Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forgot a point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"There are many reliable sources stating it"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You also state:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source text: ㋒武家に仕える者。家の子。武士。さむらい。

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

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

Source text: Saburai: Fidalgo, i, bomem bonrado

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"as I've done in the past"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One editor[8]:

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

Another editor[9]:

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

The quote from WP:BLUDGEON is quite relevant here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not appropriate behavior for any editor.

Details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

100% yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Three points:

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

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

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

@Gitz6666 —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, the fifth color-coded paragraph down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

additional:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to WP:SELFCITE, it states the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. without regard for the consensus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to WP:NOTSYNTH:

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, it me, ya girl, the IP Address. Just want to hop in right quick re:stated that Bryants Osprey books had reliability issues on Wikipedia in the past No I didn't, I did not say that his books had reliability issues. I said Osprey books (as in books from the publisher) were a mixed-bag of reliability according to the RSN on Wikipedia, as per here, which says Osprey is a bit of a mixed bag, but they're generally okay (at least for European military history). Usable, but should be replaced with better sources if possible. I also even said that Just because he doesn't use in-text citations doesn't automatically make him unreliable (though I feel like you might make a different argument). 172.90.69.231 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

initial report is SPA

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk · contribs)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

A comment like this:

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

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

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

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

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

We need to stop any attempt for history falsification.”

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

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

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

ErikWar19 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

B)

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

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

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

C)

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

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

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

D)

At least i quoted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

oh and this may be interesting too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it goes on.

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

Two points:

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

B states on a sidenote:

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

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

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

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

so i presume

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

One editor[51]:

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

Another editor[52]:

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

The quote from WP:BLUDGEON is quite relevant here.

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

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

RSN discussion off the rails

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD discussion

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

Personally attacked again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Vacosea! That’s a careless mistake I made. What happened was, I noticed I wrongly typed “HK” while I should have type “Wuhan” the first time. Then when I tried to fix it, I tried to use the “Find in page” option of the browser to locate it. Then due to misclick some text was deleted (not just in your comment, but in my comment as well). I’m sorry about that, I hate making mistakes, it’s corrected now and thanks for pointing it out. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Ahmad_Shazlan

New account Ahmad_Shazlan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making disruptive edits not just on the English Wikipedia, but across several Wikimedia projects: Special:CentralAuth/Ahmad_Shazlan. The edits relate to South-East Asian food items (particularly klepon), which the user wants to label as specifically Indonesian. Example diff: [68]. There has been a history of similar disruptive editing by other accounts. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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

They are still being disruptive and unresponsive, despite a warning from the admin Ohnoitsjamie. They have just violated the WP:3RR: [69] [70] [71]. They have also expanded to be disruptive on the same topic across 8 language editions of Wikipedia (see global account info). Freelance Intellectual (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

‎Repeated WP:GS/AA violations

BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı (talk · contribs) has violated WP:GS/AA extended confirmed restriction numerous times. They were blocked once already for it by Firefangledfeathers, but they continued doing it after being unblocked [72]: the article is about Armenian genocide perpetrators' party, and BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı specifically edited/moved the name of the main perpetrator, Tallat Pasha. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı also seems to be a proponent of the pseudoscientific and ultranationalistic Sun Language Theory. Using questionable sources to pov push the Bronze Age Mesopotamian Gutian people [73] and Turukkaeans [74] as Turks, which is next level ridiculousness. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  It's very concerning that BaharatlıCheetos2.0 is ignoring this report. Moreover, there is evidence that suggest they might be the LTA Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 [75] [76]. Also see this embarrassing WP:TENDENTIOUS/WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/source misuse mess clearly created as a way of coping [77], pretty ironic when they are seemingly a proponent of the Sun Language Theory, and they will no doubt try to push more of this nonsense to this site. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Forgive me for butting in, but wouldn't there be concerns (if not general sanctions) regarding WP:CT/EE? Remsense诉 22:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Persistent ethno-nationalistic disruption

Just had to clean up more nationalistic editing by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı [78]. And just before that I nominated a fictional article made by BaharatlıCheetos2.0'ın devamı for deletion [79]. I'll compile a list shortly to show how much of a serious matter this is. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Support sanctions This is a repeat issue with this editor, and I think that the WP:NPOV issues are going to continue unless some sort of administrator action is taken. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued policy violations by IP 116.86.53.37

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

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

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

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

Persistent vandalism by 24.46.26.32

24.46.26.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) IP has been persistent in doing edits that violate WP:DOB and WP:BADDATE as well as those that weaken the technical aspect of the articles, even if such edits have been undone countless times. EdrianJustine (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

They have a lot of unreverted edits. Can you identify, say, three recent edits that are a problem, with a brief explanation? If you could point to where an attempt was made to engage the IP, a block for continuing would be reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I went to their talk page to warn them about metro.co.uk being an unreliable source per WP:METRO, in this edit they made today (July 21), and saw three warnings already from 2024 about them adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, so what's the point of adding another warning when they have ignored the previous warnings. Additionally, they reverted an edit (same diff above) I made per MOS:COLLAPSE - content in an article should never be collapsed by default - without leaving an edit summary as to why they reverted my edit. They also removed a redirect today without leaving an edit summary in this edit, leaving the article unsourced. They also added an unsourced date of birth today in this edit and changed the date format being used in the article, again without an edit summary. And going back to October 2021, they have never responded to any of the warnings on their talk page, and in their last 500 edits, they have never left an edit summary explaining their edits. So I'd say that communication is required from them as to why they are repeatedly adding unsourced/poorly sourced content, and why they are changing date formats, and edit summaries sure are appreciated. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The point of trying to engage IPs is that it is not scalable to rely on admins to explain problems. However, you are right that the IP needs to communicate and deal with the issues raised on their talk. They have an interesting block log and I blocked for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Walco1 changing name line in infoboxes against guidelines

Noticed Walco1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone on a spree changing the Template:Infobox person parameters in some (200?) articles moving titles such as "Sir" from honorific_prefix = to the name = line (first example?) contrary to the guidelines at Template:Infobox person ---> name ---> "Do not put honorifics or alternative names in this parameter." Seems to be some kind of ongoing edit war across Wikipedia mentioned here, here and here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SIR seems to allow for it, and the MOS trumps the instructions in an infobox. Canterbury Tail talk 20:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SIR says "infobox heading", not "name" line. honorific_prefix line would be the heading. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Fountains here - we do not include Sir in the name parameter. GiantSnowman 21:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs). Allow me to clarify my position. A knighthood in the British honours system allows one to prefix one's name with the title "Sir or "Dame". This is not an alternative name but a title. This was discussed here and editors other than myself have begun to make the change to some of the most well known recipients of this honour in history, such as Sir Winston Churchill, Sir John A. Macdonald, and Sir Isaac Brock, just name a few. I had been frustrated by seeing Sir in the honorific prefix field in the past, as it is incorrect to place it beside styles such as "The Right Honourable" which are only referred to in the third person, but I had not made these changes as I knew, as incorrect as it was, it was not Wikipedia policy. I was glad to see changes made to the above mentioned knights. I was making these changes to make the pages of other knights consistent with the more high profile knights, such as Sir Keir Starmer, on whose pages edits are heavily scrutinized. This was done in good faith. Walco1 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually yes I agree with the others above in reading MOS:SIR again. MOS:SIR is quite clear that it's a title not a name, being knighted doesn't actually change your name. It's a prefix title, not a name. You'll need to get consensus to change MOS:SIR. Also note MOS:CONSISTENT doesn't say what you think it says, it says we need to be consistent within an article, not between articles. I don't question the good faith, but it's been brought to your attention now so unless there is an MOS consensus otherwise you need to stop in my opinion. I think the main problem here is different infoboxes approach what appears at the top in different ways and not all have the titles. Canterbury Tail talk 23:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, again, Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs). I appreciate you not seeing this as the great act of vandalism some think it to be be. Walco1 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

When you edit hundreds of article, including FAs such as Clements Markham, and continue to do so even when informed why you should cease, then it is disruptive. GiantSnowman 05:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the edits User:Walco1 made were simply to reverse disruptive edits by another editor, who moved thousands of "Sir" from "name" to "prefix". Take, at random, Sir Gilbert Parker, 1st Baronet. "Sir" was in the name field from 2015 to 2023 without objection, when an editor moved it as part of an edit spree involving thousands of articles. User:Walco1 was merely restoring the status quo ante. Atchom (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

the editor you are accusing of being disruptive appears to be @Omnipaedista:? GiantSnowman 11:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and he's been called out on several discussions. Another was User:Edward Jocob Philip Smith, who was blocked for used sockpuppets to advance his arguments on this. Atchom (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SIR says that "Sir" is to be placed in bold with the full name of the subject at the beginning of the article, so under the MOS "Sir" is clearly not treated in the same way as "His Excellency" and other similar predicates. Atchom (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the governing rule in this case is the parameter documentation for Template:Infobox person, which states for "honorific_prefix": "This is for honorifics of serious significance that are attached to the name in formal address, such as knighthoods, 'The Honourable', and 'His/Her Excellency'". The honorifics covered by MOS:SIR are a bit weird in that they can be used with the first name only, which most honorifics can't (e.g., referring to someone as "Sir John" is normal, as "Hon. John" is not), which is why that piece of MOS exists, I suppose. So perhaps you could make a case for changing the infobox documentation to put them in the "name" parameter, but as it stands, if we're going to be consistent, we should also be consistent with the documentation as written and put them in "honorific_prefix". Choess (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

But infobox documentation is explicitly not evidence of consensus under Wikipedia guidelines, so this seems like a case of the tail wagging the dog. Atchom (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion of this here and would invite Fountains of Bryn Mawr and GiantSnowman to participate there before continuing on this mass revert spree. Walco1 (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

User: Walco1, As you admitted above you knew this "was not Wikipedia policy" but you went ahead changing templates with out getting consensus on the guideline and/or a consensus change on the template because? Its a bold move but that puts us under WP:BRD, it gets reverted and then you can try for a consensus change. That's the way Wikipedia works. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I saw discussions of it on the talk pages of other articles, saw it in practices on other articles, so made the bold choice to apply it to other articles, in good faith, thinking it had changed. If you have objections to its placement there I again invite you to participate in the discussion. If your objection is merely with my actions, I have not many any such edits since the discussion on this board began and am seeking consensus. Walco1 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

All fine and good and see my comment about a dog. BRD means all the edits should properly be reverted (by you, me, or someone) especially since you knew they were all BOLD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Walco, by starting that discussion to change SIR, you have acknowledged that SIR does not support your changes, and it follows therefore that your edits were not supported by any policy or guidelines, and that you edited dozens and dozens of articles despite having that knowledge. Ergo, your edits were disruptive. GiantSnowman 10:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Walco1 most certainly has not indulged in vandalism. The threat of blocking needs to be retracted and an apology issued. This is a clear case of an admin overstepping the mark. This is a highly controversial issue, as those involved are (or should be) aware, and the relevant guidelines contradict one another. MOS:SIR most certainly mandates it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Necrothesp, I appreciate your words. In hindsight I should not have attempted to make the change in one fell swoop but maintain it was done in good faith and given the uncertainty between Infobox guidelines, MOS, etc. not an expressly forbidden act. Walco1 (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

CurryTime7-24

 Note: DaRealPrinceZuko copied the first few posts in this discussion (including others' replies) from WT:XRV § CurryTime7-24. DanCherek (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

CurryTime7-24 is engaging in forms of disruptive editing regarding the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony and Mainland Japan articles solely to suit his personal opinions and ignoring the counterevidence that debunks his claims by obfuscating historical accounts and dismissing a source I provided. See User talk:DaRealPrinceZuko#July 2024 DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Sigh... other user is talking about this edit; they added Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony to a list of territories legally defined by the Empire of Japan as gaichi (constituent external colonies and territories). According to this Kotobank entry, the term specifically referred to territories that were under Japan's legal control prior to its defeat in 1945. The meaning of this term is very narrow. This study on Japanese colonialism by Kan Kimura discusses the 1920 and 1943 laws that legally defined what the naichi ("Japan proper") and gaichi were: this farm is never mentioned. Neither any of the cited sources in the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony article nor elsewhere I checked in a quick web search turned up anything that confirmed the other user's assertion, which seems to be based on their misunderstanding of the term "colony". According to Webster's Dictionary, a "colony" is defined as "an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control", as well as a "a group of people who settle together in a new place". All evidence makes clear that the latter usage was certainly intended in the naming of this colony.

