of possibly having an undisclosed COI with self admitted no evidence, you neglected to inform them. I'm even more strongly leaning towards a topic ban. In the mean time, I'm going to notify them Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having a quick look the the respective editor's editing histories, I see no reason to think an undisclosed COI. Actually one of the usernames was instantly recognisable to me. It seems to me far more likely is this is a typical case of editors with different views of our notability guidelines (likely including to some extent different parts of the inclusionist vs deletionist spectrum) probably combined with other issues like systemic bias concerns who found the AfD in some fashion expressing their views. Some of the comments may very well be against the consensus of parts of our policies and guidelines, that's hardly atypical. I mean I could assume that you have an undisclosed CoI and that's why your so desperate to get the article deleted to the extent that you canvassed an editor and raised the possibility of an undisclosed CoI here on ANI with a self admitted no evidence. But the far more likely thing is you're acting in good faith, and saw something which you thought was concerning and unfortunately responded in a very poor manner. Please remember that editors often do in good faith make mistakes or misunderstand our policies and guidelines. E.g. in that very discussion a delete voter appears to have incorrectly assumed some stores were closed, which to be fair are closed, because the business was closed. But the reality is both businesses still exist in Malaysia. Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will not make the mistake again of pinging a specific user, although my intention was to get help from a user who seems to be a regular contributor at AFD and is a regular participant in NCORP related discussion. I thought I was being helpful, and not obstructive. Further, I did not accuse three editors anywhere. I specifically chose not to name anyone because I have no hard evidence. I also do not suspect everyone at the AFD. You are putting words into my mouth, and pinging people who I have no issue with. I really wanted to just get some more experienced editors involved. That’s my only intention here. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are at ANI, this is not a place to have a conversation in a vacuum. By linking to the AfD, they were implicitly named and are parties especially as this is a forum for behavioral issues. Though, I would say the same if we were at the teahouse because talking about editors as a hypothetical doesn't exist and they have a right to know their actions are being discussed. Slywriter (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh. Then I categorically retract my statement regarding any COI if that is going to be the response here. Apologies for not handling this better, and apparently waisting everyone's time here at ANI. I consider this matter closed. On a positive side, at least this conversation may have brought more participation from a wider audience to the AFD discussion. I wish everyone here and at the AFD well. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having participated in this AFD discussion by relisting it, I'm surprised to see it brought up on ANI of all places. There is nothing very notable about it, it is much less contentious than most AFDs that I review (at least the ones that are not unanimous). Everyone comes to a discussion with a point-of-view, often undisclosed. I'm much more concerned with POVs in discussions about cryptocurrency firms than one about a random shopping mall. I'm surprised that this AFD even got your attention. Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yikes, I was picturing this modest little AFD that I've dealt with over the past 2 weeks but in the past 6 hours or so the discussion there has exploded, I gather from the publicity it received for being mentioned on this noticeboard. It doesn't bear any resemblance to the quiet discussion that existed up to today. I wish this kind of attention could be spread around to more AFDs, there are so many that barely receive one editor's participation in them. Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are not wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Machiavellian Gaddafi and Llll5032

Request for a temporary ban for user:Llll5032, or a ban from editing Censored.TV. Multiple instances on talk page of warring and blatant editing biases. The latest example is of page titled Censored.TV, as user is submitting continuous reverts, of which new references and edit summary do not match given do not match edits.

Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Most of this new article, about a controversial website, was unreliably sourced and self-sourced. I removed undue WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PROMO content, aligned the descriptions to the WP:BESTSOURCES available, and added tags. I made no reverts. Machiavellian Gaddafi has reverted my editing and decided to escalate to ANI without discussing on the article talk page. Llll5032 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be mentioned that Machiavellian Gaddafi wrote most of the article in dispute. Machiavellian Gaddafi wrote tonight on my user talk page about one section, "Expecting an email with various articles included in it tomorrow, and I will implement them once I receive them." I don't know what Machiavellian Gaddafi meant by that, but an explanation may help. Llll5032 (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


From User: Machiavellian Gaddafi

User WAS warned, but shows to remove it from their page, as seen below:

User is also continuing to vandalize and misinterpret the page Gavin McInnes with purposeful biases. Warnings like these have been given by several other users over the recent past (starting in October of 2021), as you will see on there talk page. This is an ongoing issue that apparently hasn't been addressed, and it shows that this user, Llll5032, is using Gpedia for their own personal issues rather than matching what said reference points present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talkcontribs) 06:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not "continuing" anything. My edit at Gavin McInnes was well sourced, and now I see that my edit in fact returned a description ("far right") to the stable version that existed before Machiavellian Gaddafi changed it on December 6. Llll5032 (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And no, all my edits came before any "warning" by OP (by a minute); the first communication by OP was the ANI notice, with no prior discussion. I detailed more below about the chronology and my hasty deletion of part of the notice on my user talk page (not in bad faith), but I realize now that this aspersion needs a more immediate correction. Llll5032 (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From Machiavellian Gaddafi

There's a clear pattern here, shown through both your edit history and, not specifically, complaints from other users. I'm only asking that you cannot continue to edit these pages, as your reasonings do not match your actions. For example, one of your edits included falsely adding a an individual the Censored.TV that is not part of their staff, and had never been employed. You also added the term white supremacist to this person, being Nick Fuentes. Although that accurately describes him, putting this on a page that has nothing to do with him other than an interview is slander. As aforementioned, your edits have a pattern of doing such things, and others have talked to you about it. Let's let the administration decide what to do with this, and I ask in the meantime that you stop with this obsessive and overreaching behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talkcontribs) 06:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added white nationalist because that is what the two cited RS called him.[79][80]. Machiavellian Gaddafi's description for Fuentes is "campaign staff member and political commentator",[81] which is not a description used in the RS. (Also, I want to note that I used white nationalist to match the two RS, not white supremacist as Machiavellian Gaddafi writes above. I ask Machiavellian Gaddafi to cease aspersions and take a break.) Llll5032 (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From From Machiavellian Gaddafi

