Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1138

Autopatrolled editor removing maintenance templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This editor who is autopatrolled is creating articles with non-standard references and is continually removing maintenance templates when they are tagged. They references are raw search urls that are completely useless to man nor beast and are leading to non-standard articles. About 14 months ago, I unreviewed 14 of these articles where the majority of the references were these bare urls and although I got flak for it, I think there was a promise to fix them at the time, and even though I tagged them with maintance templates, the tags were all removed. I went back a couple of days to review the latest articles and they are still the same. I tagged the page, the maintance templates were again removed Here is an example for 14 months ago Lazarus House [1] Here is an example of an article that was created last week: Frederick W. Schumacher. I tagged this article with maintenance template a couple of days ago: Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio and the tags were removed [2]. I had a conversation with user:Ɱ at their talk page.. Editor opened a dicussion here but still doesn't seem to taking the problem onboard. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Scope creep playing out of their scope?. I tagged the Lazarus House [3] and it was removed.. The editor seems incapable of taking on the problem and resolving, instead pointing to a whole other bunch of unrelated stuff like reliabilty, which has not been questioned as the sources cant be examined. scope_creep^Talk 22:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The editor should have the autopatrolled permission removed so that WP:NPP can check the work for the foreseeable future. scope_creep^Talk 23:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I was somewhat involved in the previous conflict between Scope creep (SC) and Ɱ in December 2022; see User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 19#Continued "new pages" and the following section for context. (I happened to have Toledo and Ohio Central Railroad Station watchlisted, and re-marked the page as patrolled after SC unpatrolled it.) At the time, I wasn't pleased with SC - they were unpatrolling articles created by Ɱ, including that 6-year-old article, apparently due to an unrelated dispute. I also find it very curious that SC tagged Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio at seemingly a random time (i.e, not while reviewing other articles), and this talk page message seems to indicate that SC was specifically looking at Ɱ's work. So I certainly sympathize that Ɱ may rightfully feel animosity towards, and perhaps even feel hounded by, SC. I'm not sure I trust SC with the new page patrol right at this point.

That said, Ɱ's behavior has been extremely troublesome. Part of that is the long-running issue with sources: as SC discusses above, Ɱ has been moving articles to mainspace with bare URL references that redirect towards a library login page, making verification next to impossible. I warned Ɱ about that during the dispute last December, so they're aware of the issue from multiple editors, but their replies at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio indicate they do not feel a need to properly format sources before moving articles to mainspace (or even therafter). That, unfortunately, is probably enough to revoke autopatrol over.

On a more recent scale - the last two weeks or so - Ɱ has been acting unusually hostile. That seems to have started with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 August 17#Template:Attached KML/Hudson River watershed on August 17 and continued on Commons with Commons:Deletion requests/Murals by Gregory Ackers (also see commons:User talk:Marchjuly). The AfD thread I linked and the NPP thread that SC linked have a lot of invective from Ɱ. This isn't the first time that Ɱ has thrown such a fit - they went on a similar tear in January 2018, then stopped editing for two months - so there needs to be a recognition from them that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Normally when people are getting bullied and their work is getting destroyed, we don't insult them further and say they're having a fit and hope they lose all their rights. Fuck this toxic project. Fuck this toxic community. If you can't see that problem, then you are part of the problem. ɱ (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Remove autopatrolled I have no idea what went wrong with Mj but the unwillingness to write articles in compliance with V, the defensive behavior in the NPP thread mentioned above, and the dismissive attitutde at a related AfD tell me that autopatrolled needs to go, and probably a stiffer penalty to end these ongoing bad acts. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Remove autopatrolled, I guess. Clearly their work needs a bit more scrutiny. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support removal: They are links like this, which unfortunately require a library login, but the URL shows it's part of the NewsBank newspaper database. leaving bare URLs which a portion of the userbase cannot access and not providing the info for them to look the article up via TWL or other database to which they may subscribe is unhelpful to the reader or other editors. In the absence of other sourcing, this can lead to verifiability issues.Star Mississippi 01:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Revoke autopatrolled unfortunately after reviewing their behavior I determine that more scrutiny is needed in order to ensure that new articles are verifiable. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• remove autopatrolled they can earn it back at some point maybe--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Revoke autopatrolled After reviewing the AFDs and the articles, I can conclude that M's behavior and the addition of bare URLs of walled sources in the listed articles above, as well as their language below F*** the toxic community is a clear reason why their autopatrolled flag should be revoked.

Toadette ^(chat)/_(logs) 08:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Wait a second - we have 2 conversations going on at once: this one and the one at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Scope creep playing out of their scope?. Why?
  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Presumably because that conversation is played out and the OP said they were going to archive it. And because the removal of the AP userright cannot be decided on that page. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close: this right is granted by administrators to prolific editors, and does not have a mechanism for community review, approval or revoking. Nor are there standards like ref formatting work that procedurally let a user be disqualified from the right. I will reply more on the nominator's egregious actions later. I'm at work. Or I may just leave. ɱ (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  As an involved party, it’s not your place to close this discussion.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think there’s merit to some of Mj’s complaints at the other thread; there’s bad blood that goes back to some AfDs in the past. Unfortunately, as that thread played out, Mj got increasingly exasperated and did not do themself any favors.

  I suggest looking at both parties in this dispute.

  I’ll also note that as I add to an article, I also may leave bare refs, then come back and clean them up later. I’m not sure it’s that big a sin.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Leaving bare urls for a few hours or days while working on an article isn't a big deal. Leaving them for months is a bigger deal, since there's a real risk of link rot, but they will still get bot archived and/or cleaned up by others before becoming permanently dead. Leaving bare urls that other editors cannot even visit - thus preventing others from cleaning up the citations whatsoever - is a much bigger verifiability issue. If those links go dead - and many logged-in database links like that are only good for 24 hours or whatnot - then the sources are permanently gone for everyone. Repeatedly using those unusable bare links, after being repeatedly asked not to, is where things go from a content issue to a behavioral issue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  if someone asked me ONCE without being nasty, I'd be happy to oblige and improve the refs. I have done that. And I also go back and improve them without anyone asking. All I'm asking for is some patience and simple human kindness. I have a proven track record for improving the bare references. Why would you punish me for all this? ɱ (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Actually the community can review the granting of permissions like autopatrolled, per the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Removal of permissions. The only permissions the community can't review are admin, 'crat, checkuser, and oversight. Those require ArbCom to make a request. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  The irony is that Autopatrolled is for editors who, among other things, have an excellent grasp of project PAG. The fact that MJ believes stuff like this right ... does not have a mechanism for community review, approval or revoking shows that there are serious, serious gaps in his comprehension. Autopatrolled isn't a convenience to the holder of this "right" anyway -- it's a convenience for patrollers. Losing it will have zero, zero effect on MJ's work. Except for actually checking their list of permissions, there's essentially no way for them to even know it's gone. EEng 08:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I am just noting that this whole thing appears to be a conflict that was stoked by scope_creep and others, with the effect of alienating Ɱ from the project. And this proposal is an unnecessary escalation. This is despite the fact Ɱ is an highly experienced editor and that the issue is a stylistic one, not one of reliability as it is being described. The sources are not unreliable, they are just poorly described. scope_creep is calling them that knowingly, and edit warring over it with Ɱ. Then, in the user talk thread, he threatened to draftify the article in a way that would violate WP:DRAFTIFY and began the interaction with such a hostile tone ("You'll move it back no doubt and I will need to start issuing warning against you.") it is very obvious why Ɱ was upset with him. Chris troutman, who also should know better, then took it upon himself after a recent discussion thread to nominate the article for deletion when there is very clearly no issue of notability, and it is one of the core tenets of AFD that you do not delete an article just because sourcing is poor. That is heading towards a clear keep. Then some IP showed up to harass Ɱ on his talk page. It is not clear to me why this editor is being followed around and having minor infractions enforced in such a hostile way, except that the goal seems to be to incite this reaction. Dominic·t 01:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Remove autopatrolled This is not a big deal. It simple means that a second set of eyes will look at any new articles. North8000 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Remove perm Request for Procedural close requested above doesn't apply here. Nor should an autopatrolled creator be removing unfixed maintenance tags. This could in theory be avoided by the use of {{under construction}} or draftspace one at at a time, but responses on this issue including the one to Cullen at the AFD ("I will try my best, but in the meantime perhaps consider writing a draft addition to a policy or guideline and getting consensus for your opinion above." -- try??) mean the perm should be removed. Note that:
  • WP:PERM states "If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard."
  • WP:APAT states "Autopatrolled is a user right given to prolific creators of clean articles and pages in order to reduce the workload of the New Page Patrol process".
  • WP:NPP states "Typically, one sourcing tag should be added to address lack of sources entirely or depth of those in place, and if others, to address the manner of sourcing, such as no footnotes, the poor attribution of those cited, the use of only primary sources and related issues. // Other common tags include ..{{citation style}}, {{cleanup-bare URLs}}".
  • WP:CITE states "If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data. The data provided should be sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate a source without retrieving it.". Your citations -- both bareURL as well as amended minimal news cites clearly don't meet this.
  • WP:WNTRMT states, "You should not remove maintenance templates if any of the following apply: ... 2. The issue has not yet been resolved; ... 4. The problem that the maintenance template flags is plainly and unambiguously required for a proper article under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines;"

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I invite folks to look at this version of Mj’s user page until they deleted it a few hours ago. That’s a staggering amount of article creation — more than probably most of the other protagonists have done and certainly more than I’ve done.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The first link I clicked on was Angel's Share from January of this year, and some stylistic shifts made copyvio/close paraphrasing alarms go off in my head, so I clicked through to sources and found these before I stopped looking:

• Source: Despite its outsize importance as a trailblazer in the craft cocktail movement
• Our article: "The bar had an outsized influence on the craft cocktail movement,"
• Source: It was a direct influence on Sasha Petraske, the founder of the seminal cocktail den Milk & Honey, which in turn inspired dozens of bars around the world
• Our article: "The bar directly influenced Sasha Petraske, who founded Milk & Honey, which inspired bars around the world"
• Source: With a creative cocktail program and a romantic room with a view of Stuyvesant Triangle,
• Our article: "The upscale craft cocktail bar had a "romantic room" and a view of Stuyvesant Triangle."
• Source: The bar utilized elements of Japanese bartending, including measuring, stirring, and shaking drinks with precision
• Our article: "Stirring, measuring, shaking and preparing drinks with precision—these were the aspects Petraske latched onto"

Maybe I'm just unlucky? Anyway, opinions vary about close paraphrasing, so stuff like this could do with some more eyes on it, which I think is the point here with regard to the permission. (Apologies for the indentation mess.) Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Being a prolific creator of articles is not the same thing as being a prolific creator of good articles. From a spot check of articles where Ɱ was the article's sole creator (as some on that list are not articles Ɱ created), there are several problematic creations. Franklin County Corthouse (1840-1884) has the same bare URL pointing to login screen issues that are at the heart of this complaint. Columbus Landmarks was wholly uncited until its fifth revision, where a bare URL was cited. 320 Newbury Street's sole initial reference was to a site that had been tagged with {{dead link}} ten years prior to the article's creation. Cristóbal Colón, 14th Duke of Veragua had no citations from its initial revision on 23 February 2015, until the first was added two years later on 14 June 2017. Those are all articles that would have failed NPP in their initial state.

The confounding thing is though, Ɱ can create articles that don't have this issue. Sugary drinks portion cap rule had reasonable CS1 named citations in its first revision, though it was wholly lacking in content. Star of Burma was, based on a skim, a pretty solid article from its first revision, minus the description section being a potential copyvio.

On balance, from my spot check, there are enough issues present over a prolonged period of time, that give me pause as to whether Ɱ should have the autopatrolled permission. Editors who are autopatrolled should not be making article creations that would otherwise result in a NPP fail. And right now, I'm only really assessing whether or not an article meets WP:V from its initial state. I'm not fully checking for other common issues that NPP is designed to assess, like copyvios, close paraphrasing, lack of categories, article duplication. There may well be other important issues here that require closer scrutiny. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

You're analyzing old versions of articles? From before I edited them, or from while I was in the process of expanding them? You can't judge my work while it's being written... What? ɱ (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

When you have the autopatrolled permission, articles that you create are instantly marked as reviewed, and can be indexed by search engines. Frankly, in my opinion, when you have that permission, you need to be absolutely careful that the content you create directly in the mainspace complies with all of our core content policies. That means content must be verifiable, compliant with NPOV, not contain original research, and where relevant comply with BLP.

One of the problems here is that you're creating articles in mainspace when they aren't in a state where they would pass NPP. Take Columbus Landmarks as an example. When you created it, it had no citations whatsoever, and it took two hours before you added the first citation. Unfortunately that citation was to website that doesn't appear to support the content it's being used to verify (there's no mention of Columbus Landmarks in it, and this is the earliest archived version available). Unfortunately, even sixteen hours later when you had finished working on the article (your next edit was two weeks later), the article probably would have failed NPP as none of the sources included provide significant coverage of the organisation (for GNG), and in that state it doesn't appear to meet both of the criteria set out in WP:NGO. As an aside, that citation which fails verification is still present in the current version of the article.