To be clear, I'd have no problem with this user's edit if they simply provided evidence to prove their assertion that this farm in central California was a legal constituent territory of the Empire of Japan. I'd gladly retract my objections if they did. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Just realized that the source the other user says I dismissed is this one from the website of Walk the Farm, a Nisei farming organization established in 2011 to assist farmers affected by natural disasters. They do not run the Wakamatsu Tea and Silk Farm Colony (that would be California State Parks). Even if they did, the cited link states that the Japanese immigrants that founded Wakamatsu did so in order to pursue "[their] unique version of the American dream". Nowhere does it say that these settlers sought to establish a gaichi colony for the Empire of Japan, which according to other cited sources in the article they were fleeing because they ended up on the losing side of the Boshin War. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The reason the settlement is never mentioned in Kan Kimura's study is likely due to a lack of knowledge of the settlement. Also, both definitions of "colony" by Merriam-Webster fit the bill for the settlement. The farm was controlled by still-active samurai, which means that it was under Japanese control. A military is, by definition, an extension of a government. So the fact that the samurai were fleeing from the Japanese government does not change anything, as they did not renounce their service as samurai. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@DaRealPrinceZuko: You are expected to notify CurryTime7-24 on their talk page that you have started a discussion about them at this noticeboard. DanCherek (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Just noting that when I closed they other thread, I did not, as DRPZ claims on CT’s talk page, recommend he bring this here. I recommended they discuss at the article talk pages, and then follow WP:DR if that didn’t work. I still don’t understand why so few new editors that run into conflict listen to advice, and think they know better. -Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You said that I could theoretically discuss this here, even if this would get rejected as a simple "content dispute". DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read the next sentence I wrote after that. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, the sources I cited above confirm that the other editor's assertion that the Wakamatsu farm in California was a legal constituent territory of the Empire of Japan is incorrect. Moreover, as I said before, the terms naichi ("inner lands", "mainland", or what in the immediate postwar would be referred to as the "home islands") and gaichi (colonies and concessions under the legal control of the empire) were strictly defined and encoded in laws passed in 1920 and 1943. Contrary to the other editor's belief, the farm in California was never mentioned in any of those laws and, therefore, does not qualify as a colony of the Empire of Japan as recognized by the country itself. Whether there were former military among these immigrants is irrelevant. (Their presence is questioned in one of the sources below.)

Wakamatsu was an important milestone not in the history of Japanese colonialism, to which it is irrelevant, but to the Japanese immigrant experience in the United States. Various sources confirm this; none mention anything about these immigrants acting as agents of Japanese colonialism. For example:

• California State Parks webpage on the Wakamatsu farm: "This pioneering settlement is the first Japanese community to establish themselves in California." Also, according to the photo of the plaque from the site itself: "First settlement of pioneer Japanese immigrants".
• Pacific Pioneers: Japanese Journeys to America and Hawaii, 1850–1880 by John E. van Sant, p. 118: "The Wakamatsu colonists are, however, historically important for three reasons. First, they established the largest Japanese enclave in the United States before the beginning of systematic Japanese immigration in the mid-1880s. Second, they were the first group of Japanese intending to permanently settle in the country. Finally, although they did not directly influence the process of emigration from Japan, they were the vanguard of Issei (first-generation Japanese immigrants) to the United States."
• Farm history from the American River Conservancy, which owns the property: "On June 8, 1869, the first Japanese settlers in North America arrived in a region named 'Gold Hill' near Coloma where the California gold rush began ... Recognized by many as the 'Japanese American Plymouth Rock', Wakamatsu Farm holds three distinctive first honors: site of the first Japanese colony in America, birthplace of the first birthright Japanese American citizen, [and] Resting place of Okei, the first Japanese immigrant and woman buried on American soil. When she died at the age of 19 in 1871, Okei became a symbol of dignity and sacrifice for future Japanese immigrants pursuing the American dream..."
• Wakamatsu Farm and the Birth of Japanese America by Daniel A. Métraux re. samurai immigrants at Wakamatsu: "There is a legend that many of the Japanese workers were from the samurai class. This is impossible to verify because there are insufficient details concerning the identity of the workers, but the U.S. Census of 1870 does provide some clues. It lists 22 Japanese with Schnell in the Gold Hill District of Coloma, including 14 men, six women and two children. Their occupations are listed as carpenters and farm workers, which in most cases is probably accurate. It is entirely possible, however, that one or more of the Japanese were indeed of samurai rank, but we cannot be absolutely sure".
• Also according to Métraux, Wakamatsu was founded on the initiative of a German businessman resident in early Meiji Japan, not Japanese: "Although Wakamatsu Farm was the first Japanese colony in North America, it seems that the scheme was directed by John Henry. It is likely that he conceived the idea, recruited the Japanese workers, bought agricultural supplies to bring to California, financed the transport of Japanese, bought the land at Gold Hill, and directed all the operations from June 1869 to June 1871". Its founding was likely based on the hope of establishing a lucrative silk industry in California (p. 134). It had nothing to do with furthering Japan's colonialist aims, which were non-existent at this very early stage in its modernization.
• A contemporary news source quoted in Métraux (p. 134) state that the immigrants arrived to help boost local industry: "With their industry and highly developed skills, they have come with their families to help develop our resources". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because the settlement was not recognized as legally belonging does not mean that it was not owned by Japan. And again, the samurai who administered the colony were still serving as military personnel and therefore, the settlement was a legal constituency. You also ignored the other examples I provided, such as Fort Ross, California being an unrecognized constituency of the Russian Empire. Wakamatsu was both important as a mere settler community and as a territory governed by military personnel, whether they were loyal to their government or not. The fact that the farm was not categorized as a colony does not prove your point, as, again, it was governed by soldiers, even if it was not recognized by the Japanese government. The farm did not have to be colonial in order to be considered a possession of Japan. Even if the idea of a Japanese colony was financed by John Henry, that does not change the fact that the settlement was administered by Japanese samurai.

Also, I did consider dispute resolution if this didn't work here. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

According to Métraux, samurai cannot even be confirmed among the Wakamatsu immigrants, let alone in control of the farm. You haven't provided anything to support your opinion, other than WP:OTHERCONTENT. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Content dispute! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

John Henry, the German businessman who initiated the establishment of the settlement, was a samurai himself. And again, a military is an extension of a government, regardless of loyalty. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an invalid source according to WP:UGC and WP:CIRC ("I gather ideas for this website from a wide range of sources, but these are my favourites: Wikipedia..."). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aizu and Shonai Domains during the Meiji Restoration Turned to Diplomacy: Confirmed in German Archives. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@DaRealPrinceZuko: Again, ANI is not the place for content disputes. Remsense诉 01:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

IP constantly reverting good edits

User:81.168.2.69 has been constantly reverting good edits. They have called them BS (although they didn't use the acronym) and said that they were reverting LTA (even though they were reverting an unbanned user with a long history of good edits). They are also very persistent to say the least. Gaismagorm (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

nevermind they were blocked, we all good, should iI still leave a notice on their talk page? Gaismagorm (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No Maestrofin (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Account for sale

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

---

Spotted this: https://swapd.co/t/6-year-aged-wikipedia-account-for-sale-4000-edits/555036. Yes, it's a two-year-old thread.

The account on the screenshots is UA3.

The account has been inactive lately, but a preventive block might be considered as its reactivation would fly under the radar.

I've had an unfortunate displeasure of facing a group of ostensibly resold accounts banding together at WP:Articles for deletion/Tamil genocide, and I'm quite keen on reducing such risks for the future. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This was previously reported in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361#Account being sold. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks. Still, I suggest to block this account. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Talk:Tabet

Was patrolling the edit requests and stumbled upon this comment which contains a legal threat at the end being used to "defend" the removal of some relevant disambiguation entries. Never encountered this type of thing before and not too sure how to deal with it, so bringing it here for community/administrative attention. Left guide (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked Ghostofjustice for the legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Some eyes on AfD please

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

---

Not sure about @Knitsey or @Isabelle Belato but I'm going to log off before too long and some extra hands to revert and block would be helpful. Star Mississippi 00:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I will be about for another hour or so. Knitsey (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and the help. I should be on for a couple more hours. I'd recommend editors to simply report the problem accounts at WP:AIV. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

and if it dies down and my semis are no long needed, feel free to unprotect. Was in the moment to stop the worst of the nonsense. There's an SPI awaiting a clerk, but after round 2 I didn't log them there. Just blocking and reverting. Star Mississippi 00:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll be around the next few hours or so. There is a great recent changes filter I use on my personal laptop, but don't have at work. Will see if I can find it in the archives and share if I do. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Something like this. It has the new AIV bot in it unfortunately, but is still effective at picking the AfD silliness. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I've been closing today's AFDs and saw no problems. What was this in reference to? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: the usual - search contribs for Munbazuioe, Munbouios and Muboeruio. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Ckanopueme: 15 year SPA-ish

Subject editor is bludgeoning DRV for Segun Toyin Dawodu, not taking friendly advice, and looking back on past contributions and talk page, appears to resemble a 15-year SPA with a passionate interest in this article that is sufficiently outside the norm that I'd encourage an UPE investigation. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I just wrote a comment along these lines at the DRV unrelated to the above report, and was coming here to report pretty much the same thing. It is very disruptive at this point, and if I wasn't borderline involved (by virtue of advocating 'endorse deletion') I'd have considered a pblock to allow the DRV to get back on track. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Doczilla#Deletion_review_for_Segun_Toyin_Dawodu. Daniel (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I took note of this diff while temp-undeleting the talk page. This user is either the subject of the article, or was already behaving enough like the subject would in 2013 that DragonflySixtyseven tagged them as such. —Cryptic 02:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

commons:File:Segund Toyin Dawodu.jpg lists it as Ckanopueme's "own work". Mmmmmm. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I asked at the DRV. The subject did not answer the question. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The evasiveness of the (non-)reply speaks volumes. Absolutely no desire to answer the question. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The image is the same as on the front page of dawodu.com, [80]. Between that and this user's denial that it's his own work, I've tagged it as a speedy at Commons. —Cryptic 01:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I said at the DRV that I haven't reviewed the deleted article in detail and do not have an opinion on the notability of the subject. I do have opinions on a content issue, which I expressed at the DRV, and on a conduct issue. The content issue is that the closer correctly assessed consensus. The conduct issue is that the subject editor is being disruptive, as reported by the nominator, by bludgeoning the DRV. I recommend, at a minimum, a partial block of the subject from the DRV. That's the minimum sanction. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we are at the point that (at a minimum) a pblock is required from the DRV page. A full siteblock might also be merited for the UPE/COI general disruption also. Daniel (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and a pretty anti-intellectual one at that, that could be summarized as "Look, we're volunteers here; I've got two minutes max to consider this matter, I did that and made my decision, and I don't have time or interest to have a big back-and-forth about it". Which is true; we pretty much have to make snap decisions here a lot. I wouldn't make a virtue of this necessity tho, particularly as people can just skip anything they don't want to read last I heard. So I'm not a big fan of the you'll-shut-up-and-like-it approach to dealing with opponents in discussions.

It looks to me that subject might well rate an article, based on there's a full biographical article in an extremely widely-read newspaper, just for starters. Of course an editor is going to get excited when their legit work is deleted for what may be insufficient cause. What do you expect. Do we want editors who don't care about their work. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, if you can intervene as a disinterested party and explain the behavioral issues to this editor, I'm happy. Of course, the response so far is pretty much what I would expect from a dual doctor/lawyer, so I'm not optimistic that you, or anyone, can get this editor to learn how to approach issues productively. Still, if you succeeded? Awesome. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah, I don't want to. He should pipe down, but apparently he won't, and it's just something we have to live with I guess.

There's IMO a big difference between rolling your eyes as you skip some screed, or telling a person to please pipe down because they are A) being annoying and B) actually hurting their chances after a certain point, and using FORCE to make them unable to speak in discussing an internal procedure. Topic bans for articles (including their talk pages), that's different, and just below I recommended that for the article for this person. But AfD and DR are discussions about internal procedures. To me that's way different. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Having looked things over, I concur in every respect. Therefore, how about this as a minimal solution? I propose a topic ban from any edits involving Segun Toyin Dawodu, broadly construed. We can see if Ckanopueme has a mind to contribute to Wikipedia in any other way. Ravenswing 05:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is the correct solution. (It's kind of moot since the article is gone and is going to stay gone whether it should or not.) Herostratus (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not all that moot. He can recreate it with a name tweak, and a number of his edits over the years have been inserting his name into other articles. Better to be safe than sorry. Ravenswing 09:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If this could get 30 seconds of attention from a not-already-involved admin, that would be great, because now I'm being likened to the fucking mafia for trying to describe the concept of duplicate citations. [81] —Cryptic 12:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ckanopueme despite everything, assume good faith and being civil are a must here. Focus on the content and not on the editors here. Being likened to the mafia here is a personal attack. I suggest that striking out the comment and that an apology is in order. – robertsky (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

y'all know what... I am blocking @Ckanopueme for doubling down on WP:NPA for 31 hours. This is not the first instance of making personal attacks. It seems that they do not pay attention to well-meaning warnings. Come back when you are in better frame of mind. The apology is still expected. – robertsky (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I hadn't !voted so I'd have p-blocked from the DRV to allow consensus to form, but I don't want to mess up Robertsky's broader block (which I endorse, but don't think the disruption will stop after 31h. Star Mississippi 13:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  i would endorse a p block too. If only one could layer blocks efficient. – robertsky (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm beginning to think your way as well. This guy has a serious case of WP:IDHT, from his ongoing remarks at the DRV. Ravenswing 15:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  The ongoing conduct despite various attempts at changing it from a very experienced group of editors and admins, is nothing short of astonishing. Something definitely needs to be done to allow a functional DRV to occur. Daniel (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, Ckanopueme's most recent comment on the DRV, accusing User:Uhooep of having created sockpuppets for the purpose of endorsing the close [82], is definitely block-worthy in of itself. Ravenswing 22:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

It was floated above and received some support, but I'm going to formalise the process here with a subsection to help develop a clearer consensus.

Ckanopueme is topic-banned from any edits involving Segun Toyin Dawodu, broadly construed. This may be appealed to the administrators' noticeboard after 12 months, and once every 6 months after.

This is based on Ravenswing's original proposal above.

• Support as proposer. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support Let's give this editor a chance to work on other things, when interactions surrounding this article have not been remotely collegial. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Feels like we're swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, but while this article looks unlikely to ever come back - none of its refs pass the laugh tests for both independence and significant coverage, and the afd pretty much eliminates a WP:NPROF end-run around the GNG - I don't have any confidence the user will just stop putting this name into other articles. —Cryptic 01:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - If the editor honors this topic-ban, then a partial block from the DRV will not be necessary because the T-ban will cover it (and if not, not). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support: This is pretty much the chance the editor gets. Next step is a cban. Ravenswing 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Made absolutely necessary by the editor's behavior. Better to do this cleanly now than messily later. The narrow scope of the topic ban allows the editor to fulfill their stated goal of writing articles about "notable Nigerians," rather than their apparent role as Segun Toyin Dawodu's de facto publicist. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• I would be inclined to just indef Ckanopueme as WP:NOTHERE and skip the topic ban, but if you want to do that first then just I support it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Disruption by SPA editor

Bobsource123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA editor. Of their 35 contributions, 33 have been to Þorgrímur Þráinsson. Their additions look to have been largely unproblematic. Unfortunately, they have repeatedly removed a Template:POV tag added by @Buidhe: in November 2019 without explaining why: June 2022, October 2022, August 2023, June 2024, June 2024, July 2024. They have avoided responding to messages left on their Talk page and instead blanked their entire Talk page today: [83]. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Today, they removed the ANI notice from their Talk page which means they've seen it. Still, they again removed the tag and they also removed the short description while they were at it. I would consider this "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Robby.is.on (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Persistent incivility by EEng

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

---

Hello, I've been seeking consensus at Talk:Sacred Cod#Good Article reassessment (2) and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/2, but user EEng has continued to resort to ad hominem and profanity. I've tried to resolve this with him but it's getting very frustrating. Can somebody take a look here, because I feel like this is a clear violation of WP:UNCIVIL. Cpotisch (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Profanity, is not itself against the rules, and I am not seeing anything actionable, at worst its borderline. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to read closely what EEng has written, particularly because you haven't provided any diffs of the statements you find uncivil. What I did see was a thorough analysis by EEng intermixed with complaints about you expecting others to do your work for you. Some of it, not surprisingly knowing EEng, is acerbic and blunt, but if I were you, I'd try to learn from EEng's experience. Frankly, it looks like you're unhappy that EEng is not impressed with what you've done - and I believe they're not alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

EEng’s comments are extremely and unnecessarily uncivil.

Please use a dictionary in the future to learn what things mean without requiring your fellow editors to educate you. Maybe improve your googling skills [15], but honestly, your native shrewdness should have allowed you to work the meaning out for yourself by using what your teacher probably calls "using context clues".

The article body recites that "the State House burned". When you say something "burned", you're saying it was destroyed by fire. I would have thought you'd have known that without having to be told.

First of all, presumably where you say unequivocating, you really mean unequivocal -- you might try looking those up in a dictionary (maybe while you're looking up "to the life").

It's simple. A course on logic might help you.

you may want to review 8th-grade English.

Oh sorry, you're not a high school student? You'll forgive my mistake.

No, smartypants, … You've got a lot to learn, see, and the sooner you start talking less and listening more, the better.

I’m sorry, but what the fuck is this supposed to be? It’s completely bizarre, and obviously unnecessary. Most editors have learned to respond to criticism they find undue without doing a Young Sheldon impression. I don’t see any reason why this bullying (no matter how limp) does not detract from the project—especially considering that any newer editor speaking this way to a veteran would be blocked in thirty seconds. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound chiding, but rather than providing out of context presumed quotes, I highly recommend that you provide diffs, which will enable editors to directly review what EEng might have said. DonIago (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

True. I’m not going to dig for diffs right now, as I’m on mobile, but all of these come from the first discussion linked in the original post. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Doniago what is the point of simultaneously suggesting quotes are taken out of context and requiring diffs? The entire context is provided in the above link, and reading the entire thing is a more useful exercise than trying to boil things down to a single edit.

This is a usual pattern: someone brings up critiques, and rather than just refute them, Eeng decides to raise the temperature of the discussion to 100 degrees by insulting and belittling the other editor. I'm not sure what context would make that better, and I'm not sure how there's any necessity for Weng's response. This is ultimately about a longtime editor who cannot brook any criticism of "their" work without responding in this egregious manner (and it's not just the above editor who's raised it, since the critiques go back to the [GAR] and other uninvolved editors raised other concerns.[84]) We absolutely would block a new editor who tried this. I don't see why Eeng is not held to the same standard as an adult, since he's got no issue critiquing others' maturity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We can argue all day long whether the quotes are a breach of our WP:NPA policies, but the reality is that they show a battleground behavior from the editor, which I understand has happened before in this same context, when a different editor raised concerns about that article. This kind of behavior invariably leads to ANI threads being opened, and eventually closed, as enough users find that kind of behavior more amusing than disruptive. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that we would block a new editor for this, and I challenge anyone to produce three recent examples of any such case that they think is similar. Levivich (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Boner has different meanings, it can mean a cockup, or a cock up. I hope this isn't something that would get me blocked, because its one of EEng's points when he decided the conversation should be about penis for some reason. [85] 107.116.165.78 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, in the above diff EEng talks about the original poster having an erection in school, and that this is shameful. EEng said he thought they were a kid, then wants to make the conversation erection-centric? This feels gross on many levels. 107.116.165.78 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. I wondered if "boner" has some other meaning I wasn't familiar with. The open comparison to an erection in class makes it clear that, no, EEng is trying to frame content issues as sexual fixations. Weird, wrong, abusive. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree that the comments, especially in this diff, are unconstructive and rude. Last I checked, the goal of GAN and GAR is still improving articles collaboratively, and tossing playground-level insults at one another does nothing to achieve that goal. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

As EEng's longstanding ANI defense counsel, I must disagree with Cpotisch's claim that I've been seeking consensus, as the edit history shows otherwise:

• Dec 29 tags the article
• New Year's Eve removes almost half the article (from 1800 words to 950 words).
• EEng reverts on Jan 1, with edit summary Take it to the talk page
• Cpotisch makes no other edits to the article before or since [86]
• Despite the invitation in EEng's edit summary, Cpotisch makes no talk page edits to the article at all, until July 20 [87]
• Seven months later, on July 20, with apparently no interaction with the article other than those two edits in December, Cpotisch starts (incorrectly) a GAR at Talk:Sacred Cod#Good Article reassessment (2)
• The next day, July 21, starts a formal GAR at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/2. Does not notify the article's major contributors, nor the GA nominator, nor the GA reviewer, nor the relevant WikiProjects, as instructed by WP:GAR. However, Cpotisch does notify the editor who opened up the first GAR two years ago, even though that editor hasn't edited in almost a year. (GAR coordinators were also notified.)
• AFAICT, Cpotisch has never nominated an article for GA, never reviewed a GA nom, never participated in a GAR, and never nominated an article for GAR, except this one. It seems this is the one and only time Cpotisch has interacted with GA.
• In sum, Cpotisch made (basically) one edit to an article, then came back 7 months later and launched a GAR, as their first-ever interaction with the GA process, without ever before posting anything on its talk page
• And the substantive GAR complaints: it's not that the article fails verification, contains copyvio, or isn't NPOV... it's all complaints about how this sentence or that sentence is written. Arguably, that's WP:GACRIT#1, but the examples consist of a few phrases from the first few paragraphs. These are minor disagreements over wording, not the kind of thing people go to GAR over.
• The kicker: here is the combined diff showing all changes made between May 2022 (when the last GAR was closed as "keep") and July 2024 (when GAR #2 was opened): the article barely changed. Clearly, Cpotisch was aware of GAR #1 (since they notified the editor who opened it), and yet they opened a second GAR despite there being no substantive change to the article in the interim. There is no argument here for WP:CCC; a second GAR is just a disruptive waste of time in this circumstance.

This isn't "seeking consensus," this is seeking disruption. This is GARing an article in response to having a re-write reverted, and seven months later to boot, without proper notifications, and with no attempt whatsoever at actually achieving consensus.

And -- surprise! -- EEng gets snippy in his responses. I would be snippy if someone did this to an article I had written, and so would you, dear reader. And then Cpotisch goes to ANI with an incivility complaint with no diffs. This isn't trying to reach consensus, this is trying to use Wikipedia's various processes (GAR, ANI) to win a content dispute. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That all seems to be quite a red herring. Maybe they hadn't done much to seek consensus previously. I don't think any of the history you cite explains EEng's angry reaction. And it's more than "snippy", it's ballistic. I don't think WP:CIVIL is the issue either - seems to be more about WP:BATTLE. User:Ɱ (no longer active) seems to have got pretty much the same treatment in the first GAR on the talk page. Having read both the GARs, the level of animosity directed against Ɱ and Cpotisch is baffling and unnecessary. When one reads the two threads, even if one were not to agree with Cpotisch and Ɱ or even think they were a bit dumb, the extent of the anger is inexplicable. (Btw, that first sentence of the article is just awful!) DeCausa (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

In my book, going from a single edit straight to a GAR is much more WP:BATTLE than calling someone "smartypants." Levivich (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If there was a pattern of disruption by Cpotisch, why didn't Eeng or anyone else take them to a noticeboard or try and engage in another location? Are you really suggesting "the solution to behavior I find disruptive is to launch as many personal attacks as I can until they go away"? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Why? Maybe because they were pissed off. Maybe because you can't take someone to ANI for being wrong, or for nitpicking too much, or for launching a GAR without trying to resolve things on the user talk page first (at least not as a one-time thing). And of course I'm not suggesting that personal attacks are the solution to disruptive behavior, I'm suggesting they're a natural response to disruptive behavior. I'm suggesting don't expect editors to maintain politeness in the face of someone launching a disruptive GAR out of nowhere (especially if it's happened more than once). Levivich (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

When the only common factor in a bunch of disputes is the one person behaving "pissed off" regularly, that suggests the problem is the person who has anger issues, rather than the random people coming into contact and receiving the blowback. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That's one possible interpretation. Another is that it's not random people. A third is that an editor's impatience is not necessarily an issue at all. What I notice about EEng ANI threads is that they are always joined by IPs and new accounts, as is this one. To me, it's plain as day that EEng is targeted by some LTA(s), in a way that most editors are not (notice there has still been edit warring from IPs over the self-referential humor joke since we were here last). That's my interpretation of why he's at ANI twice a year or so. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an LTA starting this thread, unless you're suggesting the editor with more than 5 years on wiki and thousands of edits is one. Sometimes the simplest answer (that Eeng flies off the handle far more than the average editor) is the one that fits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh EEng definitely flies off the handle more than the average editor. I don't think we should sanction him for having less than average patience. Particularly because he is also provoked more than the average editor.

Have you ever had an editor make one drastic rewrite edit on an article you wrote, then post on an admin's UTP about it, then the UTP of an inactive editor who previously took it to GAR, then take it to GAR, without ever having posted on the talk page even once, but falsely claiming that they had, and that you were rude to them? I've never had that happen to me and if it did, I'd be pissed off and would likely use sharp language. Be honest here: wouldn't you, too?

I'm not suggesting OP is an LTA, I'm suggesting OP took a very hostile, uncollegial, and disruptive, battleground approach here, and so they shouldn't complain that they were met with sharp words. "Read a dictionary" and "smartypants" isn't really that bad in context. Levivich (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no. Concocting an insane retort about me having an erection in school does not merely constitute “impatience”. I’m reviewing my edits to identify what it is that I misremembered as a talk page post, but regardless I have never encountered an editor resort to such bizarre ad hominem. Cpotisch (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am not a new account. I’ve been on Wiki for five (six?) years and have a long history of well-received edits. This is my first GAR so apologies if it’s out of order. That doesn’t make EEng’s response any more justified. And complaining about diffs strikes me as irrelevant; I linked both pages in question (which don’t constitute all that much text), and everything he’s said is still there. Cpotisch (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not out of order. Once you had it on the right page, it was all proper. It's quite common for people to throw the OP under the bus at ANI to bail out their friends. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What did you mean, in what appears to me to be your first talk page edit, by I think responded to in a fairly hostile manner when I sought out consensus on the talk page? When did you seek out consensus on the talk page and were responded to in a fairly hostile manner, prior to making that edit? Levivich (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What about calling someone a high schooler and talking about humiliating erections in class? How much of that is permitted before it starts becoming a problem? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I missed a few things:

• The opening paragraph of Cpotisch's (AFAICT) first-ever talk page post:

  I attempted to make these edits and was promptly reverted (and I think responded to in a fairly hostile manner when I sought out consensus on the talk page). These issues persist, and I've found that editors in favor of the current structure of the article are falling back on its Good Article status as a cudgel to push away critics.

  • How is responded to in a fairly hostile manner when I sought out consensus on the talk page possibly an accurate statement, since there were no prior posts on the talk page by Cpotisch? The only way Cpotisch's statements would make sense is if they participated previously.
  • And editors in favor of the current structure of the article are falling back on its Good Article status as a cudgel to push away critics also seems to be totally inaccurate, since there has been no talk page discussion -- literally nobody except EEng posted on the talk page -- since the 2022 GAR. The talk page history shows that in 10 years there has been no talk page discussion except for the 2022 GAR and this 2024 GAR.
• After being reverted in January, posted on Cullen328's talk page (User talk:Cullen328/Archive 100#EEng and Sacred Cod) and was advised to go to the article talk page
• In March, posted at User talk:Ɱ#Sacred Cod (the editor who opened the first GAR)

Levivich (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not important if User:Cpotisch or any other user is an incompetent or bad editor or even a vandal, as it changes nothing about User:EEng's conduct.

Your comments are very Ad hominem. AlexBobCharles (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Even if he was uncivil, the community has proven time and time again they are incapable of handling behavioral issues related to EEng. If an admin things a warning or block is warranted, then that is certainly within their discretion. Might as well close this down before it spirals out of control like it usually does. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• EEng's repeated and deliberate use of sexual metaphors on Talk:Sacred Cod is the kind of thing that got The C of E banned from DYK. It's juvenile and non-constructive. More to the point, it's discretionary: EEng chose to do it; nothing about Cpotisch's conduct drew it out. Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  This comment is just insane:

  Cpotisch, in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, do I need to draw you a picture? In the criteria, where the guideline says, "b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation", CLICK THE GODDAM WORDS 'Lead sections' AND SEE WHERE YOU END UP. This, specifically, constitutes a boner in that it's very much like when you got an erection in class and everyone could see it and you were very embarrassed and ashamed, as you should be now.[1] And BTW, criteria is plural -- criteria themselves -- Mr. Writing Expert. You're beginning to look like a WP:CIR case.

  This is baffling and unacceptable. The correct amount of invocation of the shamefulness of erection in content disputes on wiki is zero. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Looks like standard EEng to me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Also, I am frankly amused at what EEng has been able to get away with since 2014. His block history is... extensive. I guess his hyperbole is endearing, in a way. The talk and user pages certainly are. In any case,I would agree that he needs to tone it down a bit. I'm also seeing some WP:OWN from him here that needs to be rebuffed. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement partly retracted. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• If that’s standard, he should be blocked, because nobody needs to put up with boner accusations on Wikipedia. You might find it cute, but this is a totally deranged example of a very harmful phenomenon for editor retention and recruitment, which is long-time editors being bullies—and the community tolerating it, due to the delicious cleverness of “you have a freakin BONER!” ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Some background: This isn't the first time EEng has disrupted an article evaluation when he didn't like the direction it was going. EEng is part of a tag-team of editors who filibuster certain good article reassessments for articles they like. The last time this was an issue (which did not include EEng), I made it clear that going forward I would open an ANI discussion whenever someone was harassed for initiating a reassessment. My response was informed by a previous incident where these editors, including EEng, turned a routine evaluation into an uncivil 17,000 word argument. I have never seen a good article reassessment anywhere within an order of magnitude of this, except for the ones where these particular editors barge in. As there seem to be some misrepresentations of how the good article reassessment process works, I'm going to notify the good article nomination talk page so people more active in that area can weigh in should they chose to do so. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Remember no one cares, so ignore troublemakers Moxy🍁 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  • I agree that EEng & others' behavior at the John von Neumann GAR was very poor indeed, and perhaps he should have been sanctioned for it, but for this particular incident it seems Cpotisch has been the "initiator" goading EEng (whether intentionally or not). But even setting that aside... Opening a GAR is fine, disagreeing with EEng is fine, and EEng should been less salty in his replies, but Cpotisch's essential argument has been "EEng, your writing is crap". And this is potentially even a valid GAR complaint (there are GAs with poor prose), but unfortunately, defending against it essentially requires some amount of "no it's not, it's your preference that is crap," even if we imagine a hypothetical perfectly polite EEng. I say this as someone who is not part of the EEng defense tag-team and thinks he probably should have been sanctioned for some of the past shenanigans, but probably not this one, where his replies, while not optimal, are actually on-topic and something of a natural outgrowth of Cpotisch's own critique. SnowFire (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

    “You have a boner” is a necessary negation of prose criticisms? It has nothing to do with content; it’s just an attempt at humiliation. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Let's make things easy. We know already, of course, that God has a hard-on per a reliable source. There is literally a law—it's even called the Boner Law—for EEng to invoke vis à vis boning, boneur, boneurism, boneristical or embonement when required. Get with the bonergram, people. ——Serial Number 54129 19:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: What. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• First, my first gut reaction was that EEng has put in maybe 1000 times more time and work on this article than Cpotisch. Even considering WP:OWN, that still means something. Cpotisch is being something of a jerk. EEng is being a giant jerk here. I'm more willing than most to look the other way if this was a one-off and there was clear baiting, or if EEng was meeting snark with the same general level of snark, but this does seem to fit a long-term pattern, and EEng escalated things dramatically. AtG was recently blocked by someone for a week for a similar continuation of long-term behavior. I suppose We could do that, with no one unblocking early? I wouldn't support an indef, but also don't support "that's just EEng being EEng". There are simply zero optimal solutions when a productive long-term editor reserves the right to just go off on a hapless editor who made a few mistakes, instead of showing some modicum of grace. We need to do the suboptimal thing and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  EEng has put in maybe 1000 times more time and work on this article than Cpotisch.

  That does not and should not matter, @Floquenbeam. It’s not his article, we all put our time in editing for the sake of the good of the project, not for any self interest. There IS an optimal solution here, and that is to castigate both editors (EEng more so than Cpotisch). I’m also seeing comments from other people here saying that this is Cpo’s first segue into GAs and GARing—that again should not matter, and it’s a bit disturbing that EEng seems to be given greater deference purely by virtue of him being an established editor. We all need to be treated equally.

  As I mentioned above, his block history is extensive, and he’s gotten away with more than what any standard or newer editor certainly would’ve I’ve seen people indeffed for a lot less than what EEng has done and been doing. At the very least, a reprimand is in order. It isn’t appropriate to just drop this, as charming as EEng can be. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Since this was indented as a reply to me, I'll just say I disagree with a lot of this. I have no desire to try to convince you, but just didn't want my silence to imply to others I've been convinced. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  That’s quite alright, I don’t need convincing nor did my reply intend to convince you— I’m just making what I think to be an obvious point.

  So, as a sysop, do you have a response regarding EEng’s chronic behavior, or will it just be, as one editor put it, the usual "EEng is funny and/or he was provoked"? — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  What? I already answered this above. Go argue with someone else, please, this is annoying. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @That Coptic Guy: So, as a participant in this thread, do you have a response regarding Cpotisch's failure to go to the talk page after being reverted, admin shopping, canvassing, falsely claiming to have had a talk page discussion, falsely claiming EEng was hostile in that talk page discussion, and bad GAR, or do you really think that a boner joke is worse than all that? Levivich (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve addressed the talk page misstatement below. Care to be specific and explain how I was “admin shopping”? Cpotisch (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Of course; I will answer below. Levivich (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Levivich I doubt I or anyone else would have really cared if it stopped at "a boner joke" (to use your expression). It's the repeated usage, culminating in "This, specifically, constitutes a boner in that it's very much like when you got an erection in class and everyone could see it and you were very embarrassed and ashamed, as you should be now. EEng should be embarrassed that he wrote it. You should be embarrassed that you're defending it. Mackensen (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not defending it. But you have not yet commented on the other side of this. I think the other side is significantly worse. Levivich (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly, I'm waiting to see Cpotisch's reply to your thorough set of questions. Sanctions may well be in order. Even if everything you allege is true it doesn't excuse EEng's behavior. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, Mack. But I'd ask you to consider this: if everything I suspect is true, that means EEng is the victim of a harassment campaign involving multiple accounts, a "set-up", a trap laid over the course of 7 months (or maybe two years). And if that's true, then don't you think that does excuse incivility? I think it excuses an "FU," calling someone stupid in so many words, or similar behavior. I don't like the erection reference, it's crass and makes for an unwelcoming environment for everyone. But if everything I suspect is true, then SFR just blocked the victim of harassment for having a bad reaction to the harassment. And I think that is bad, even worse than crass sexual innuendo on article talk pages. Levivich (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  You absolutely should be disengaging with this thread Levivich, if you're going to continue casting aspersions without evidence. You're seriously suggesting there has been a years-long plot to entrap Eeng with his own bad behavior, which is perhaps the most ludicrous accusation I've seen on ANI in years. The victim is not the guy who cannot hold his tongue at the simplest critiques of articles he's worked on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Excuse me, but I have not cast any aspersions, I have provided evidence. You may not agree with my suspicions or interpretation of the evidence, but I have not made any evidence-free accusations. And I will engage with Mack as I engaged with you, please don't tell me to shut up because you disagree with my conclusions. Levivich (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good lord ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Man, I promise you this isn't a set-up. The whole situation stinks and ANI isn't the point of Wikipedia, but I actually like EEng -- he just needs to engage a bit more politely is all. The boner joke is a symptom of a larger issue. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I’d just like to say y’all that I apologize for completely misremembering the circumstances of the first round of edits several months ago. I genuinely could have sworn that he and I had gone bat to bat on the talk page back then, but I think I got it confused in my mind with the prior reassessment instead.

Having said all of that, I don’t see how my edits and GAR — as inflammatory or contentious as they may have been - in any way make it acceptable to respond with such bizarre incivility. I would have thought it goes without saying that making up anecdotes about another editor’s erection crosses a line, regardless of any “provocation” (which was unintentional if it occurred).

Even if he had valid reason to be “upset” or “impatient”, he wouldn’t get a free pass for taking the bait. Cpotisch (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

To recap: you made your first edit to this article cutting it down by about half, and were reverted. Your response to this was:

1. Going to an admin's talk page and saying Hello, I was wondering if you could take a look at the behavior of the aforementioned user and the aforementioned article, which they are very active on. The way I see it, any time anyone has any feedback or makes any edits, this user bludgeons their way through, but maybe I'm missing something and it's all fine. "any time anyone has any feedback or makes any edits, this user bludgeons their way through" is a flat untrue statement -- just look at the talk page, that doesn't bear any of that out. And why would you jump straight to asking an admin to review the other editor's behavior, without even trying to actually talk to that editor, or to any editors on that talk page?
2. The admin told you to go to the talk page, and you said you would (However, as I see it, every interaction on the talk page has been shot down in a fairly-uncivil manner so I'm not super eager to face that. Not saying I won't, just saying I haven't rushed to do it yet. -- fully aware you hadn't yet attempted talk page communication, and already making up your mind about the other editor's uncivil manner.
3. But you don't go to the talk page. Instead, almost three months later, you went to the UTP of an inactive editor who previously had the same conflict with EEng that you anticipated having (but had not yet had), and wrote Frankly, I believe that the article is egregiously poorly written and I want to move towards consensus for some wholesale changes, but I could use a second set of eyes here. Why would you need another set of eyes here if you hadn't even tried talk page communication yet?
4. Receiving no response, after almost another four months, you started a GAR which falsely accused the other editor of hostility and falsely said you had previously tried to gain consensus on the talk page. Now you apologize for those false accusations -- that's great, you should also strike them from the page -- but I'm still at a loss as to how this all unfolded.

Tell me: did you previously have an unpleasant encounter with EEng when you had a different username? Because that would explain why you expected hostility at the outset, and why you tried to canvass an admin, and later an editor, and "misremembered" receiving hostility in a talk page discussion that never happened. If this is not the explanation, then what explains your actions?

And in any event, don't you see how this sequence of actions could be seen as harassment? I mean, outright poisoning the well? And thus, why you would receive insults in response to said perceived harassment? Levivich (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