Let's leave it up to the administration to decide, after reviewing your edits and complaints from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talkcontribs) 06:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more thing: I take WP:CONSENSUS seriously and discuss any disagreements in good faith in summaries or on article talk pages. So no, I did not ignore any warnings from Machiavellian Gaddafi. My last edit to either disputed article was at 5:13, a minute before I was notified of Machiavellian Gaddafi's first communications to me at 5:14, which was an ANI notice!. (Machiavellian Gaddafi appears to think that I used some bad faith when I deleted half of that 5:14 notice in my reply on my talk page, which quoted his initial 5:10 ANI complaint that did not tag me, but I actually deleted it because it had a repeated heading and I thought it was an ugly mistake.) Meanwhile, Machiavellian Gaddafi has edit-warred his preferred versions back in at Censored.TV[82] and McInnes[83] since making his complaint. Llll5032 (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As do I, but your recent actions say otherwise. You still haven't explained why you chose to delete 80% of the Censored.TV Show section, instead of addressing the issues at hand. I reverted the changes as the removals did not follow Gpedia guideline (as I'm allowed to do without continuous warring, hence the Undo link), as a number of [citation needed] would've been warranted. I created the page just 24 hours ago, and to delete almost all of it when all of the references/links, which are direct urls to the content mentioned, raises a red flag. Reading through your talk page shows that you're notorious for this kind of editing, and it always targets political figures and commentators of both the moderate, libertarian (McInnes), and conservative realms. 100% of your issues with other user have has to do with pages like these. Now, I understand that you can edit whatever page you want, but you have a history of overstepping Gpedia Guidelines and deleting other's hard work, due to what shows as blatant bias and borderline vandalism. As a so-called Longtime Gpedia fan, occasional editor, this contrasts the persistent complaints by others.
I don't want you banned, but you do seem to have to do a lot of apologizing for "mistakes", mistakes that always involve the same actions and targets. The same mistakes don't happen dozens of times. Some of these edits are by paid, freelance editors, and they take these articles seriously. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m in hospital waiting for a CT PET scan and don’t have much to say other than this seems to be a political dispute. I’ve seen pov and badly sourced edits by you and I’d advise any other Admins or editors to look at he edits by both of you. I don’t know what paid editors you are talking about, could you elucidate? Doug Weller talk 08:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the OP’s talk page they say they are paid to edit. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two of the user complaints are from freelance editors from two different outlets; that's all I was referring to. I'm personally not paid for any edits a this time, but rather doing some work for some peers. Anyways, thank you for reaching out to me, and I'll try and be more accurate with some of my sources and formatting. The only real issues that I have were mislabeling and excessive deletions, but your on it, so that's all from me. Thanks again, and good luck with the CT scan... hospital visits are far from pleasurable. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Machiavellian Gaddafi Who are those editors. And you are an undisclosed paid editor according to your talk page. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can see the problem isn't Llll5032. I've just had to revert another load of edits by Machiavellian Gaddafi on Gavin McInnes. When someone's politics are consistently referred to as far-right, there are multiple sources for that, and the actual title (not the content) of the first source uses the words "far-right", then changing it to "conservative" is simply disruptive (especially when your edit summary says "Far right is a form of slander"). They also keep introducing unreliable sources. Yesterday I had to revert their changes because they were introducing red-flag language like "according to the mainstream media" into sections containing language they didn't like. I'd suggest they stop editing on the subject since they appear to be unable to maintain NPOV. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Weller

I answered you on my talk page. As far as the two that ARE paid, two people indicated it in their talk pages, and I honestly didn't care enough to remember, as they had some type of box/badge saying so. That said, not all of the Llll5032 talk pages are complaints, so it shouldn't be too hard to find on your end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talkcontribs) 10:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You didn't answer me, you responded to User:Justlettersandnumbers saying you aren't paid, despite saying on Nov. 22 " I'm paid to make these edits, and losing 350+ characters after spending multiple hours writing it is unfortunate, to say the least." Doug Weller talk 10:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Minor correction, that statement was made on 26 or 27 November, depending on timezones. Hopefully the link is helpful. --Yamla (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Doug Weller

Yes, I did (read again, below)

I'm not paid or compensated, but rather contributing to the best of my knowledge. I have interest is certain areas, but this is just a hobby. That said, once I feel like I've reached the point where I COULD do this as a side job (I'm still fairly green), the first thing I'll do is fill out the form. Thanks! Alan C. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talkcontribs)

@Machiavellian Gaddafi: Why did you write "I'm paid to make these edits" if you're now saying "I'm not paid or compensated"? Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Black Kite|Black Kite

Your reply is an example of some of what I'm talking about. You took a reliable source, that being the New York Times, didn't bother reading anything but the headline, and totally dismissed where McInnis stated that he is a fiscal conservative and libertarian. I feel like many of you don't bother reading the articles, and she's taking lazy way out and read headlines. If someone says that they identify with a certain political ideology, that's what they are. A journalist that probably met them for the first time that day doesn't trump what the person themselves identifies as. For example, seated interview and told someone you worked at a retail store, but in the headline they wrote that you didn't work. Who's correct? You are the content in this scenario, and the reporter is the relay. Am I wrong, @Doug Weller? Shouldn't a reliable source that clearly states within their article that McInnis identify as in the way he does be relevant? There seems to be a bigger issue here, and that extends beyond my original issue. No, I don't work for any of these people who I've edited, but I'm starting to think that maybe I should reach out to them in regards to what's happening here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk