Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367
Requesting a page ban for Aearthrise
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In under two years, Aearthrise (talk · contribs) has completely dominated the Pennsylvania Dutch-article, contributing over 75% of its content and making 80% of all edits [1][2]. During this period, his personal and professional conduct concerning this article has been highly problematic up to the present: Aearthrise has repeatedly disregarded WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV, shows clear signs of WP:OWN and has made repeated personal attacks and involved himself in edit-warring. Examples of this behavior includes a disregard for using reliable sources and showing bullying behavior [3][4][5] [6][7][8][9][10], pushing personal preferences (demanding a different font be used for the article), edit warring and making insulting remarks [11][12][13][14][15][16][17], spamming (RFC-)discussions with Ai-generated text, trying to remove alternative views and using unreliable and/or unsuitable sources [18][19][20] [21][22][23][24], including this survey [25] on the first 50 references added by Aearthrise, of which nearly half were found to be either untrustworthy, self published and/or more than a century old.
To put it very bluntly: this user is trying to turn a Wikipedia-article in to a personal page about his own claimed heritage [26]) and is trying to shape this heritage to his own preferences. Users who doubt him or disagree, are either spammed or bullied into submission, or ignored altogether.
In June 2024, I alerted the admins to much of this behavior (see here), but this request was quickly spammed with text; and although other users did get involved and confirmed Aearthrise's behavior as being highly problematic, no formal action was taken. Despite this, Aearthrise subsequently left the article alone for some time; which essentially froze the conflict. Recently however, Aearthrise has resumed editing the article and immediately started removing all of the cite- and request-for-sources-tags that had been added previously to his remaining and highly dubious sources [27], is once again trying to include wording like "German Pennsylvania" [28] (an article he previously created, which then got deleted for being OR [29]) [30], adding OR [31] and by adding images taken from news sites and uploaded (by Aearthrise himself) to Wikimedia Commons under a false public domain-license.[32]. In other words: he's again repeating his disruptive and damaging MO.
He has been repeatedly asked to stop his behavior [33][34][35]; but simply refuses to adhere to Wikipedia policy, instead insisting that his outdated/unreliable sources are fine and that others should 'prove him wrong' [36][37].
In the previous request for intervention here, @SnowFire: made a very poignant analyses of Aearthrise's behavior [38] which he ended with the following remark: "If Aearthrise is satisfied that they can do better and is willing to commit to working collegially forward, and understands that not every random old source they find is necessarily that usable for Wikipedia, there's nothing that needs to be done other than perhaps a warning. If Aearthrise plans on just restarting the edit war, and plans on snidely replying to newbie questions while being wrong himself, then a page ban from Pennsylvania Dutch & Pennsylvania Dutch language may be in order. But I'm hoping that isn't necessary.".
In light of all that happened a few months ago and all that's seemingly about to repeat itself, I'd like to now formally request for this page ban.
In my opinion this page ban doesn't need to be permanent, but long enough for (the sources involved with) this article to be thoroughly examined by other users without them being harassed, bullied or spammed while doing so: the pattern of toxicity which has surrounded this article for the past two years, needs to be broken. I kindly ask the admins here to intervene. Vlaemink (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have fully protected the article for one week while this is evaluated further. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Voorts. Unfortunately Vlaemink has been trying to bully me by threatening to complain to administration to get his way. I've told him that he is abusing of the Administration notification system, as he has tried to get me banned from the page before.
- He claimed then that I am doing WP:OWN, but he had no evidence to show that, and indeed I stepped from the article for a half year. Especially now, this is a baseless accusation.
- He is now trying to ban me again because he claims that sources that have an older publish date are automatically unreliable, which responded that it's not the case and that reliable sources are those can be verified, and that he should read WP:AGEMATTERS to understand what categories are time sensitive.
- Vlaemink recently removed content from the page from a source from the United States Government, claiming that it was WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and that it was unreliable, only based on the fact that it was published in 1883. I asked him is the United States Government an unreliable source? And he didn't respond.
- The problem here is a lack of willingness to cooperate or to understand the policies of Wikipedia better.
- Anyhow, you can read the whole history on Talk:Pennsylvania_Dutch, and you can see what has happened over time. Aearthrise (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Vlaemink: could you please condense this down into about one paragraph, preferably with diffs bulleted and a brief explanation as to how each diff is problematic. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Aerthrise's edits at California Cantonese (formerly Chinese Americans in the California gold rush) are also extremely problematic. I have never heard of this term, and none of the sources added use it. Google Scholar has 12 hits for the phrase, and most are splices (
... and the news of the Gold Rush of California. Cantonese communities later memorized this large wave of migration
). This seems to be either incompetence or synthesis. This is similar to earlier edits (note an AFD from June) and they have no other edits; if no suitable explanation is forthcoming the action should be an indef block and not just a pageban. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)- I'd like to wait for Aerthrise to respond here and for Vlaemink to condense their complaint before I take any action, but another admin should obviously feel free to take any action they see fit. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still looking at the Pennsylvania Dutch article; the two easiest-to-understand complaints (that Aearthrise has made a lot of edits, and that some of the sources are over a century old) are not problematic on their own. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here are five citations for California Cantonese:
- "Using the Words that Were Theirs Dialect, Accented Speech and Languages Other Than English in Asian American and American Indian Literature, Barbara Downs Hodne, 1995, pg.18":
Through the narrator's perspective, we see California Cantonese as defining a complex and disjunctive linguistic identity.
- "The Story Behind the Dish Classic American Foods, Mark McWilliams, 2012, pg.142":
...the cookies growth from Japanese traditions; another confidently asserts that they are a "true California Cantonese tradition".
- "Departing Tong-Shaan: The Organization and Operation of Cantonese Overseas Emigration to America (1850-1900)
- Volume 4 The Gum-Shaan Chronicles: The Early History of Cantonese-Chinese America, 1850-1900, Douglas W. Lee, PhD, 2024, pg.301":
...Hakka totals, while small, remained somewhat consistent, even as their "market share" declined steadily in the period 1860-1889. The slight change in this group's numbers over the decades is generally insignificant because its totals remained the smallest in nineteenth-century California's Cantonese community.
- "California Magazine - Volume 7, Issues 1-4, University of California, 1982, pg. 91":
California's Cantonese considered anything outside of Canton as North.
Aearthrise (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC) - "Assignment Peking, Issues 1-4, Edward S. Aarons, 1989, pg. 33":
She spoke unnaturally, in English. "I can only speak California Cantonese..."
- The California Cantoense name is more recent, as historically this community was usually called "California Chinese", but recent immigration since the reopening of China in the 1970's has made the term also include recent Mandarin speakers, who don't represent the scope of the article. For that reason the more specific was chosen for the sake of clarity. Aearthrise (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also this speech from Walsh90210 about California Cantonese has nothing to do with the complaint Vlaemink is launching now, so lets focus on that instead of opening a separate can of worms. Aearthrise (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is relevant because any problems are not isolated to a single article. That said, there is already a very long discussion about this at Talk:California#California name header, where several other editors have pointed out these issues. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- This charge from Vlaemink is isolated to a single article, Pennsylvania Dutch, which has nothing to do with any other articles. You're saying it does, but that's just an opinion. We should stay on track with the issue at hand, not open another can of worms. Aearthrise (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your conduct is at issue here, and your edits regarding other ethnic groups are relevant to your conduct. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- This charge from Vlaemink is isolated to a single article, Pennsylvania Dutch, which has nothing to do with any other articles. You're saying it does, but that's just an opinion. We should stay on track with the issue at hand, not open another can of worms. Aearthrise (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is relevant because any problems are not isolated to a single article. That said, there is already a very long discussion about this at Talk:California#California name header, where several other editors have pointed out these issues. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's about an ethnic group, not claiming a language exists. Secretlondon (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also this speech from Walsh90210 about California Cantonese has nothing to do with the complaint Vlaemink is launching now, so lets focus on that instead of opening a separate can of worms. Aearthrise (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'd like to wait for Aerthrise to respond here and for Vlaemink to condense their complaint before I take any action, but another admin should obviously feel free to take any action they see fit. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the talk page archives, I see a few possible concerns from the past 18 months at Pennsylvania Dutch:
- Aearthrise wants certain quotes to be in the Fraktur font. No other editor has supported this, and I do not see any recent edit-warring on the issue.
- There are disagreements on how to explain that "Dutch" has a shared etymology with "Deutsch". This is a normal part of the editing process; if any Vlaemink's behavior here is more problematic.
- Poor use of sourcing. This might be where there is a pattern of problematic editing. But the use of quotes from 19th century diaries, etc. isn't necessarily problematic, and Aearthrise doesn't seem hostile towards replacing content sourced to defunct blogs etc.
Overall, the behavior at Pennsylvania Dutch should be cause for increased scrutiny (and the edit-warring justifies the temporary protection), but I don't see the case for an indef-block based solely on behavior at that article. I am more concerned about the tendentious behavior related to California Cantonese than any diff I have seen at Pennsylvania Dutch. If there are specific diffs I missed among the 38 diffs listed from the past 18 months which are relevant, somebody (ideally Vlaemink) should identify them. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for this summary Walsh90210; as for the Fraktur font, it has already been removed, as we've come to a consensus on the talk page through an RFC post. Aearthrise (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
My findings:
- Aearthrise's incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and dismissive attitude toward other editors appears to be part of a long-term pattern of behavior (see this discussion from August 2023 and this discussion from March 2024).
- Some examples of Aearthrise's incivility, assumptions of bad faith, casting of aspersions, and personalizing disputes with Vlaemink:
Your commentary makes you seem like the type who doesn't like learning, nor wants to learn (the whole purpose of Wikipedia), and is evident based on all of the thin arguments you've proposed.
(19 June 2024)This is your problem- you want to operate on ignorance and your emotions rather than from evidence and knowledge, and you've shown that time and time again. Even now, you're showing how your feelings were hurt and trying to use that to win the argument. You have a bruised ego.
(20 June 2024)Your actions show that you don't understand Wikipedia policy, instead you follow only what your emotions tell you. Your actions have neither been constructive, nor cooperative. You are just being belligerent for no reason, and you continue to threaten to abuse the Administrator notification system.
(26 November 2024)
- Aearthrise has bludgeoned this ongoing discussion and exhibited an IDHT attitude towards editors who have told him that consensus for his addition is not developing.
- In terms of content, I'm concerned that Aearthrise thinks that self-published books (Special:Diff/1230587470) and websites (Special:Diff/1230718720) are reliable sources. I'm also concerned with their conflation of historical research and writing (Special:Diff/1259009121), which does value original research of primary sources, with writing an encyclopedic article that summarizes the secondary historical literature.
I am formally warning Aearthrise that this method of communicating with others is not acceptable. I also think a one-way indefinite IBAN toward Vlaemink would be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your summary voorts.
- I don't understand the terminology "IDHT attitude" nor "IBAN", if that means what you call "bludgeoning" (giving an answer to most responses), but I try to do everything in the best interests of Wikipedia readers, i.e. to give the best quality articles.
- I don't believe self-published books are reliable, as I mentioned about Yorgey's book, "
I agree that Yorgey's book should be paired with another quote
". It was a personal memoir published from a Pennsylvania Dutchman who lived and faced discrimination during World War 2, and unfortunately has passed away, and I found his memoirs to be a relevant view for the article. - I don't believe random websites are reliable sources either; I do however attempt to get as many as possible sources to give information to an article- 99% being peer reviewed books (from Google Books) pertinent to the article.
- I understand the importance of reliablity, I also understand the importance of cooperation, and I do cooperate with any community consensus.
- Again I thank you for the effort you put into this investigation, and I wish you all the best voorts. Aearthrise (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Aearthrise, you've had an account on Wikipedia for 11 years now. You don't have to be familiar with every policy or guideline acronym but you should know how to look them up: WP:IDNHT and WP:IBAN will inform you of what is being referred to.
- Instead of attacking Vlaemink, did you have a response to all of the diffs/edits he shared in his report on your editing? It would help you if you could respond to any of these personal insults he noted in his complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- About the "diffs that he added, is that he's dredging old posts from early June and July; there was already a consensus we came to on on the older Admin talk page where he reported me earlier.
- I have tried to work very calmly and peacefully with Vlaemink ever since July, and I don't see how any of our new interactions could be considered "toxic". I left the article for him, for half a year, and as soon as I returned to start editing, he didn't want to cooperate at all, and has reverted content on sole basis that it was from older publication date.
- I don't think that it's right that the older diffs are being repeated here, as if this continued behavior since then, it's not.
- I made a pledge to be kinder and not bring ego into the discussions. I used to get frustrated and angry, and all of those diffs that Vlaemink has added are from that older time before July.
- As for the sentence "
Your actions show that you don't understand Wikipedia policy, instead you follow only what your emotions tell you. Your actions have neither been constructive, nor cooperative. You are just being belligerent for no reason, and you continue to threaten to abuse the Administrator notification system.
", this is in regards to repeatedly claiming that a source from the US government was WP:OR and unreliable only because it had an older publishing date 1883. - The quote was
The High Dutch Pennsylvania Journal, a weekly German newspaper, was founded by Joseph Crellius as early as 1743....
, as this was being added for a citation about the High Dutch Pennsylvania being an early newspaper from 1743 on the Pennsylvania Dutch page. - This is in direct response to an earlier attempt to reason and cooperate with him:
This is social history, and the social history doesn't change like physics or an applied science. Indeed, the older sources are the best for this culture, as its cultural height was written about mostly before World War 1 and 2.
Sources don't need to be contemporary to be valid. They only need to be true, so you need to prove that they're untrue or unreliable; just making a claim from them having an older publication date is not a valid reason to say they're unreliable.
I recommend you read WP:AGE MATTERS to understand what categories are time-sensitive.
- He didn't want to listen to it, and instead acted belligerently, threatening me with complaining to administration for even speaking to him about why sources from older publications in this case are fine.
- I let him know that firmly, but not in disrepectful way- and I explained exactly how I interpreted his actions.
- Now he has complained to the administration, and he's trying very hard to get me banned from editing a page that I have contributed greatly to; all I care about is providing a good article, and if he can help me in that, I am more than grateful for it. Aearthrise (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- PS: Thank you for adding the WPs Liz, I appreciate it. Espescially with WP:IDHT, I see that when I do try answer every response, it could be seen as hearing but not listening.
- I'll work on that, and again I thank you. Aearthrise (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I said my piece in the previous discussion. I hope that people do not overly fault Vlaemink for long ANI posts. Just because someone is long-winded doesn't mean they are "wrong", and when I investigated the last time I found that Vlaemink was largely correct in everything they brought up. I remain concerned that Aearthrise's style of analysis and citation is simply not in keeping with Wikipedia expectations, in addition to the attitude and conduct issues. I will hesitantly suggest that Wikisource (for transcribing old books) and Wikibooks (for publishing "heritage" style history works) may be worth an investigation as an alternate place to apply this zeal for the kind of stuff that Aearthrise is interested in? But at the end of the day, if Aearthrise is on Wikipedia, he needs to comply with Wikipedia standards, which means using stuff like old historical documents very carefully, and working collaboratively with others. (Disclaimer: I have not closely examined Aerathrise's more recent conduct, so the above should be taken as related to Vlaemink's previous report + a few diffs from above. I could be convinced if someone wants to argue a deeper dive says otherwise.) SnowFire (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello again SnowFire, it's good to hear from you; I hope you've been well. I appreciate what you did for me back in July.
- You helped get over a big ego problem after that period, and I took a break from Wikipedia to breathe and get connected with the world.
- Your last message indeed touched me very much:
I am making one more short comment here so that this thread isn't archived without action. Vlaemink was not very concise in raising the problem, but that doesn't mean it isn't a real problem, IMO. I've posted my own tl;dr analysis above and would encourage at least some admin to wade through the mud to provide some semblance of a way forward for these feuding editors, even the "bad" kind of a-curse-on-both-your-houses.
- You helped me see the light here:
Thank you SnowFire; I don't want to be cursed, and I don't want Vlaemink to be cursed either: we've had a discussion with very heavy emotions, and lot of mudslinging- the only result of that kind of behavior being a big mess.
A good Wikipedian should be able to edit without bringing in such strong emotion; in my final words, this whole experience has been a lesson on why it's important to manage frustration and anger.
- Frustration and anger shouldn't be present in article management, and I still hold to that. Perhaps I do make a lot of responses out of habit, but they're not out of anger nor frustration anymore, and I thank you for helping me to get to that understanding.
- That whole ordeal earlier this year meant a lot more to me than you can imagine. Aearthrise (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Since another editor got accused of being long winded, I will try my best to be concise. Aearthrise's behavior at Talk: California#California name header has been bizarre, aggressive and incomprehensible. The editor has gotten the notion in their head that there is a non-existent ethnic group in California called the "California Cantonese" and a non-existent language also called "California Cantonese". The fact is that Cantonese immigrants and their descendants in California are not a separate group from similar Cantonese communities in Nevada, New York, New England or British Columbia. Although a search of the entire internet yields a few occasions when the words "California" and "Cantonese" exist side by side, the concept of "California Cantonese" as a distinct ethnic group or language exists only in Aearthrise's mind but not in the scholarly literature. It is synthesis that this editor bludgeoned ad nauseum at Talk:California in recent days. Cullen328 (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Cullen328, I know you're frustrated, but this culture is indeed notable to California, and it is distinct from Cantonese in Modern China.
- Historically this culture has been called "California Chinese", but in recent times this term has also evolved to include foreign Chinese, the majority being Mandarin Speakers, muddying the terms meaning. California Cantonese also exists as a term, and is more specific to this historic ethnicity.
- Here are some citations for this ethnicity under the "California Chinese" name:
- 25 Events That Shaped Asian American History: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic, Lan Dong, 2019, Bloomsbury Publishing USA, pg. 52:
"By 1868, many California Chinese had left mining areas in favor of the railroad construction, and more were needed to fulfill labor demands. Most of the Chinese laborers hail from impoverished Cantonese areas, primarily Sunwui and Toishan in the Sze Yup area."
- From Canton to California: The Epic of Chinese Immigration, Corinne K. Hoexter, 1976, Four Winds Press, pg. 15:
...Chinese students. Moreover, he had the ability, unusual for an American, to speak the Cantonese dialect spoken by most California Chinese.
- Trees in Paradise: A California History, Jared Farmer, 2013, W. W. Norton & Company, pg. 258:
...California's Chinese came from a subtropical region (Guangdong Province) with a long history of citriculture, they knew more about oranges than most colonists, who started their orchards in ignorance.
- Labor Immigration under Capitalism: Asian Workers in the United States Before World War II, Lucie Cheng, Edna Bonacich, 2023, University of California Press, pg. 224, pg. 226:
...most of them in turn came from Guangdong province. Largescale Chinese emigration to the United States began shortly after the California gold rush started in 1849...
The overwhelming majority of the California Chinese came from the Pearl River delta region...
- California Folklore Quarterly, Volume 7, 1948, University of California Press, pg. 123:
A Chinese Roman Catholic priest had been imported to San Francisco, and Kip often met him on the street. However, his work was unsuccessful, for he spoke a different dialect from the Cantonese majority.
- California: An Illustrated History, Robert Joseph Chandler, 2004, Hippocrene Books, pg. 51:
California's Chinese came from southern China, around Canton.
- Agriculture and Rural Connections in the Pacific, Lei Guang, 2017, Routledge, pg. 35:
The majority of California Chinese came from the Pearl River delta region, with four rural districts around Canton accounting for the largest number of emigrants in the 19th century.
Aearthrise (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)- Aearthrise, your technique in the California dispute is to search, search, search until you find the word "California" next to either "Cantonese" or "Chinese", and then engage in impermissible synthesis to claim that California Cantonese is an ethnic group native to California and that California Cantonese is a distinct language native to California. That's called cherrypicking. To make your case, you repeatedly link to California Cantonese, which was a mundane student written article about Chinese immigrants during the California gold rush until you radically edited it one week ago to transform it into a tool for your pet theory, which is shared by no scholars of the history of the settlement of Chinese immigrants in California. You have made 69 edits to that article since November 20 to push your point of view and create a debating tool. You have concocted this notion out of passing mentions rather than significant coverage by academic experts, and you try to bully and intimidate any editor who disagrees with you. It is time for that behavior to stop. Cullen328 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Binksternet described some of your behavior on California Cantonese as a
Massive misrepresentation of sources
. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)- I can only confirm that Aearthrise used the exact same M.O. on Pennsylvania Dutch: copied google-searches or ChatGPT-generated lists which mention a certain word combination, which are then put forward as supporting a personal POV. To question or disagree is to be bullied, demeaned or intimated. Vlaemink (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I never added ChatGPT information to an article Vlaemink, that's not true at all. What you're referring to is an interaction between an anonymous and I in June where I showed 5 citations where Elon Musk mentions his Pennsylvania Dutch heritage.
- I tried to make a point of how easy it was to verify that information showing that a quick search on Google would show him the same being first 5 citations on Google, that it's a true statement.
- None of the citations were ever used, except for the Forbes citation which is a reliable source and verified to be accurate.
- Anyhow, I have already turned a new leaf in my interaction style after the discussion since July and your older complaint, and I don't bring ego into my responses. Aearthrise (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can only confirm that Aearthrise used the exact same M.O. on Pennsylvania Dutch: copied google-searches or ChatGPT-generated lists which mention a certain word combination, which are then put forward as supporting a personal POV. To question or disagree is to be bullied, demeaned or intimated. Vlaemink (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't bullied you or have been hostile Cullen328, i've only spoken to you with normal language. You say i've bullied and intimidated you, but you don't have any proof for that and are leaning on Vlaemink's statements. Aearthrise (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Binksternet described some of your behavior on California Cantonese as a
- Thinking that US Chinese would be the same as those in China is an odd one. It doesn't mean that there is any specific about Cantonese speakers in California. Secretlondon (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Aearthrise, your technique in the California dispute is to search, search, search until you find the word "California" next to either "Cantonese" or "Chinese", and then engage in impermissible synthesis to claim that California Cantonese is an ethnic group native to California and that California Cantonese is a distinct language native to California. That's called cherrypicking. To make your case, you repeatedly link to California Cantonese, which was a mundane student written article about Chinese immigrants during the California gold rush until you radically edited it one week ago to transform it into a tool for your pet theory, which is shared by no scholars of the history of the settlement of Chinese immigrants in California. You have made 69 edits to that article since November 20 to push your point of view and create a debating tool. You have concocted this notion out of passing mentions rather than significant coverage by academic experts, and you try to bully and intimidate any editor who disagrees with you. It is time for that behavior to stop. Cullen328 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Since another editor got accused of being long winded, I will try my best to be concise. Aearthrise's behavior at Talk: California#California name header has been bizarre, aggressive and incomprehensible. The editor has gotten the notion in their head that there is a non-existent ethnic group in California called the "California Cantonese" and a non-existent language also called "California Cantonese". The fact is that Cantonese immigrants and their descendants in California are not a separate group from similar Cantonese communities in Nevada, New York, New England or British Columbia. Although a search of the entire internet yields a few occasions when the words "California" and "Cantonese" exist side by side, the concept of "California Cantonese" as a distinct ethnic group or language exists only in Aearthrise's mind but not in the scholarly literature. It is synthesis that this editor bludgeoned ad nauseum at Talk:California in recent days. Cullen328 (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@Voorts: Per your request I've tried to condense the problem into one paragraph and provide some context/examples for the diffs mentioned above. Please let me know if you feel this matter is too big for the Administrators Noticeboard and should maybe be taken to the Arbitration Committee instead.
The problem: Aearthrise's use of older material or share of total editing aren't problematic in and of themselves, but they are incredibly toxic and damaging to the article within the broader context. He doesn't use an older source incidentally, he uses these constantly; often with falsified publishing dates. When people (rightly) question his personal views and/or sources, he resorts to demeaning comments, spamming talk pages with what appear to be Ai-generated 'citations' (examples of which can be found in the discussion above), ignores Wikipedia policy and habitually resorts edit warring; driving away users who could have substantially improved this already niche-article. He's been doing this for about 2 years, basically unopposed until June of this year, when his behavior was called out. Instead of changing his ways, as many users implored him to do, he stopped editing the article for several months, only to return over the past days and continuing his disruptive and harmful MO as if nothing happened. Other users have pointed out his behavior isn't limited to the Pennsylvania Dutch article, but this is my primary concern and I would request that he be banned from editing this article; either permanently or at least until the article's reliability (as it is now) can be thoroughly evaluated, without Aearthrise being able to edit-war or spam other users while this is going on.
Diffs and examples:
Problematic use of (unreliable, outdated and/or primary) sources, WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and WP:NPOV.
|
---|
|
Making uncivil, derogatory and demeaning remarks.
|
---|
|
Immediately resuming problematic behavior after Wiki-pause.
|
---|
|
Thank you for your trouble.Vlaemink (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Your first two columns are just a dredging of content from earlier June and July; they're not pertinent to this discussion, because these have already been discussed on a separate complaint that you made.
- I haven't been rude to you or made a comment that demeans you at all, but you're acting like I did. I've only tried to reason with you about the type of content included on the page, of which you have said that only "proper, contemporary" sources are reliable and allowed.
- I've tried to speak to you about why that's not accurate for the Pennsylvania Dutch article's topic.
- Under the third column, you're making many different accusations:
- I removed the unreliable tag citations, because you were guarding them under the premise of only "proper, contemporary" sources, claiming that all the older publications were unreliable without proving it; it is not problematic to use sources from older publications, as long as they are reliable and truthful, like the US Government from 1883 citation that I added. I recommend you read WP:AGEMATTERS to know what categories are time sensitive.
- You claim I tried to include the word "German Pennsylvania", but following the page logs for November, that's easily refuted, so this not a valid accusation at all.
- You're talking about licenses now, and I could use help if you see it could be improved; this is from 1931 Sunday Newspaper.
- For the fourth point, you are talking about my responses to you, firstly of you saying I started an edit war, which is false. Secondly, that you launched a smear campaign against me in the attempt to ban me from editing the article earlier this year. That was wrong of you, because you weren't doing it because of behavior, but because you weren't getting your way on the article.
- This can be seen by the fact that I only made a reversion with a complete explanation on November 22, the second time, when you returned, you were very hostile with me on November 26th saying:
You are [not] removing the unreliable sources tag until reliable sources are provided. You are also not going to add WP:OR by "corroborating" your preferred theories by adding primary sources instead of reliable scientific literature.
- This is you calling the sentence "such as one of the oldest German newspapers in Pennsylvania being the High Dutch Pennsylvania Journal in 1743.", cited with an 1883 publication from the US Government as WP:OR, which is incorrect, unless you're saying that the US Government is an unreliable source.
- and
You can call my insistence to adhere to Wikipedia policy "threats" all you want, it is not going to change the fact that the overwhelming majority of sources you've tried to add to this article and are now trying to pass as reliable by removing source-tags, are not acceptable. You can huff and puff all you want, it's not going to work. Revert my restoring of the cite- and source-tags again and you will be reported.
- Again, you didn't prove that any of the sources you called outdated and unreliable were unreliable other than saying that they have an older publication date. If they are unreliable, then they should be removed; you have had half a year to show that the sources were unreliable, which I asked you to do.- Your actions here, and especially writing "Page ban for Aearthrise" show your motivation to get me banned, and you're trying very hard with the administrators to do that. Aearthrise (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- My request for a page ban is not meant as a 'witch hunt', as you've tried to frame it, but a last resort to safeguard the integrity and reliability of this article. Your edit-history consistently shows a blatant disregard for core tenets of Wikipedia as well uncivil or even bullying interaction with Wikipedians who disagree with you. The reasons why my request includes many of your statements and actions from the past two years, instead of merely the past few days is, I hope, obvious: to show both a history and a pattern. A pattern, which you have just now resumed without any noticeable changes. In fact, in mere days you've been involved in two conflicts: this one, which has been going on intermittently for two years now, and a new one concerning "Cantonese Californians" — both showing the same pattern of abusive behavior and highly questionable use of sources.
- The fact that some of the content has already been listed in my request for admin intervention in June is of little consequence as that request did not end in admin intervention. Instead you spammed the request, got a lot of negative feedback and then basically left Wikipedia for several months; after which the conflict seemed frozen and the request got archived: it is only logical for this second request to pick up where you left off. I'm confident the admins involved will see the logic in this as well, and I am hoping the combined total is cause enough for a lasting solution on this issue. Vlaemink (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Ban from article space
Thank you, Vlaemink, for filing this report. The proposed page ban is not enough to solve the problem, I'm afraid. A ban on article space is in order because of the extensive misrepresentation and many falsehoods purveyed by Aearthrise in article space. The California Cantonese article is a case in point, in which Aearthrise decided unilaterally that Chinese-heritage people speaking Cantonese in California were an ethnic group somehow differentiated from the same ethnic types who speak Mandarin or any of the minor languages of China. Aearthrise transformed the article from a history of Cantonese-speaking people in California to a mish-mash of Chinese settlement in California, based on the ethnic group infobox, using sources that may or may not mix in Mandarin-speaking Chinese, and may or may not include other US states. The topic is now a total violation of WP:SYNTH. In particular, I saw Aearthrise insist that an irrelevant book cite was appropriate,[82] followed by Aearthrise adding another irrelevant cite four minutes later as a purely defensive reaction,[83] followed in the next hour by Aearthrise replacing both of these with an older teaching aid text which finally supported the text and provided some context.[84] I don't think Aearthrise should be deciding for our readers what is true. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would say a narrower topic ban from ethnicity and nationality, broadly construed, is more appropriate. Nobody has raised issues with Aearthrise's other areas of editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Voorts, please don't do that; I've spent 11 years on Wikipedia and I've made great contributions.
- I've created many beautiful, well-sourced articles for peoples who were completely unheard of, or only mentioned in passing on other articles: Alaskan Creole people, Alabama Creole people, Saint-Domingue Creoles.
- I've improved the quality of articles massively with very constructive contributions: Pennsylvania Dutch seen here; Louisiana Creole people, seen here.
- I don't believe I deserve to be banned from working on ethnicities, or nationalities, as that's what I've spent time, effort, and love to help build on Wikipedia, helping teach about the beautiful peoples of our world.
- I ask that you please don't ban me from working on Wikipedia articles with ethnicities. Aearthrise (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Now I support indef from article space per everyone else. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Binksternet I didn't decide that this was a separate culture, but it's clearly shown if you look into the sources for this people, and they've established themselves with the cultural traits of 1.Being the original descendants of California Gold Rush Miners from Canton, and 2. Being Cantonese and pertaining to the culture shared in California, but also where China becomes closed off to America, which later Modern Mandarin Chinese that came in the 1970s were different.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=California_Cantonese&diff=1259637668&oldid=1259599862%7C You started with deleting the whole article based but only mentioning the Charlotte article. You said the Charlotte article was misuse and "
about Chinese people born in California leaving to go "home" to China in the 1900s after suffering racism
", which I reverted because you had deleted not only what was with the citation, but everything else on the page. - I then shared what I cited from the Charlotte book on the discussion, and I was nothing but cordial with you on the talk page Talk:California Cantonese#Misuse of reference book by Charlotte Brooks.
- Then you removed the sentence "In recent times, many Cantonese speaking immigrants from Modern China (e.g. Macau, Guangzhou (Canton City), and Hong Kong) have also settled in California." Which, is true. Hong Kong and China major sources of recent Cantonese migration in California.
- You said I added another citation, as "a defensive" reaction, but I simply misread the citation, which I explained to you with the statement "
Reverting back, this is the third reversion and the limit for reversions; "templeuniversitypress" source specifically mentions the recent peoples who came to California, and names the Cantonese Cities Guangzhou, Macau, and Hong Kong. Read discussion response
", as this aligns with WP:3RR. - I read the citation again fully and I acknowledged that it was talking about a specific case of migrants counted in the membership of the Chinese Fellowship Church, and after that I got another source which said exactly where recent immigrants came from. Here is the acknowledgement.
- "
Followed in the next hour by Aearthrise replacing both of these with an older teaching aid text which finally supported the text and provided some context.
" This is exactly how Wikipedia should function: making constructive edits to give the best quality article. Aearthrise (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)- The defensive maneuver you made was to add a book reference four minutes after you reverted me. There is no book in the world that you could read in four minutes to find support for your notional topic. The pages of the book you cited talk about Chinese-heritage members of a particular East Coast US church, as polled in 1976 and 1995. A table on page 343 shows that these are not California Chinese, nor are they primarily Cantonese speakers. The sole connection to your notional topic was a quote by the author on page 344 citing a 1994 paper by Bernard P. Wong titled "Hong Kong Immigrants in San Francisco". The basic idea being expressed was that American chinatowns were initially using the Taishanese language, then they transitioned to Cantonese, eventually changing to mainly Mandarin-speaking, but there are still other languages spoken by ethnic Chinese in American chinatowns. None of this was about California in particular. Your reactionary edit was a travesty, made too quickly in anger. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Binksternet, I acknowledge that I misread the table on page 343 as having to do with the entire immigration from Modern China between 1976-1995, but it was only speaking about the immigrants of the specific church.
- I thank you for your help in getting that source settled, and I don't have any bad feelings towards you.
- I like when the fruits of cooperation can lead to a better quality article like this, especially when dealing with sources. Nobody can do everything alone. Aearthrise (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I find it disconcerting that you would use a phrase like ″the fruit of cooperation″ to qualify the interaction that Binksternet just described.Vlaemink (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- The meaning fruit of cooperation is a better quality article. Binksternet helped me in that, and we made constructive progress on the article. Aearthrise (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I find it disconcerting that you would use a phrase like ″the fruit of cooperation″ to qualify the interaction that Binksternet just described.Vlaemink (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- The defensive maneuver you made was to add a book reference four minutes after you reverted me. There is no book in the world that you could read in four minutes to find support for your notional topic. The pages of the book you cited talk about Chinese-heritage members of a particular East Coast US church, as polled in 1976 and 1995. A table on page 343 shows that these are not California Chinese, nor are they primarily Cantonese speakers. The sole connection to your notional topic was a quote by the author on page 344 citing a 1994 paper by Bernard P. Wong titled "Hong Kong Immigrants in San Francisco". The basic idea being expressed was that American chinatowns were initially using the Taishanese language, then they transitioned to Cantonese, eventually changing to mainly Mandarin-speaking, but there are still other languages spoken by ethnic Chinese in American chinatowns. None of this was about California in particular. Your reactionary edit was a travesty, made too quickly in anger. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support indef Aearthrise says he hasn't made hostile comments to Cullen328, but on Monday he said
You are not being honest now, and you're reaching for straws.
. If he can't recognize that is hostile, he is incapable of being part of this project. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)- Walsh90210, "
You are not being honest now, and you're reaching for straws...
" was a direct response to him sayingThe Manual of Style is not irrelevant and this is not a key fact. "California Cantonese" is not a language. Cantonese is, but it is not a native language in California. I am not obligated to study those other cases, but those names are probably inappropriate for those infoboxes too. Most importantly, you do not have consensus for your proposed change, which is required.
, because he said that I was saying MOS was irrelevant, which I wasn't; I was talking about his argument saying it's not a native language because it's not from an indigenous tribe, but I rebutted by saying "native" didn't mean "native American" in that case. - If you consider this hostile language, then I apologize for it Cullen328, and I'm sorry if I offended you were offended by it.
- My intention wasn't to offend you with saying it, but rather to point to out and I don't seek to offend people on Wikipedia. Aearthrise (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Walsh90210, "
- Support for a
topic ban concerning languages, nationalities & ethnic groupsindefinite block from article space as just proposed byVoorts (talk · contribs) Binksternet (talk · contribs). A long term pattern of disruptive and harmful editing over multiple articles has now been clearly identified and needs to stop. I have no confidence in his current apologies and promises of betterment: he did exactly the same when he was reported back in June, and continued his previous M.O. regardless. Vlaemink (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Update: I've changed my stance based on recent edits (i.e. today) on New Netherlander. Here, Aearthrise (re)added a 1887-source (which does not even contain the wording it's supposed to support)[85] and a made-up Dutch translation of "New Netherlanders", which he tries to provide a reference for by adding a book on the integration of Jews in the Netherlands between 1814 and 1851 (transl. "New Dutch: the integration of Jews in the Netherlands 1814-1851)[86]. I'm now convinced this user should no longer be allowed to edit the article space, the risks that this user brings with him when it comes to the use of sources, the addition of OR/synth and NPOV are simply too big.Vlaemink (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Vlaemink, I understand that you dislike me, but I haven't attacked you in November, and you're acting like I did.
- I only reverted two posts on Pennsylvania Dutch over a course of 4 days; you were guarding the page, but your reasoning to delete content like the 1883 citation from the US Government I added was not valid.
- I tried to explain that to you by sharing the WP:AGEMATTERS, but all you said that you would complain to administation if I reverted the page again. That wasn't an edit war, which is described by WP:3RR, and now you're trying to get me banned from that page for challenging your saying that sources can only be reliable if they're contemporary to today.
- I want to cooperate with you, and i've tried to do that, but your hostile attitude to any change of idea on older publications has caused this new ordeal. Aearthrise (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Support indefinite block from article space. If consensus for that outcome does not exist, then Support topic ban from ethnicities and languages and dialects, broadly construed. Voorts is very gracious in saying Nobody has raised issues with Aearthrise's other areas of editing
but that is because this editor rarely if ever edits outside the topic area of ethnicity and language. It might be argued that their extensive editing to Confederate general P. G. T. Beauregard might be a counterexample but the fact of the matter is that Beauregard was a Louisiana Creole whose first language was Louisiana French. A large percentage of this editor's work is POV pushing about language and ethnicity, trying to promote population groups to the status of "native" ethnic groups and to promote accents, dialects and regional language variations to the status of "native" separate languages. This editor has demonstrated that they do not understand that synthesis is not permitted. They do not understand that the Neutral point of view does not permit them to cherrypick Google hits to advance their POV pushing agenda. They do not understand that edit warring is not limited to the brightline WP:3RR but is a far broader restriction. They understand nothing about building consensus and their usual attitude when anyone objects to their poor quality work amounts to "everyone else is wrong and I am right" although they refrain from saying that openly. Instead, that is revealed in how they bludgeon discussions, repeating weak points over and over, and refusing to engage with or refute the arguments of the editors who disagree. Instead, they insist that other editors misunderstand what is obviously true, and that their opponent's points have no merit. My personal experience is as a California resident for 52 years who has repeatedly visited urban and rural Chinese communities here, and researched and read and purchased books and done previous work on articles about Chinese immigrant communities in California such as Grace Quan and Frank Fat's. That shows that I take the topic area seriously. I do not claim an academic level of expertise, but I do have a functioning bullshit detector. And the trivial factoid that this editor tried to add to the infobox of an exceptionally important article California was bullshit for several substantive reasons that I and several other editors analyzed and debated at great length at Talk: California#California name header, where that editor made an astonishing 116 edits in short order in defense of adding that trivial factoid to the top of the California infobox, utterly bludgeoning the discussion and convincing no other editors except for a brand new IP making their first edit. Their attitude from beginning to end was "you are all wrong and misinformed and making weak arguments and only I am right". Just one example of the deep weakness of their argument is a quote that they have repeatedly put forward in support of the bizarre notion that "California Cantonese" is an actual language native to California: She spoke unnaturally, in English. "I can only speak California Cantonese...
. Is this an article in an academic journal by a scholarly expert who argues that "California Cantonese" is an actual language? No. It is a fleeting comment by a random unidentified woman who does not speak English well, and is literally of zero value in making the case that "California Cantonese" is a language native to California. And to advance this spurious notion, Aearthrise heavily edited California Cantonese and Cantonese to shoehorn their pet theories into those articles as well. That is an attitude incompatible with a collaborative editing environment. That is not a new attitude for Aerthrise. Take a look at the conversation about Yankee that took place at this discussion in August 2023 and where Aearthrise makes similar bizarre and idiosyncratic arguments based on original research and synthesis that "Yankees" are an actual ethnic group when no scholars agree and the term has at least three distinct and contradictory meanings, none of which is an ethnic group. This discussion among several others shows that this editor is here only to advance their own highly idiosyncratic notions about ethnicity and language, as opposed to neutrally summarizing what the full range of high quality reliable sources say about these topics. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Another example of Aearthrise's misrepresentations is Kathryn Dyakanoff Seller. Before Aearthrise got their hands on the article, she was described as
an Alaska Native educator
and her ethnicity was descibed as Aleut. She was born in 1884. After Aearthrise was done with it, she is described asa Russian Creole educator
. There are zero references to reliable sources that call her Russian Creole. Admittedly, Dyakanoff sounds like a Russian name and the Russians colonized Alaska until 1867, but a Russian name in Alaska at that time is not sufficient to call a person "Russian Creole". For example, R. Kelly has no known Irish ancestry. Maybe she had some Russian ancestry or maybe she didn't but that is not something that can be inferred from a name. We need an inconvenient thing called a "reference to a reliable source" to call somebody a "Russian Creole", but Aearthrise does not care. That editor does it anyway, and the seven references are identical before and after the POV pushing edit. To be clear, creole identities and dialects and languages and ethnic groups are a very real thing that should be documented on Wikipedia, but only based on neutral summaries of what reliable published sources say, not on what some individual Wikipedia editor infers from a name that "sounds Russian". Interestingly, there is a recent edit summary on that article (which is not a reliable source but possibly an indication of a problem) that saysI am a family member, she identified as Aleut and there is no evidence that she was Russian
. Cullen328 (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)- Hello Cullen328,
- I didn't make that edit on that says she was a Russian Creole (terminology for people born in Alaska during the Russian Empire). If you follow the diffs, it was User:ChuckDabs who wrote it; I added that she was Alaskan Creole, but I admit, I was mistaken in it.
- Thank you for bringing it up, and I've made the proper changes to the article. Aearthrise (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Cullen328, should we reconsider using Dyahanoff's image to illustrate Alaskan Creole people? Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, to be frank, I do not know, because Aearthrise created Alaskan Creole people on February 9, 2023 and is the author of over 90% of the content. Reliable sources seem to categorize the Creoles in Alaska as one of many population groups living there, specifically those of partial Russian and partial indigenous ancestry, which strikes me as right. Aearthrise claims that every Russian subject in Alaska pre-1867 was an Alaskan Creole, which seems off to me. To say that I do not trust Aearthrise's work is an understatement. Cullen328 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, a 1944 journal article called The Russian Creoles of Alaska as a Marginal Group defines the group succinctly:
The present Russian creoles in Alaska are the descendants of mixed marriages between Russians and Alaskan natives which occurred during the period of Russian rule in Alaska, The term "creole" was legally defined by the Russian authorities to mean the children of Russian fathers and the native women, and it was used in this sense in the Russian colonies.
I do not see any major definitional changes in more recent sources identified by Google Scholar. Aearthrise's definition seems to be idiosyncratic and based on their original research. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)- @Liz:, the terminology "Russian Creole (Kriol)" or Creole in general is used to describe diverse groups of people born from both colonial, migrant and indigenous ethnic origin. Whose genesis is within a period of colonial administration and continues to exist after that period. Please see Creole peoples and Louisiana Creole (Louisiana Creole is an creole group currently present in the Southern U.S.).
- @Cullen328:, I know nothing about Kathryn Dyakanoff Seller. Perhaps her non-Anglicized birth name (Ekaterina Pelagiia Dyakanoff) is just an example of a Russification of native peoples' personal names by the previous Russian administration, this especially likely given she was only born 17 years after the Alaska Purchase.
- Given that, I think it would be remiss to remove the Cyrillic spelling of her name as it was likely spelled that way by her Aleut or Kriol parents (Nikifor and Pelagia Dyakanoff) in 1884.
- (source: https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/kathryn_d_seller.pdf)
- Also, though not a source we use on Wikipedia, a privately managed Geni account for Kathryn Seller's family lists her great-grandfather Vasilii Diakanov (Dyakanoff) as born in mainland Russia. I would wager that she is marginally an Alaskan Creole and mostly Aleut in extraction.
- (source: https://www.geni.com/Vasilii-Diakanov/6000000022657577428?through=6000000022657432529)
- Thus, if the majority of her make up Aleut and/or Alaskan Native, it is absolutely correct to call her an "Aleut" educator. I recommend a flag for this article for further review and for more sources.
- This article is definitely not as cut and dry as "I am a family member, she identified as Aleut and there is no evidence that she was Russian.", I believe that family member is unaware of Kathryn's full ethnic origin.
- Please keep me in the loop guys!
ChuckDabs (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)- ChuckDabs, as I wrote previously,
Maybe she had some Russian ancestry or maybe she didn't
. I agree that the matter is not cut and dried. The problem is that Aearthrise and another editor made an assumption without relying on a reliable source, and that is a policy violation. As for the definition of "Creole", we cannot apply a definition from Louisiana to Alaska. I found a 1944 academic definition for Alaska. I would like to find out if that definition is contested or has evolved over the years. Cullen328 (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- ChuckDabs, as I wrote previously,
- Liz, a 1944 journal article called The Russian Creoles of Alaska as a Marginal Group defines the group succinctly:
- Liz, to be frank, I do not know, because Aearthrise created Alaskan Creole people on February 9, 2023 and is the author of over 90% of the content. Reliable sources seem to categorize the Creoles in Alaska as one of many population groups living there, specifically those of partial Russian and partial indigenous ancestry, which strikes me as right. Aearthrise claims that every Russian subject in Alaska pre-1867 was an Alaskan Creole, which seems off to me. To say that I do not trust Aearthrise's work is an understatement. Cullen328 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not a very prolific editor, but having seen this topic by chance- when reading the P. G. T. Beauregard article in December 2022, after (what I now know to be) extensive editing on it throughout that year by Aerthrise, it struck me as "off" in some ways. The things I noted at the time were that the article was heavily dependent on one source- in places an uncomfortably close paraphrase of it (P.G.T. Beauregard: Napoleon in Gray by T. Harry Williams, a reliable but older work, published 1955), and that the article incorrectly claimed that Beauregard had endorsed Grant for president in 1868, and, bizarrely, claimed that Beauregard endorsed Grant while attributing to Beauregard a contemporary quote saying that Grant would "become the tool of designing politicians." (Cited to Williams; text added by Aearthrise in this diff.) On investigation I found that the actual book said just the opposite- that Beauregard loathed Grant and considered leaving the country in the wake of his victory; and the "tool of designing politicians" quote is actually taken from Williams's narrative text- it is not attributed to Beauregard in the book, and was not written until decades after his death. At that time I wasn't Wikipedia-savvy enough to track down who added it and in what context; I just fixed the error myself with reference to the cited book.
- Now, two things strike me in the context of this thread. The first is that shortly before I found and fixed this error, Aearthrise got very aggressive with an IP editor who pointed the same error- their error- out on Talk:P. G. T. Beauregard, saying, in response to the IP's pointing out that the "designing politicians" text hardly sounds like an endorsement,
You're irrationally imagining and inserting your own context considering he voted for Grant; the phrase "become the tool of designing politicians" is just Beauregard's way of saying that he will help bring change. Is English your first language?
- doubling down on their misreading of the text (he didn't vote for Grant, the pseudo-quote is meant to be critical of Grant), instead of either consulting the book again or even acknowledging that the plain meaning of the text that was in the article is confused. The second thing is that the Beauregard article had (and still has) a subsection titled "Treatment by Anglo-Americans due to his Creole heritage," which fits the pattern noted above of motivated ethnicity-related editing, and is shaky in its own right- it's entirely sourced to Williams's book, it seems to be assembled from separate incidents in the biography where Beauregard can be portrayed as having experienced discrimination based on his background, and if the subject is in fact due for coverage in the article, it probably isn't due for coverage at such length (eg it's much longer than the brief coverage of his wife and children immediately above it). These issues themselves are obviously fairly old, but they definitely fit the apparently ongoing patterns laid out above. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC) - having quietly read through this whole thing, and the plainly retaliatory post below (#Review of Vlaemink's actions), i'm really not impressed with Aearthrise's attitude and behavior. our ethnicity articles are consistently some of the messiest, most bloated with OR/SYNTH/etc, and most poorly-written articles on the project, and Aearthrise is contributing to that with their consistent bizarre POV pushing at the expense of reliable sourcing and verifiability. what Yspaddadenpenkawr points out regarding the Beauregard article should be the final straw. support ban from articlespace and a topic ban from ethnicity, per Cullen328 in particular. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support indefinite ban from article space. If Aearthrise wants to, he can politely and collaboratively suggest sources of interest on talk pages, but it seems best to leave it to others to judge their suitability. In general, Wikipedia is very reluctant to ban users for bad content, but there comes a point where it's unavoidable. Aearthrise, I believe you that you're acting in good faith, but the conclusions you are drawing from weak sources just aren't merited. I hope you don't lose your taste for free content, but I will again humbly suggest something like Wikisource as a place to transcribe old documents or the like. There are ways to contribute here, but it's clear that your judgment in historical matters does not match the expectations of the community. SnowFire (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose ban from article space, but Support topic ban from ethnicity and nationality, broadly construed. I get that Aearthrise doesn't appear to have contributed outside this topic, but that's the exact reason why I oppose the broader ban: there is no evidence either in support of or against a ban outside of the topic area. Even Cullen328's thorough and excellent argument admits that the only potential example of editing outside the topic area really isn't outside of it.
- Banning them from article space functionally means they won't have the opportunity to demonstrate how they edit outside the topic. I'd rather the community impose a sanction that gives them the opportunity to do so, while also putting a stop to the damage being done in the topic area.
- --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Banning them from article space functionally means they won't have the opportunity to demonstrate how they edit outside the topic.
They can use edit-requests. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)- Hence the word "functionally". Submitting an edit request is asking someone else to edit on your behalf. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, while this conversation continues, Aerthrise has resumed editing the problematic California Cantonese article, making 48 edits within a four hour period. Cullen328 (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- They seem to have issues with restraint and moderation. Liz Read! Talk! 09:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I thought I would spot check one of those edits, at random I chose this one about the Californian Cantonese style of architecture[87]. The reference is for Understanding Ordinary Landscapes pages 81–84, which usefully is available via Google books[88]. It doesn't discuss any Californian Cantonese style of architecture, it is about Chinatowns in general in the US and Canada. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is typical of the type of unacceptable original research that Aearthrise routinely engages in, to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I thought I would spot check one of those edits, at random I chose this one about the Californian Cantonese style of architecture[87]. The reference is for Understanding Ordinary Landscapes pages 81–84, which usefully is available via Google books[88]. It doesn't discuss any Californian Cantonese style of architecture, it is about Chinatowns in general in the US and Canada. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- They seem to have issues with restraint and moderation. Liz Read! Talk! 09:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- This makes no sense: if I couldn't edit articles directly, I could make edit requests; the edit requests I made would clearly
demonstrate how [I] edit
. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Liz, while this conversation continues, Aerthrise has resumed editing the problematic California Cantonese article, making 48 edits within a four hour period. Cullen328 (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hence the word "functionally". Submitting an edit request is asking someone else to edit on your behalf. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I suspect that User:98.174.88.181 might be loutsocking. I'm not sure if it's okay to say that here – if not, any admin may revert and revdel. Toadspike [Talk] 08:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment @Aearthrise added this information [89] . Because saw no mention of this information on the cited page [90], I removed it [91]. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Review of Vlaemink's actions
Vlaemink has made repeated behavior of threatening to complain to administration to solve content dispute issues.
At the same time, he has been challenging me to make an administration complaint myself, but I didn't feel that it was right to abuse the administration system to solve disputes.
However, Vlaemink has made a new complaint against me recently, and is asking me to be banned from an article, Pennsylvania Dutch claiming that I was doing edit warring, but has not shown proof of that other than bringing up points from June and July that weren't pertinent to the discussion.
Recently on New Netherlander, Vlaemink removed the infobox and a citation saying what he believed was "definite", that people born in New Netherland weren't an ethnic group, and that the their Native_Name in the infobox was never used (i've since added a citation that proves otherwise) and he is continuing to say that only contemporary sources are allowed to be used on Wikipedia.
I mentioned to him several times that a source isn't unreliable just for being published at an older date, and that he should read WP:AGEMATTERS to see what kind of categories are time-sensitive.
I don't know what more I can do now.
I don't want him to face problems, like he is trying to do with me, but his editing style is disruptive and his attitude is increasingly hostile for no reason. Thank you. Aearthrise (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is an extension of #Requesting a page ban for Aearthrise, so you should probably include it as a subheader of that. CMD (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Under no circumstances whatsoever have I threatened you. What I definitely have done, is warn you multiple times that I would ask for admins to intervene if you continued to ignore Wikipedia-policy and disruptive editing — which you chose to ignore.
- The term "edit warring" entails more than breaking the 3RR; something which Cullen328 (talk · contribs) recently pointed out.[92]
- As for the New Netherlander-article; here I removed a 1887-source, added by you, which did not contain the wording it claimed to support [93] and removed a supposedly Dutch translation, also added by you, which was plainly wrong. Instead of backing down, you then added a reference about the integration of Jews in the Netherlands between 1814 and 1851;[94] in support of your translation. I consider this highly problematic, because it shows that you are both willing to add translations in a language you clearly do not understand (in Dutch adjectives are conjugated, "New Netherlanders" is translated as "Nieuw-Nederlanders", "Nieuwe Nederlanders" is simply a term for recent immigrants in the Netherlands) and willing to add invalid references to such "translations" in order to push your personal POV and/or preferences.
- I'm very sorry to say this, but your latest comments here are clearly just another an attempt to re-frame your current predicament as a witch-hunt or personal vendetta. This is not the case: everything mentioned here, and not just by me, concerns your problematic behavior and use of sources — which you've consistently displayed for over (at least) 2 years. Vlaemink (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is clearly a retaliatory filing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Under no circumstances whatsoever have I threatened you. What I definitely have done, is warn you multiple times that I would ask for admins to intervene if you continued to ignore Wikipedia-policy and disruptive editing — which you chose to ignore.
Request for a decision
Though I want to emphasize that I am fully aware that being an administrator is voluntary and fully understand any reluctance or wariness to work through everything that has been written here, I feel that (with the possible exception of the recent suspicion of sock puppetry [95]) the discussion above has run its course. I would therefore kindly like to ask an administrator to make a decision in this complicated and long-running case; as Aearthrise has only been ramping up his edits over the past few days. Vlaemink (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I endorse this request for an univolved administrator to close this matter. The damage to the encyclopedia is ongoing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)