These quotes are personally insulting an editor, regardless of the context. Not needed or useful. An analysis of the context (which I didn't do) might come up with mitigating circumstances which make this minor. It's unrealistic for all discussions to occur on the upper levels of the debate pyramid (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Debate_Pyramid_v2_Detailed_TT_Norms_Bold_Text_Outlined.svg) , but those are at the bottom 1 or 2 levels. EEng might look back on this as a good experience if they just apologized, learned a bit from it and we moved on. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I find the comments from EEng to be far in excess of whatever possible provocation that the OP may have provided. Frankly, the erection comments are quite beyond what any editor (male, female, or nonbinary) should have to put up with. I'd be in favor of something, but I fear that the usual "EEng is funny and/or he was provoked" will win out and nothing will be done, again. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm on IRL deadline right now, so if I may I'd like overnight to post something. Or maybe in the end I'll decide to let the matter speak for itself (for those who read closely enough). Anyway, I'll see y'all tomorrow. EEng 21:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have blocked EEng for one week for personal attacks. Even if another editor is misbehaving it does not give someone a free pass to deliberately invoke the imagery of sexual humiliation of another editor. No we don't do that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • We should add a new section at WP:BILORV titled "Administrator-specific challenges".
    First one in that section: Block EEng for more than a week.
    Bonus: the block sticks to the end. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not going to argue against this block but I kind of feel that when one editor baits another editor into blockable misbehavior, the block should be shared equally by both participants. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I didn’t bait anyone and EEng has bragged about getting blocked before for the same problems. This didn’t start with me. Cpotisch (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I feel that people are responsible for their own actions and the "he made me do it" excuse should seen as a confession of guilt, just like it is in the real world. I'd personally be more open to the idea that if someone keeps causing trouble the same way and the same few people always come to defend them at ANI, they should share the block. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Regardless of any provocation this kind of behavior is unacceptable. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thebiguglyalien, are you saying you'd be (more) open to editors being blocked for defending other editors? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm saying that if I had to choose between penalizing the victim or the accomplices, I would choose the accomplices. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I guess I just can't equal defending an editor, repeatedly or not, to being an accomplice to that editor's behavior. But maybe that's not what you meant. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm referring to Wikipedia:Tag team, I apologize if I didn't make that clearer before. There are groups where if one editor is reported for causing problems, certain other editors will come to defend them, and then they'll repay the favor when one of the others is reported for causing problems. It's an efficient way to make oneself and one's friends WP:UNBLOCKABLE. But no, I'm not going to campaign to make this a thing; merely pointing it out and contrasting it with David Eppstein's proposal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Given that this assumption of bad faith is on ANI, in reply to a comment in which I explicitly did not defend EEng, and by its placement is implicitly casting aspersions on my own behavior, I am going to demand either diffs clearly displaying me performing the behavior you describe or a retraction, please, Thebiguglyalien. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Late to post here, but Levivich's summary is well-founded in facts, showing Cpotisch to have misremembered and been highly aggressive. Arguing against proposed changes to an article that has passed repeated review is not ownership. In the discussion at Talk:Sacred Cod#Good Article reassessment (2), Cpotisch called EEng on his assumption that Cpotisch's desired level of prose complexity derived from high school English classes, and after Cpotisch took issue with his "profanities", presumably referring to the intensifier "fucking", needled him with the other meaning of "boner". That was uncivil, but Cpotisch's assumption of the superiority of his taste is unwarranted and disrespectful. The oldfashioned WP:BRD applies, and yes, any writer who crafts interesting and well written articles (as this demonstrably is) is going to be annoyed by edits like Cpotisch's and rationales like the misuse of "run-on sentence" to mean "over-long sentence", but I wouldn't have called that a grammatical boner (EEng tends to be pithy and risqué where I instead tend to be prolix and sententious; so I don't have EEng's block log). I'm sorry EEng got blocked again, especially since he had just pointed out he didn't have time for a full defence/rebuttal until later. But he was unnecessarily rude. However, Cpotisch's behaviour has been extremely uncollegial. They should apologise and re-examine their assumptions about style and their approach to being reverted. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Good block. Disgusting comment on a talk page that is full of EEng being unbecoming towards those with concerns, going back two years. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not defending EEng, but he's been blocked, and there are diminishing returns to editors piling on. If anyone wants to start a sub-tread about a boomerang, ok, I guess, but otherwise, this discussion should probably be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• EEng uses the word boner in its original sense of an embarrassing mistake. Here is an example on the same talk page, more than two years ago: May 2022 where EEng lists "a few boners" from three sources and explains how the sources make totally incorrect statements. The first use of boner in the current incident was 21 July 2024 where EEng points out to Cpotisch "They're not minor typos; they're vocabulary and grammar boners that show you're not experienced in writing high-quality prose." EEng is later driven to despair when Cpotisch again fails to understand a simple point and repeats an embarrassing mistake. At this point, EEng started extemporizing on the term "boner" leading to the current shock horror. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is that a defense or what are you hoping for? PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Aaalright. Still started rattling about classroom erections in explicit terms. He’s blocked, what else is there to discuss? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: - Is there a better reason than the one in your edit summary as to why you reopened this? EEng has already been blocked and I don't see the point of beating a dead horse - the editors involved in the dispute are sorting it out on their talk pages. Furthermore, before calling my close for WP:HAR a false claim, you would've done well to examine the block log, which noted a violation of WP:NPA or WP:HAR. Admittedly, I should have put "or", and the part of my closing statement that included WP:HAR was rightfully deleted. This is getting ridiculous and frankly a waste of people's time. It is time to move on and actually be productive. With that said, this will be the last I'll post as it pertains to this topic. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  OP hasn't answered my questions yet and TBUA hasn't answered David's, and you're involved and therefore should not close this. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  This thread isn't going anywhere and should be closed. EEng can appeal - maybe he has already but I really can't be bothered loading that absurdly long talk page to check. If you feel that strongly about the OP it would be better to open a new thread than creating one of these huge meandering ANI monstrosities. (This one is long enough already). I don't see much would come of it though. DeCausa (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Will somebody uninvolved please close this, as is oft repeated, it is generating more heat than light. EEng was blocked, and I'm not seeing any calls for sanctions against anyone else. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Peter Isotalo: aspersions, misrepresentation, and canvassing

Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been persistently uncivil at Talk:Human history and related pages:

• In response to me and User:Joe Roe disagreeing with them at this discussion, they have left what one uninvolved editor described as "vague polemics" at four WikiProject talkpages alleging that "several users" are pursuing an "openly disparaging and hostile campaign" against "academic historians" and in favour of fringe theories, making the article "a nadir of problems that English Wikipedia has with writing about history". They refused User:Doug Weller's request to retract these canvassing attempts, saying they didn't have specific individuals in mind, an odd claim considering the number of people in the discussion.
• They have persistently misrepresented comments from myself and others, such as User:Phlsph7 (example), to push their argument that the article is fundamentally flawed: they have misunderstood replies so often that one would be a fool not to think it intentional. Much of this verges on sealioning, as you can see from the talk page. On another page, they characterised an AFD as an attempt to circumvent WP:N (!), which I found rather funny.
• When the misrepresentation failed to have an effect, they issued numerous aspersions: they have accused editors of, inter alia, having "an axe to grind with anyone who supports academic historiography", "overtly engaging in POV:ing the article", trying "to exclude a whole field of academic study", and "effectively shutting down discussion". Joe Roe characterised their communication as an "escalating series of aspersions, personal attacks, and now accusations of a conspiracy". Peter feels these are nothing more than "perceived slights" by people who haven't taken him seriously, when in reality he has consistently taken advantage of the goodwill of other editors to belittle their arguments and dismantle the atmosphere of a previously-collegial talk page.

I would like to see a formal commitment from Peter to improving their behaviour, as they have so far refused to. If that commitment has to come from the sharp end of ANI, so be it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

My purpose for canvassing was to get attention to the talkpage and try to involve other editors. My comments are based on general behavior I've seen for a long time and which isn't limited either to last few weeks or even human history. If it was about just a few specific users, I would be singling out those users, but I think the problem goes beyond this. Peter ^Isotalo 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they were "calls to action" intended to influence editors' opinions before reading the discussion. As explained at WP:CANVASS, that compromises the consensus-making process, and is entirely inappropriate. Please state that you understand the above. Please also comment on the aspersions within the canvassing messages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any assumption of good faith in your behavior, Airship. The tone of your interaction with me has been consistently unfriendly even to the point that you dug up your own months-old unfriendly commentary and held it against me.[88] Your reaction to my trying to seek input at WP:3O was to remove the request[89] and ignore the issue, including a direct question to you in the GA. Your interaction has been consistently ungenerous.

Whatever you're planning here seems to be purely disciplinary. That's not something that requires my willing participation or consent. If you're interested in non-threatening dialogue, you're welcome to take it up on my talkpage. Peter ^Isotalo 08:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo the rule for 3O is " only two editors are involved". Are you really claiming that was true when you asked for a third opinion? Doug Weller talk 10:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I interpreted the issue as primarily being a disagreement primarily between me and Phlsph7 at that point. I also assumed the main the point of seeking a 3O was to try to seek uninvolved input which seemed appropriate. If I was in a position of being a party to a dispute (which Airship was at that point[90]), I would at the very least try to help bring in outside opinions. Peter ^Isotalo 11:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Isotalo In other words you ignored the instructions and it was properly removed. But with your experience you must know about DNR, RfCs, etc. Or NPOVN. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Guess I have the wrong experience then. Peter ^Isotalo 12:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No Peter, you have been consistently obstructive, and once again you misrepresent events. First, you replied at the GA review clearly ignoring the sources in the comment you were replying to. In response to my suggesting reading it to you again, you made the following aspersions-riddled comment:

"I saw your criticism there and noted you have personal opinions about various sources and discussion among academic historians. I don't know what point you're trying to make other than that you seem to dislike how academic historical research is written and debated among professional historians."

In other words, without explanation or justification, you accuse me of WP:FRINGE POV-pushing. Ungenerous much? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Without getting too far into things just yet, of the 3 points above, the latter 2 lack diffs. Specifically for the accusations of misrepresentation and that of casting aspersions. JackTheSecond (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been involved in those talk page discussions and some of Peter's controversial comments were directed at me, so I am not an impartial judge of this situation. With this disclaimer in mind, my impression is that AirshipJungleman29's description is a good summary of what has been happening. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Peter is receptive to the issues raised here since the same behavior of misrepresenting other editors continues: [91] and [92]. Their recent comment on this ANI also indicates that they are not receptive. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This behavior is so unfortunately typical it feels archetypal. Disgruntled editor can't be bothered to be patient or courteous: spams tags, canvasses (always unsuccessfully), and takes productivity to new lows. How can Peter expect anyone to work with him under such circumstances? If they want to actually move forward, they could start by removing their clearly retaliatory tags, acknowledging and apologizing for their behavior, and offering actionable suggestions—not vague accusations. – Aza24 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• On the merits of the content, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Modernity_articles_are_a_hot_mess. The short version is that periodization is not nearly as important as Peter Isotalo believes it is. He seems to see it as some catastrophic error, but it isn't. The important thing is the content, not the arbitrary divisions. Wikipedia divides up content for all sorts of reasons, including WP:Summary style and WP:SIZE. Or for the human history article example, just for division into reader-useful sections. There is not some ideal, Platonic set of sections / divisions to use that deviation from is terrible. Even if there was, Peter Isotalo routinely refuses to actually give concrete examples of what he does want to replace it. So I strongly disagree with these edits on human history - again, these are Wikipedia section headers, not statements of divine fact. It's not "OR" to subdivide articles.
• On editor behavior, even if we accept for a moment that Peter is in some way correct, he needs to translate his nebulous wishes into concrete proposals, and not tag-bomb everything he doesn't like. If Peter says "hey, here's an alternate periodization scheme, it's supported by historians X, Y, and Z, let's change the articles to use that", then fine, that's something that can be concretely discussed. Instead he's currently simply asserted that "historians" en masse reject the good faith efforts of other editors, even when this doesn't appear to be true. It's not a collegial approach to matters. SnowFire (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with those concerned about this way of working. I have been a watcher for the most part, on several articles. I am seeing the situation spread from being a dysfunctional talk page, to bulk edits on multiple articles, which have a "point making" feel to them. I think other editors have tried hard to work appropriately and discuss things at their own pace, based on their own perceptions of the cases involved. Peter's habit of answering constructive posts with simplistic insults and the rewriting of the opinions of other editors is disruptive. Peter seems to steamroll the valid concerns of others. Of course most experienced Wikipedians will sympathize with Peter's feelings of frustration, which are common in this communal editing environment, but this seems to be the wrong approach. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this - this been a pattern for years. Fortunately he only shows up on my watchlist at long intervals, presumably because he's away editing linguistic/maritime/cooking stuff I don't see, but when he turns up on wider history articles a lot of heat and smoke is to be expected, but little light or actual improvement. He has been a good deal ruder than this to me in the past. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bowing out

This ANI is just a pile-on of bad faith accusations and seems largely retaliatory. I mean, even simply replying to a straight question about why I posted a 3O is being met with distrust and finger-wagging. I'm not interested in being interrogated and I've already made it clear to Airship what I thought about the threat of an ANI before it was posted.[93] Not my circus, not my monkeys.

I'm going to take a break from editing for a week and get back to trying to resolve the disagreements over at human history, hopefully with fresh eyes. It's up to Airship if they want to continue this process or not. Peter ^Isotalo 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, a curious case of ANI flu—how handy!—and with a farewell helping of aspersions to boot. No, I have no control over ANI, sorry to say, but I can propose something, if you don't want to?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not up to Airship, it is entirely up to you. You have patient and experience editors that are attempting to work with you. Alas, you have managed to make that impressively difficult. Aza24 (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Accusations and personal attacks - HighDunker

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

I'm facing persistent issues with edit warring on the article Voice of Reason. SPA HighDunker has repeatedly attacked me, and despite my attempts to seek mediation and address the removal of cited content, the situation has worsened. The latest personal attack involves false accusations, including terms like 'paid propagandist,' [94] which I have never used. I have asked the individual several times to remove or retract these claims [95] [96], but they have ignored my requests, doubling down [97]. Their disruptive editing behaviour is ongoing; they refuse to engage in meaningful discussion,[98] provide diffs, or explain their rationale. Previously, they falsely claimed to have built consensus, a claim which has been challenged by multiple other users. I am seeking assistance with this issue. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Your last link does not show anyone accusing HighDunker of vandalism. I was telling them not to call your edits in this dispute vandalism. --Onorem (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You were right in correcting me about this, I have stopped calling his edits vandalism. That he admitted to waiting out a day to abuse the 3 revert rule though, is clearly visible in that talk page. HighDunker (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, you are right about this @Onorem. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