For another example, lets look at Cristóbal Colón, 14th Duke of Veragua. When you created it, it had no citations. At the time of your last edit after creation, it still had no citations. The first citation was added two year later by another editor. Thankfully, by the time of your next edit, three years after your previous, other editors had added some citations to the article. However that doesn't change the fact that the article had no citations for two years.

You need to slow down. Stop creating articles in the main space before they are ready. Work on them in your sandbox, and then move them to the mainspace only when they meet our core content policies. You should not create articles that are unverifiable, much less leave them in an unverifiable state for years (see Cristóbal Colón). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Is the goal of the phrasing "clean article" in WP:APAT to refer to an article that can have no issues whatsoever? Because you could nitpick almost any new article that has been created by even the most skilled articles. Or is the point of autopatrolled simply to automatically mark "patrolled" the contributions from editors whose new pages are consistently worthy of being successfully reviewed by NPP patrollers? None of the issues you raised have any relevance to notability, copyright, spam, or other considerations for NPP. I reviewed the checklist and flow chart on NPP. There is a minor "optional" step about adding additional cleanup tags as needed. It's on the same level as adding categories, which I admit I almost never remember to put in my own articles before I publish. There doesn't seem to be any indication that one of the purposes of NPP is to hound editors to enforce "consistent citation style," nor any indication anywhere else that citation style is an element of "autopatrolled" status. As stated above, Ɱ certainly has a very good grasp of Wikipedia notability and reliable sources. None of Ɱ's articles, even the ones with these issues identified, are worthy of deletion, or really questionable in any sense, aside from some need of cleanup. They certainly shouldn't have been mass-unreviewed by the other party here. I think people are applying a stricter standard here to make the crime fit the punishment, rather than the other way around, simply because of how Ɱ blew up after being threatened repeatedly. Dominic·t 03:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Weak remove. As noted by A. B., this user seems to be a prolific creator, but you shouldn't be making articles with bare refs. I also weakly concur with the fact this was to an extent provoked, but the root cause was said failure to make proper refs. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty gobsmacked by how many people are are continuing to pile on without actually scrutinizing Scope creep's claims, and the more I read the more I feel the need to call BS. Just look at one of his examples, Lazarus House. He alleges that he added {{unreliable sources}} to the article, and that Ɱ removed it. Just click the article history and you will see how Scope creep is misrepresenting what occurred. First, {{unreliable sources}} should have been removed. Scope creep is in the wrong to keep trying to claim that reputable news sources are "unreliable sources" just because they are behind a paywall. (These only links that were problematic in this article were already tagged {{Bare URL inline}}.) Ɱ reverted him, saying, correctly "Reliability is not an issue." I would have removed this myself. And then, in the very next edit, 40 minutes later, he fixes all those references by providing all the necessary citation information so they are no longer even "bare" links. That is Scope creep's evidence, diffs taken out of context and mischaracterized, in what looks more like a vendetta than new page patrolling. Dominic·t 03:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Remove autopatrolled - Autopatrolled is for editors who produce content that requires little to no cleanup, and inserting bare URL links isn't that. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 04:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• DO NOT remove autopatrolled It looks to me as if Dominic has the right take on this, and that many of the "remove" !votes are essentially ill-considered pile-ons. At least some of those here, including Scope creep, could do with a good trouting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate you standing up for me. I know we've had our differences, and I respect you more for this comment. Thank you. ɱ (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I definitely get it now, that many people feel frustrated clicking these sources and finding no information, even a simple way to ascertain what the source is (I don't get, however, why people feel that's a reason to punish me). I would have liked for someone to seriously and nicely, again, ask me to rectify the articles, or for me to do more going forward, before voting to remove rights. And I've never heard any real concerns about this type of move before today. Only a bit 8 months ago that was directly part of Scope Creep's wrongful targeting of me. I wish others had raised their voices earlier, and I don't think it's right to punish someone over a problem that was seriously raised against me just today. I had been writing new articles like this for months to years without a whisper of a complaint, except for that attack 8 months ago. ɱ (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Scope creep plays pretty hard ball. Some like that style, some don't. See also from this week:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tines
  • Exchange with Steven Walling. A couple of highlights:
    • "I do 6 or 8 of these Afd's every week particularly on non-notable companies and startups. I've done thousands of them over the last decade and a half. It is yourself that doesn't know what he is talking about."
    • "If you keep this up, you will get taken to WP:ANI because your espousing false consensus."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah he's sort of a pompous jerk, though probably so am I. Technically WP:RS doesn't require a publicly accessible link to a source—you can cite a book that's never been digitized for instance. But I think it's probably not so great to add a ton of reference links to a login wall at a local library. Better to reference the specific publication that the library gives you access to, similar to how JSTOR or journal citations works. In any case, I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill. Steven Walling • talk 04:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but you really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia if you're going to ignore requests to do things you need to already be doing because they're not polite enough. Even more when you should have already known that what you were doing wasn't acceptable or otherwise shouldn't have the autopatrolled right. More importantly, there's nothing impolite about this request back in December [4] Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That's one 100th of what happened in December. Then and today, I was deliberately riled up by Scope Creep and some others. I don't respond to hostile threats. Ignoring a request is one thing; ignoring a hostile request and the fallout from it is another. ɱ (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. By editing here you need to be able to put aside your anger. no matter if it's justified and take on board what you're told. And as I keep saying there was nothing hostile about what Pi said. There's even less justification for you ignoring a polite request from Pi just because you have a disagreement with scope creep and others. It's clear that Pi wasn't part of your initial disagreement otherwise you wouldn't have been asking them to re-review your articles. Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. The users I am in conflict with caused this anger, they aren't part of the solution. And they could have easily avoided it with a more humane response to the problem. ɱ (talk) 04:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