According to @Michalis1994 's own words about me: "You keep spewing lies to support your obvious bias and likely connection to the party.". This is not a personal attack, it is a mere acknowledgement of a personal attack *you* made against me. As for your edits, you have been told *numerous times* to stop reverting a very contentious part of a specific article until it can be properly discussed. You ignored those warnings and make your edits anyway. As for the consensus you mention lastly: It was there, me and another editor did agree on a specific edit, which you then reverted. It wasn't a large amount of editors, but it was a plurality of editors nevertheless. This very topic you created is a false accusation against me, which I implore any admin who sees this to take some action against. This specific user has overstepped the boundaries of civil discussion with me *multiple times*. HighDunker (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Your failure to provide any differences indicates that you cannot substantiate your claims, which will likely lead to ongoing issues. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's clear that SPA HigherDunker continues to persist, despite being asked three times now to remove the falsified quotations. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop with the single purpose account accusations, my account is months old and I simply found my login and used it now. I have also edited the greek Wikipedia for other articles. These accusations are simply unfounded. HighDunker (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• I, Onorem and VQuakr, have tried to talk sense into these two editors, in terms of edit-warring, personal attacks and dispute resolution, but to no avail. I'd block both of them and may do that; they've wasted several editors' time, and now they want to waste the broader community's time.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Wow. I've asked for support regarding accusations where I specifically CC'ed you to request that the other editor remove quotations suggesting I labelled them a paid propagandist. Could you clarify why I am being blocked and on what grounds this decision is being proposed? Michalis1994 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I showed exactly what part I was referring to, this was not a false accusation and the one who should be reprimanded is you! HighDunker (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Woah I just said I'm not going to continue the edit war and apologized for calling the other editor's edits vandalism. There is no need for any of that. HighDunker (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Michalis1994: Political articles in general, including Greek political articles, are a difficult subject area to edit because of the frequency and intractability of disputes. I suggested a path forward, WP:DRN, which is advice you appear to have ignored. To be frank, I feel that you lack the requisite experience to edit successfully in a contentious topic area at this time. My suggestion would be to edit in other subject areas for a few months, get into a few minor disagreements and get accustomed with our community norms on how content disputes are resolved without edit warring or getting personal or nasty. That will put you in a much better position to edit successfully in any area. I noted earlier to you, it's difficult to overstate how tenuous your situation is here. Your situation has not improved with this report, and you are right on the ragged edge of Bbb23's substantial patience. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I have taken your advice into consideration and have already requested mediation. In this section, I have reported false accusations regarding quotations I have never used on WP. Also, why am I being targeted here? I specifically asked for help concerning words I have never used. How is this related to political articles on WP? Did I accuse anyone of being a 'paid propagandist'? Michalis1994 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Michalis1994 - You requested mediation at DRN, and a few hours after making that request, you made this report at WP:ANI. At DRN, we do not deal with a dispute that is also pending in another content forum or conduct forum. So your request at DRN has been closed as also in another forum (this one, WP:ANI). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA 1RR

u:Qplb191 refuses to follow 1RR in ARBPIA, in spite of being warned about it and the lack of consensus for the changes they've been making. See User_talk:Qplb191#1RR_violation. Reverts: [99] [100]. Alaexis_¿question? 21:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not seeing how this is related to the Israeli - Arab conflict? What we have here is two relatively inexperienced editors that need to work it out on the talk page.... Nothing actionable here except for guidance on how to resolve disputes. Not seeing how this post helps the problem whatsoever. Moxy🍁 21:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, there was a discussion on the talk page about adding a section on culture to the lead, many users, including me, objected to the current version and despite this there was an insistence on adding it even though there were reservations about the proposed version. I sought to achieve a broad consensus regarding the proposed version and to take into consideration the suggestions of the editors such as @Makeandtoss. Qplb191 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. You're right, it's not directly related to the conflict. Alaexis_¿question? 07:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Re your edit, I don't think the text in question is longstanding content. CMD (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, probably my mistake was due to a similar sentence being in the beginning of the Demographics section for a long time. I'll add a comment at the talk page. Alaexis_¿question? 08:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Alaexis_¿question? 08:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Skyerise: Edit Warring, aspersions, incivility, wikistalking

Been 12 years since I've been a serious wikipedia editor (also, full disclosure: this is a public network I'm on so not all constibs are mine), so bear with me. On the 18th I reverted an edit by User:Skyerise I considered undue. She immediately reverted me, telling me to take it to the talk page per WP:BRD, the posted this screed, accusing me of "reverting because I didn't like Alester Crowley", claiming that the fact that Crowley has his own Wikipedia article makes his opinion more due than the subject experts mentioned in the article who don't have articles (I don't think that argument is based on policy *at all*, but I could be wrong), then accusing me of censorship (which is a confusing accusation.

I reverted her back (I admit I shouldn't have done this), reminding her that per BRD that once she has been reverted, discussion is supposed to take place *before* the content is reinserted into the article, and responded on the talk page.

She then reverted me again, and made another hostile post on the talk page, and added a source to the page that was written by notorious neo-Nazi Kerry Bolton (she even linked his name in the source to his page, so she can't claim ignorance here). At this point, I disengaged, but she followed me to an article she had never touched before to revert me there.

Normally I'd bring it to DRN or whatever the current procedure is, but this seems to be a long-time problem with her. She already drove off another editor from the same article for disagreeing with her on the same issue, and has a long history of being brought to this board for similar civility issues: [101], [102], [103], [104]. On top of that, she's been blocked multiple times for personal attacks, edit warring, casting aspersions, and harassment.

She seems to fly off the handle at the drop of a hat whenever she perceives someone as speaking negatively about something she is passionate about, which is a problem considering her passions involve FRINGEy things like magic and the occult. Maybe some form of topic ban is in order, but I don't know how Wikipedia's current block system works.

At this point, I'm washing my hands of this and leaving this thread to editors more experienced in Wikipedia's current procedures, as I have better things to do than argue with such an unpleasant person over a low-traffic article. Happy editing. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this related to the section #Wikihounding by User:Mosi Nuru?

The page tyrannicide, where this happened, seems pretty central (from a quick glance) to that section. – 2804:F1...81:19C4 (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

OP is just upset because I actually have sources which clearly and unambiguously establish the relevance of something they consider WP:FRINGE. Their claims of my being hostile and uncivil on that talk page are overstated. The characterization of my reply as a "screed" seems to be the actual personal attack here. I'd also like to point out that the IP has previously been blocked for LTA, and that the editing-pattern of the IP seems to include questionable edits to LGBT topics, including apparently vandalizing a user's LGBT userbox (see User_talk:Pyxis_Solitary#Fixed userbox). They were recently edit-warring over hatnotes at Witchcraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - several editors reverted them but I placed the warning message about it on July 5; what were they saying about stalking? Do they have a history of editing tyrannicide? I was there to add something I thought was relevant. I had two sources for that, but that wasn't good enough for the IP. I added four more sources to establish relevance, but instead of critiquing the sources, they bring me here? Say what? Skyerise (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about with that userbox. Per the history, it had said one thing for a whopping eighteen years, prior to having its text and image unilaterally changed to say a completely different thing by a new user in April 2024 -- how could restoring the previous version possibly be "vandalism"? jp×g🗯️ 19:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to address the aspersions cast using an accusation of editing WP:FRINGE articles, which seems to be intended to imply that I believe in, support or am trying to promote these topics. In point of fact, I am a Tibetan Buddhist, not a follower of Crowley. My interest in Western esotericism is specifically about the history of the topic in the 20th-century: this includes things like New Thought, Thelema, Neopaganism, and New Age from an historical perspective. For example, with this series of edits I put the material at tyrannicide - which was all out of order with Roman thought before Greek, early and medieval Christian authors also mixed up time-wise - into correct historical order. I take history seriously, which is why I added topical information about a historical document that is discussed by multiple sources as having influenced the whole Neopaganism and New Age movements. The article discussed ancient pagan views, early and medieval Christian views, but omitted modern pagan views, which are indeed historically relevant. Yet all this historical work is dismissed as "FRINGE" because of topic without taking into account the nature of the changes to the content itself. I did similar work on Witchcraft last year: medieval, early modern, and other periods were jumbled together in a way to support specific arguments rather than presented in the order of historical development. I just hate non-chronological presentation of historical timelines. It confuses the readers. Skyerise (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

omitted modern pagan views, which are indeed historically relevant. To tyrannicide? ^{[citation needed!]} NebY (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A 1941 document which advocates for the right to commit tyrannicide and which influenced not only modern neopaganism but also the entire New Age movement? I'd say that is significant, and the citations (6 of 'em, 3 for each point) are all in the article and the discussion is on the talk page. Skyerise (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it might be highly relevant to articles on neopaganism and New Age but that doesn't make it WP:DUE for tyranicide. In fact, it looks pretty irreleavnt. DeCausa (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. The section is on political theory; the author is recognized as a political theorist; and the manifesto he authored is credited with influencing a broad range of people in two different but related movements for over 80 years from the writing. I'd note that the New Age movement is even more popular in Latin American countries than it is in English speaking ones, so to omit it would be an example of the systemic bias which exists on Wikipedia in three ways: bias against non-English speaking culture; bias against non-Christian religions; and bias against esotericism as WP:FRINGE. I'll alert the related project of which I've been a member for some time. Skyerise (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

FRINGE content does not become more DUE in articles on non-FRINGE topics just because the content happens to be popular in the global south... We shouldn't cite ayurveda or TCM practitioners as sources on medical ailments because, despite having billions of adherents, they are by consensus pseudoscientific nonsense, not legitimate significant-minority viewpoints, and thus UNDUE for such topics. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

To quote Jimbo from WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" besides the prominent originator, Aleister Crowley, his view is directly espoused by Kerry Bolton, prominent Odinist and Neonazi and a prolific writer of books on political theory himself. There's whole list of people notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles who adhere to this view at List of Thelemites. So it doesn't fall into Jimbo's third category of things which should be removed as undue. Skyerise (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That article is completely unbalanced. Having more on Aleister Crowley than Thomas Aquinas on the topic of tyrannicide is ridiculous. If that's not obvious to you you shouldn't be editing the topic. DeCausa (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

See, that's not how I work. You want I should add more about Aquinas? I already added more about Lincoln and David George. OP IP says there are hundreds of other political theorists who could be added. Ok, name them. If the section were anywhere near comprehensive, what I've added about Crowley would amount to no more than a footnote. Skyerise (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not how you work? It's called WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. It's not optional. DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand DUE against the context of what the Class-B article would contain. Not against the current C-class or less that exists in that section. Due mean proportional. If something stands out because the other topics have not been expanded in their own robust fulfillment, is that the fault of the addition or the state of the article? Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The argument that Crowley "is recognized as a political theorist" who once wrote "Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights", and New Age movements are popular in Latin America, therefore failure to feature Crowley at length in our article on tyrannicide is bias against non-English speaking culture; bias against non-Christian religions; and bias against esotericism, does not go an inch towards satisfying WP:DUE. Still, it's understandable you'd abandon the previous argument that we featured Plato, Plato was a pagan, Crowley is a modern pagan, therefore we must feature Crowley. NebY (talk) 21:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think that's my argument, then you misunderstand me. My argument is that the populations that were influenced by Crowley's manifesto, namely adherents of Thelema, modern neopagans and the New Age movement, along with contemporary Australian neonazis and Odinists, make up a significant enough part of the population to warrant inclusion. Skyerise (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:TERTIARY, I'd be interested if you can produce any general tertiary source that even mentions Crowley et al. in its coverage of tyrannicide. DeCausa (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, The Encyclopedia of American Religions, Religious Creeds, Volumes 1-2, J. Gordon Melton (1988): "... Liber Oz ) , which states the basic principles of the thelemic world view . It is used by all branches of the O.T.O. as well as other groups that rely heavily upon the writing of Aleister Crowley . The text of Liber Oz consists of ..." Skyerise (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No! That's your problem. You're looking at this from the wrong end of the telescope. I said a "general tertiary" text. Obviously stuff from Crowley is going to appear in The Encyclopedia of American Religions. But this is not an article about American Religions. It could have an article about cheese and it may well mention Crowley's treatment of the diary product. But that's nothing to do with what's WP:BALASP for cheese. Would the Encyclopedia of Cheese mention Crowley? Show me a general encyclopedia article on tyrannicide that mentions Crowley. Or even a tertiary work specialising in political theory. DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No! That's your problem. You want to hold Wikipedia back from using newer secondary sources based on the fact the other tertiary sources haven't picked them up yet. The secondary sources delving into Crowley as political theorist date to 2010 and 2014; I don't think ten years is "too soon". There are sources, so it's not OR, and there are good WP:GLOBALIZE reasons for inclusion. While we've been discussing this, I've written entire paragraphs on each of several other authors mentioned in the political theory section, adding both Locke and Rousseau, who were missing. How have you improved the article? Skyerise (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't interest me. If you can dilute down your New Age content by building up the rest of the article so that it puts it into it's true (and rather small) relevance then that's all to the good. But that's not what you said when you posted "See, that's not how I work." DeCausa (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what I meant when I said that. Skyerise (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Just because tyrranicide is a significant theme in thelemite discourse does not mean thelemite scholarship is a significant theme in tyrranicide discourse. If everyone else is ignoring them then their views are not BALASP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Please inform skyrise next time I already did it for you Maestrofin (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

They actually did, on my IP response page, here. Skyerise (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the characterizations of my posts on the talk page as "screed", "hostile", etc. are complete mischaracterizations. They are pretty much rational conversation exclusively about the content, the relevant sources, and reasoning for inclusion. The only objection the OP seems to have is that they were well-reasoned enough to support my additions to the article. I mentioned relevant policies without actually accusing the OP of anything! I mean, does the OP wish to state that they actually like Crowley? Skyerise (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily wish to butt in here, but Skyerise has been, and continues to be incredibly hostiple to other users. A recent example is in this very discussion

This is a shame, because it does seem that this user is quite dedicated to the project and this topic, however, in my personal opinion: if you are unable to interact with this topic in a manner that prevents you from making aggressive (or passive-aggressive) comments then perhaps you shouldn't be interacting with this topic at all. Just my two cents. Sinerst (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

There is also WP:Ownership behavior on Victor Neuburg (poet), (another article with occult content Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)) Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe: How so? Since when has cleaning up an article, posting on the talk page about the changes I made that I thought someone might object to as I made them, with nobody on the talk page objecting to any changes, nobody reverting any edits, etc. How is that "ownership"? I call it improving Wikipedia. You are welcome to provide diffs where I overrode some other editors opinion. But you seem to be grasping at straws here, with no apparent motivation. Skyerise (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If anything, it is the above editor who shows ownership issues, reverting a simple cleanup of sources, with clear edit summaries as to what I did on each and every edit, and insisting that I explain these edits on the talk page - which I did - and then didn't even have the courtesy to respond to that explanation! When I started, the article was terribly sourced (10,076 bytes: 6 sources with 7 footnotes), when I finished there were 14,160 bytes, 12 sources with 22 footnotes. Meanwhile, what were you, @Xxanthippe:, doing to improve the article? Nothing. Nothing at all. Skyerise (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

My Way or the Highway. It is possible to edit articles on topics that contain fringe material like occultism in a manner that is not abrasive or provocative. User:Guise's very many calm and patient edits of Gilles de Rais are a case in point. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe: you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say; I responded to your request (in an edit summary, not even the talk page) "these substantial edits need to be explainedon the talk page": here. An extremely detailed response all about exactly what I did and why. Did you make any further objection? No, you didn't. Am I supposed to stop editing after justifying an edit simply because the other editor fails to respond? Skyerise (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick update, she also seems to have followed me to a userbox page to re-vandalise it after I removed some vandalism. Didn't even bother to check the history of the page, just reverted. Pure spite. Luckily User:JPxG stepped in. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh! and she started editing Transgender rights in Australia after I edited it. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not all about you, [noname 180]]. Transgender articles of multiple nationalities have been on my watchlist for some time. I've simply not edited the Australian one before. Anyone can check my contributions to verify that I've edited multiple trans rights related articles in the past, long before string-of-numbers showed up. Skyerise (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Editor 103.200.35.4 on the page A2Z (TV channel)

This editor 103.200.35.4 on the page A2Z (TV channel) is disruptively restoring his edits claiming that A2Z is the replacement of S+A which in fact its not. Just see the history of the page, I cannot paste here the link of his edits since there are numerous of edits. 120.29.79.79 (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Level III warning issued. Re-report or ping me if this resumes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Long term vandal

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

---

Most of Sarmathianpilled (talk · contribs) edits are vandalism despite several warnings such as calling a murderer a hero and anti-semitic attacks on people they don't like with false summaries and showing no sign of stopping 2001:8003:3FB4:CF00:61A2:EF47:953:9B18 (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The antisemitism alone should get an indef. — Czello ^(music) 09:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It's WP:NOTHERE behavior. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

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

This was a bad close, but fortunately the user has been indef'd anyway. — Czello ^(music) 20:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

LTA socks

See log. LTA 株式会社ドラゴニーズ 代表取締役 えのきだたもつ (talk · contribs)'s socks need to be blocked, thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Just reported these accounts to m:SRG. Ahri Boy (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Egregious personal attack, + OWNership/edit warring by Mfc6166

Mfc6166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the last 5 hours, this user has edit warred at 2024 IndyCar Series to keep their preferred version, in a manner that is showing patterns of being WP:NOTHERE.

[105] Their initial edit to the page was reverted by RegalZ8790 as an unexplained and unnecessary change.

[106] Revert 1, edit summary: no one dares to undo my change, especially you @RegalZ8790, you fucking cunt!!! - Clear WP:OWNership behaviour, demanding that no one revert their revert, and a personal attack that in my opinion is actionable in and of itself.

[107][108] Two more reverts within 5 hours, putting them at the 3RR bright line and rejecting an invitation to start a talk page discussion to seek proper consensus. If the user doesn't immediately apologize for the PA and commit to stop their edit warring behaviour, then I believe they need a time out for at least a week to help understand and prevent further abuse. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize to the behalf of @RegalZ8790 for calling a slur, attacking them personally, and vandalizing + making it as an OWNership. Mfc6166 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you understand why this edit summary is not acceptable? Canterbury Tail talk 14:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No sir/ma'am. Mfc6166 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I've indeffed Mfc6166 for that egregious NPA violation. When coupled with the ownership issues and edit warring, we don't need this kind of behavior here, especially given they don't see anything wrong with it, per above. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I was going to get to that myself, seems like some kid with an account. Thanks for doing that. Canterbury Tail talk 17:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats

REPAIR FACTS (talk · contribs) has issued very explicit legal threats here. They also appear to have done some editing while logged out under 148.76.78.162 (talk · contribs), but that may not be relevant. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Izno (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

User:JFZ0413

• JFZ0413 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Natural nuclear fission reactor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After pulling a 3-month block on fr.wiki for repeatedly performing WP:SELFCITE edits, they have moved here to continue the same behavior. They are a WP:SPA and have been previously warned here not to continue the behavior. This has been ongoing for months and they have not so much as acknowledged the warnings, let alone shown any indication they will stop voluntarily. I think an indef is appropriate per WP:NOTHERE. Notified: [109]. VQuakr (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Legal threats (again)

I posted a little while ago about REPAIR FACTS (talk · contribs) making legal threats, and they were duly blocked. I also said at the time that I thought the same person might have been editing while logged out at 148.76.78.162 (talk · contribs). Well, it is the same person, and now they're issuing legal threats as the IP. --AntiDionysius (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the previous discussion had been archived. Apologies for duplicating. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It was accidently archived by me, but unarchived quickly. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 18:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 72 hours. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah hence the notification. I thought I was losing my mind. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Pervasive, deliberate falsification of sources in hoax articles from COI editor

JoeK2033 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs) is partially-blocked from Draft:James Naleski for persistent promotional editing (see deleted contribs), their block from the page). This draft was previously frequented by blocked socks Jpaul2015, Jpaul03342, and Fancy vibēs. Naleski, according to the draft that JoeK edited, was "the son of Janet Frost, a university professor, and Victor Naleski, an American businessman". Since their November block, they've edited a great number of pages related to Janet Frost, James A. Frost, and the like. However, this is a normal COI case, and does not warrant an AN/I thread. Here I am interested in something quite a bit worse: they wrote two articles about scientific papers in which they substantially, demonstrably falsified sources by getting a LLM to write fake slop and pasting it directly into the edit window.

I have written a detailed explanation of how I know that both of these articles are hoaxes, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biosynthesis of a Biotin Compound Containing ⁷⁵Se -- in addition to the very recognizable GPT style, there are numerous very basic errors that imply the articles were written without actually reading the papers (e.g. confidently claiming that they had used techniques which would have made no sense and appeared nowhere in the paper).

It is my opinion that both of these articles warrant an immediate WP:G3, their author an indefinite block, and the greater Frostosphere a thorough examination for any more hoaxes, but lest I be accused of acting rashly I've chosen to open a thread here first to see if there is any objection. jp×g🗯️ 19:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem with G3 deletion is that it is only supposed to be for hoaxes that are obvious, and this one took some investigation to confirm. In this case I don't think it matters much as the AfD is heading for a snow delete (I can't close it as I participated but it might already be ready for that). Indef-blocking and deeper examination of other contributions are appropriate, though. We can't allow editors who deliberately perpetrate non-obvious hoaxes (or who lack the competence to tell that their AI-generated content is a hoax) to continue editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In light of this I have indef-blocked for the hoaxes and persistent COI editing; I'll let the AfDs run out the clock, and we can start going through some of the COI stuff later. If he was willing to slop out two giant articles about dense biochemistry dissertations, I would be willing to bet hard cash that more slop lurked within. jp×g🗯️ 20:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

At a glance, most of the other articles the user created on books or dissertations or papers by James A. Frost seem like the same kind of slop. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd have nominated the other ones, but bundling them with the dissertations would've been too much and I didn't want to be excessive on AfD. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @XOR'easter: whose comment spurred me to look at the damn dissertation in the first place.

• Life with Elsie is slopped imo. "Frost provides touching descriptions of their children's births and the profound sense of wonder and love accompanying their journey into parenthood" - Huhghaghhguloaglulh.
• James A. Frost: I think https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=James_A._Frost&oldid=1235767008 might actually be good -- I don't see slop and the references look real. This would of course require someone to actually go through Coldwell-style and check it.
• Janet Frost: Short and concise so I don't see a whole lot of issue here.
• Elsie M. Frost: "passionately advocated for children and education" is sloppish but it's a very short article that sticks to concise biographical details (may have notability concerns).
• The Establishment of the Connecticut State University, 1965-85, Notes and Reminiscences: I rate this one a Slop On Fire! Delves into delving into delving into delves.

jp×g🗯️ 21:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In that version of James A. Frost, I saw a lot of boilerplate/hype: Frost excelled at the Air Corps School for Administrative Officers, demonstrating strong academic performance and proficiency in military drills, During this time, Dr. Frost implemented significant personnel changes and restructured various programs, etc. I don't trust JoeK2033 to have accurately summarized any of the references; I've no objection to anyone going through them manually and redoing the job properly, of course, but cleaning up after Coldwell taught me the virtue of cutting and reverting without regret. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In A History of the United States: The Evolution of a Free People, there's a citation to a 1949 newspaper article attached to a claim about the intricate narrative provided by a book published in 1968. The same newspaper story is cited in the first line of the article on A History of New York State, published in 1967. What a mess. I hope the person who did this has the decency to feel guilty about the cleanup job they've dumped on us. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, before seeing your comment I was just about to write: Something that stands out to me in both Life with Elsie and The Establishment of the Connecticut State University, 1965-85, Notes and Reminiscences is the use of references that predate the work described by the article to make confident-sounding evaluations of the content and reception of the work itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I must say I don't see Janet Frost passing WP:NPROF]. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned about GNG on Elsie Frost too. I'll leave it for now but might nominate both soon. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

After having a look at the articles again, I've gone ahead and nominated both for deletion. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

So far:

• A Short History of New York State, deslopped by XOR
• A History of New York State, deslopped by me
• Life On The Upper Susquehanna 1783-1860, deslopped by XOR
• A History of the United States: The Evolution of a Free People, deslopped by me
• New York: The Empire State, deslopped by me jp×g🗯️ 21:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There's more slop in A History of the United States: The Evolution of a Free People. Only one of the six references given actually post-dates the publication of the book. It's conceivable that the story from late 1967 mentions a book that would come out in 1968 (I don't trust the "January 1" in the infobox, but the year agrees with WorldCat, at least). I can't access newspapers.com at the moment, so I can't check. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I don't consider the publication day necessarily a red flag. Just as all horses in the Northern hemisphere are notionally born on January 1, some websites (e.g. Amazon) specify that as the publication day when unknown; it might be a required field chosen from a drop-down list. I've seen duplicate entries where one said January 1, and another something more realistic. Narky Blert (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Well heck, we could just redirect all of the books to the author's article, since it seems unlikely there's much to say about them other than "a normal school textbook for which there may or may not be any real refs beyond them having been published". jp×g🗯️ 22:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You can see OCR text by following the newspaper.com link even without a subscription, it's always a bit garbled but you can get the general idea. Checking the first couple of references they don't appear to have anything to do with the book. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The same appear to be true of the newspaper links I've randomly checked in the other article, they appear to have random words that link them to the article but are otherwise unrelated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just not finding enough to substantiate articles on A History of the United States and New York: The Empire State. They're both multi-author books, but since Frost is the only coauthor to be blue-linked, making those pages into redirects seems OK. So, if someone can check Janet Frost and Elsie M. Frost for verifiability, the rest will probably be resolved when the deletion clocks run out. XOR'easter (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, there's also a template: {{James A. Frost}}. It looks like nearly everything linked there has been/will soon be eliminated by deletions and redirects. The only article not already gone or already up for deletion is Olivia Dalton, which is tagged for notability concerns. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I was going to nominate the template once the AfDs/PRODs were done, but I've gone ahead and done it now. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If the Olivia Dalton article survives we could mention that she is a granddaughter of James Frost (who is definitely notable) — see e.g. this obituary – but I'm skeptical of her notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII

Marked for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Gharios_El_Chemor_of_Ghassan_Al-Numan_VIII

This is an on-going attack on the person of Prince Gharios El Chemor that has spilt over into Wikipedia due to Frank Parlato Jr and others in Spain and Italy because Prince Gharios publicly called out someone using a fake Italian princly title and giving out knighthoods. Prince Gharios was backedup publicly by credible authoriies, such as the ICOC and other Italian scholars. The reasons given for deleting the entry are unfounded and do not apply the standars with equity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xianboyd (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not the avenue to debate whether an article should be kept. That is at the AfD. Discuss it there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The Afd is a total trainwreck. Sockpuppetry and/or external canvassing seems self evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I've never heard of this guy, and the sources seem not to have heard of him either. His Excellency, President for Life Field Marshal Dr. Sir jp×g🗯️, Esq. 09:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Was just going to create a thread on this issue, ironically because of people like Xianboyd. There has been massive disruption of this AfD by SPAs and IPs as previously said by Andy. Would appreciate this AfD being cleaned up and perhaps having some level of protection applied to prevent further disruption. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that AfD is a mess. In addition to the OP, 2 accounts in particular, one with 42 total edits the other with 139 total edits (plus assorted new SPAs and IPs) have been bombarding it with the WP:TRUTH. It was unreadable (not that there was anything worth reading from them) until someone hatted the worst of their bludgeoning. Unfortunately, Daniel Case turned down Hemiauchenia's protection request at RPPI. They've all simultaneously gone quiet in the last 8 hours - probably they're all on the same time zone. Might start again when they wake up. Maybe some blocks for disruption if no protection? DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

While there are evidently some serious issues re: the SPAs that are arguing against deletion, I don't think that justifies the apparent outing that has occurred both here [110] and here [111]. Axad12 (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Probably unnecessary. Discounting the obvious sockpuppet SPA, it's heading for a SNOW delete anyway. Ravenswing 08:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

On this issue, perhaps this is a bit too revealing of my parochial plebeian democracy leanings, but it's my sincere hope that some day we can respond with this same sort of bemused indifference to every random bloke who claims that being descended from some other bloke a thousand years ago means he gets to wear cool hats and live in a fancy palace for free and not pay taxes, as is currently the case in some several dozen-odd countries (although I would also accept if everyone got to wear cool hats and live in a fancy palace for free and not pay taxes, if possible). jp×g🗯️ 10:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The whole point is that the person was featured on- at least - 20 independent media outlets in - at least 12 different countries- and received officially by heads of state and religion. For those who don’t understand international law (apparently all of you) that’s legal recognition! (See Montevideo convention) Anyway, he’s undoubtedly notable, there’s no question about it. The problem is that some of you have decided - without any knowledge of the subject- and without having the minimum decency of checking the presented sources, to delete the page. Your so-called judgement is pure emotional ignorance. My whole point in saying all of this is that you’re all wasting everyone’s time with this stupid discussion. Go ahead and delete the page! You decided that anyways no matter what is presented and proven. I don’t know you but a lot of people have other better things to do than to debate with nihilistic Wikipedia collaborators. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

What part of "This is not the place to discuss the deletion of this page" did you not understand? RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

All of it, I presume. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Enough already

If you read what I wrote, clearly you didn’t, you understand the point I’m making. There’s no debate about a subject when there’s nihilism and denial. All of you are doing is just wasting everyone’s time! If you want to delete a page, go and delete it! Don’t pretend you’re being democratic or fair, because this process is as fair as elections in North Korea. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Using the “tactic” you’re using can “destroy” anything purely based on your own imagination. I can say someone with a doctorate from Harvard is illiterate! I can claim this person bought his degree and even if Harvard confirms his degree I can say he cheated on the exams. It’s endless! That’s exactly what you’re doing not only about this page but about all deletions! Again this present discussion is equally useless! Again, wasting everyone’s time! But I’m sure you have time to waste. I don’t. MasterKamalKhan (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC) With all due respect, you might have expertise on many different areas but none that voted for the deletion has any knowledge about the subject. Beyond clear by your comments, your understanding of royalty comes from tabloids and Disney films. How can you be qualified “decide” if a page is deleted or not when actual world experts and authorities have the complete opposite opinion? Sorry but it’s beyond preposterous! Again, if the deletion is based on “how you feel about the subject” don’t open a debate, just go ahead and do it! MasterKamalKhan (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toolroom for more Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm thinking there's a large slice of WP:MEAT there rather than pure sockage. There's a post earlier in this thread which suggests at least 2 different people IRL. DeCausa (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that its likely a mix of meat and sock puppetry... But Leo0274 and Xianboyd at least appear more socky than meaty... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leo0274. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

BLP vandalism at MrBeast

I applied for page protection on the grounds that @Gen. Rhett keeps selectively removing information from an article to say that a BLP subject (whom he misgendered in the edit summary) is a groomer when the source cited says the opposite and the previous article text followed that source.[112] He does this despite not providing any citation or source. I was told at page protection to issue a BLP warning and take it to ANI if he continues.[113] He has simply begun reverting the text to include a BLP violation.[114] So now I’m here. Don’t like being here twice so close together but, I was advised as such. Snokalok (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have revision-deleted their edits and partial-blocked them from the article. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/178.138.193.125

LTA, revdel needed. Frost 07:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked, revdelling edits as appropriate. Utterly deranged that they are typing the word... with an asterisk. Like what? Why are you censoring the word in your graphically offensive vandalism? Must be some TikTok thing. jp×g🗯️ 07:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I was bypassing the edit filter you absolute buffoon @JPxG: 178.138.193.101 (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I see -- my mistake. Well, at any rate, I still think you should stop doing it. jp×g🗯️ 08:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Jeaucques Quœure and apparent LLM abuse

Amid what seem to be consistent communication and content issues, @Jeaucques Quœure has twice (to scriptio continua, now to libation) added a block of apparently LLM-generated content that's been reverted for having no sources, which they've immediately readded with an apparently dishonest edit summary claiming they're "adding sources". Remsense诉 07:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I apologise for the inconvenience but the content wasn't LLM-generated rather general information about the subject matter (in scriptio continua & libation) referenced through wikilinks and biblical verses respectively. However they were subsequently referenced to sources later. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, Could you explain why my edit to improve the lede sentence was "useless". FYI ledes of science articles generally start with 'In', e.g, In electromagnetism, In thermodynamics, In molecular biology. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I would on the relevant talk page, but it would be wholly irrelevant here. Remsense诉 09:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked at their edits and they are clearly AI generated AlexBobCharles (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Bland bullet points of bullshit, reinserted with an untruthful edit summary. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think this is true of most of their edits by edit count, but unfortunately it seemed likely for each substantial addition of theirs that I looked over. Remsense诉 18:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 Saurya Airlines Canadair crash

• BasketballDog21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a 1-week old account, took it upon themselves to create a duplicate page of 2024 Saurya Airlines CRJ-200 crash and move it into said page without consensus based on personal assumptions and has been engaging in WP:IDNHT reversion to impose their preferences despite a previous warning summary. Borgenland (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm correct though, sadly you are to busy just trying to attack me for whatever reason, like I said I made a mistake of duplicating instead of moving, i'm still experienced and made a clean article with no grammatical errors. BasketballDog21 (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. So clean one reference is missing. Which did not occur in the original article you gutted for your personal page. Furthermore, your article is full off WP:COMMENTARY that is undue for a current event, not to mention your glaring linkrotting refs. Borgenland (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  WikicleanerMan is fixing it. You don't need to attack me man i'm a nice guy in real life BasketballDog21 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Update: BasketballDog21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 5 reverts on the same page, 2 more than the maximum allowed in 24 hours as experienced editors will know. Borgenland (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Update: BasketballDog21 has made 8 reverts on the article. Borgenland (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:3RR, it doesn't matter who is right, unless you have been reverting vandalism, you have broken 3RR by reverting seven(!) times on the same article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  You guys are doing it too right? This doesn't make sense BasketballDog21 (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I miscounted on my part. But at the end of the day, your WP:CIR and unwillingness to seek WP:CONSENSUS in the spirit of WP:IDNHT simply justifies why you have been reported. And don't forget, your willingness to ignore standard procedures shows in you making the greatest number of reverts. No amount of gas lighting and appeals to moral equivalency will obfuscate your edit history. Borgenland (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  At the end of the day its just an article of the same thing and Canadair is the right one. Arguing about this more just seems silly BasketballDog21 (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think you Canadair to the community's rules and stop edit warring against consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I have restored the old article. The new article is not just a duplicate of the topic, it is an unattributed WP:COPYVIO of the original article. The new article title seems a plausible redirect, so any relevant changes should be merged into the original article and the page should be redirected. CMD (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  And we're on 8RR. CMD (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Darn you @ScottishFinnishRadish: I was just clicking on the block items when your block turned up. Stop being so efficient :) Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's why they call me the fastest root in the West. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Couldn't find which diff to thank so I'm putting it here. Borgenland (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Update: DangerousBanana made this WP:NOTHERE summary in a [[115]] of the page. Given how immediate this is and how heated the article was, I would like to request an SPI. Borgenland (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• (EC)Note, I just indef blocked DangerousBanana (talk · contribs) for reinstating and personal attacks on this edit. Seems like a foot covering that was idle under the bed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Second note: I don't know if they're a sock or not, but considering they've started throwing around racial slurs their talk access has gone bye bye. I actually don't understand why this is causing so much heat, is it just the "got in first" mentality? Canterbury Tail talk 13:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  It felt socky when I was looking at it initially, but I have no idea who the master would be. I'm sure there are at least a few that hang out in the aircraft crash topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• (double edit conflict) I was going to say, when I examined 2022 China Naval Air Force crash, an article that BasketballDog21 created, a CNN reference looks out of place. I looked at the CNN article and found it to be reporting an American fighter jet crash that is completely unrelated to the Chinese maritime patrol aircraft. I don't doubt that the incident did occur based on other, reliable sources I found online. I want to AGF and thinks it's a misplaced reference by BasketballDog21. But more eyes are needed to see if using wrong references are common occurrences in his other edits. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Does anyone else agree that this is all socks of banned user TyHaliburtn (talk · contribs)? Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  That seems correct, yeah. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Wanna do the honours of updating your block on the Basketball account? Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Also we may need to protect some of the pages (like the redirect) do some history cleanup etc. I'd love to help more but I'm about to pick my parents up from Narita. Oh and it looks likely we need a CheckUser scan. Have a good one. Canterbury Tail talk 13:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Action per this protection request, enacted while unaware of this incidents report (which I've yet to review). El_C ^{(+peer pressure blue)} 14:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

User Deleting Historical Information

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

---

I want to report @Bgsu98 for repeatedly deleting historical score and repertoire information from several drum and bugle corps wikis. When I addressed it and reverted, they claimed that this is the standard which presumably is just made up by this user. I was able to fix the Skyliners Drum and Bugle Corps but other groups such as the Hawthorne Caballeros Drum and Bugle Corps, Reading Buccaneers Drum and Bugle Corps, and Connecticut Hurricanes Drum and Bugle Corps have all had edits made since so I would have to manually type everything back out for them. Competitive drum and bugle corps has existed for decades prior to the 1970s and all of the mentioned groups have published information from then. I cannot be certain but I am assuming that this user's decision to pick 1972 as a starting point is related to the formation of Drum Corps International, which none of these organizations were members of until 2024 and it was not the only competitive circuit so should not be used as a "standard" for when information cuts off. Odysseymsc (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

But you didn't give them a chance to reply to your note (diff), instead going immediately the reporting route — what is up with that? You also didn't notify them of this complaint on their talk page (which is requiered, a ping is not enough). Anyway, at its face, this looks like a premature report of a content dispute, with insufficient efforts undertaken to resolve the dispute normally (WP:DR). El_C 14:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, you didn't "fix" Skyliners Drum and Bugle Corps, you just copied a huge chunk of unsourced material back into it. Also, since your edit-summary says "the administration of the organization is maintaining this page" (which is presumably you), you have a WP:COI and shouldn't really be editing it at all. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Hawthorne Caballeros Drum and Bugle Corps is one massive copyvio and I've blanked it and sent it to the copyright investigations page. Black Kite (talk) 17:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Now fixed and appropriately revision-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Any administrator should feel free to shut this nonsense down. Odysseymsc was inappropriately trying to assert ownership over the Skyliners Drum and Bugle Corps article, as Black Kite observed. This is a content dispute, but as all of these former DCA drum corps are now part of DCI, these articles will all be formatted to match the format of the DCI articles. Several of us (as in, I am not making any decisions "unilaterally" as I've been accused) worked very hard to bring a sense of uniformity to these articles a few years ago. Any concerns should be addressed on the article's talk page or the Drum Corps WikiProject page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Please remove vandalism / attack / accusations

If possible, please remove vandalism / attack / accusations made by 2409:4063:ae81:99d5:8e6:f858:49a5:f307 at, 24. jul. 2024, 08:41, 08:42, 08:43 on my discussion page. I do not know what the person or bot is talking about. --Glenn (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. In the future, feel free to remove those kinds of messages and report the problem editor/IP to WP:AIV. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a LTA. Feel free to drop a line on my talk page if you have any more problems. AIV works as well. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks --Glenn (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Dimadick

User:Dimadick has posted this antisemitic libel. How is such a thing still allowed here? --Gonnym (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Which part of Zionism as settler colonialism was not clear to you? Dimadick (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Where in Zionism as settler colonialism does it say that "the main purpose for Zionism's existence" is "genocide"? Rlendog (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an editor trying to impose their own beliefs as fact and creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND environment, which is certainly an indictment on their ability to participate in this topic area (as is the case with a good number of people in this topic area). But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to take it straight to ANI with a single diff. If you have more diffs of the editor engaging in this sort of behavior over a longer period of time, then it might be appropriate to file at WP:AE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien You are aware that the diff was a Support/Oppose vote on a move request from Palestinian genocide accusation to Palestinian genocide? How else could you support such a move request without claiming it as your belief that the other title was more accurate? Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The statement that is being objected to goes beyond saying that the editor believes that Palestinian genocide is a more accurate title. Rlendog (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest using sources and policy based arguments, not just your own belief on what Zionism means. It's also needlessly inflammatory so say that the main purpose of Zionism is to commit genocide, rather than establish a homeland for for the Jewish people. There is a wide chasm between something being a purpose and something being a possible result.

We should really be clamping down on personal views as an argument in this topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ambeskine

Promptly after their 48 hour block for edit-warring expired, they are back to continue with similar changes on more articles [116], [117], arguing after warning of their disruption and creation of an offensive userbox User:Ambeskine/woman. It appears this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.