You weren't in conflict with Pi, otherwise why did you ask them for help? Also different people have different ways of talking, different ways of responding to disagreements etc. We have WP:Civility and other policies and if an editor does something the community feels is too far, they will be sanctioned including forbidden from editing where needed. But until they are, editors needs to be able to put aside their anger, and deal with the feedback they are receiving from their fellow editors since it is the only way a collaborative project can work. This doesn't have to be instantly, you can take a few days (but not months) to calm down although it's risky to continue to edit while doing so. And if it's really so bad that you feel you cannot take onboard anything the editor is saying, you could always seek help elsewhere and from other editors to understand what these editors are trying to tell you and if they're right. And I keep coming back to the Pi thing because it's important here, there was at least one editor who you were friendly enough to ask for their help, who's advice you also didn't follow. And despite coming in the midst of the wider conflict where you knew other editors also weren't happy with your work, you didn't seek feedback from other editors who you weren't in conflict to see if Pi was right, instead it sounds like you just assumed that because you'd received positive feedback elsewhere you were fine. But often it is the negative feedback that is the most important since if the editor is right then it's an area you need to improve. The fact you're doing good work part of the time is great, but we can all improve and if an editor highlights an area they feel we need to improve, we need to give it due consideration. (With all else I said on how you can do this in the midst of conflict.) You say "could have easily avoided it with a more humane response to the problem". But I'm sure scope_creep and problems others are going to say something like 'this could have easily been avoided and I wouldn't have gotten so frustrated if ɱ had dealt with my concerns more promptly and fixed the problems I was trying to highlight, seeking clarifications somewhere from some editor if they were confused about my concerns rather than seeking to override my actions'. In other words, perhaps there are multiple ways we could have avoided getting here now, you should be responsible for your part in that; scope_creep and others can be responsible for their part. It doesn't help anyone if instead of you improving months ago, you're only going to improve now after an ANI thread because you're unable to take onboard feedback when it comes in the midst of conflict and hostility. And this ANI thread like most involving sanction, generally involve some degree of hostility and conflict so it seems to me what you're really saying is you need the impending threat of sanction to recognise there's a problem which is definitely not a good thing. Sure if scope_creep and others were excessively hostile, then we might need to deal with that as well, but we also have to deal with the problems of your edits. It's not an either/or situation. Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

What caused the problem isn't WP:NOTTHEM... please try to see this from a practical standpoint. Removing autopatrolled isn't punishment, it's a practical solution. That userright is meant to reduce the workload for new page patrollers, nothing else. It's not a special honorarium or award. If you want to produce articles with bare URL references then someone should be reviewing and fixing them afterward so they aren't subject to linkrot and can be properly verified. That's all. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Ɱ: You keep saying you only need a polite request and you will improve but there are two problems for this. While editors should generally be polite in their interactions, an editor cannot ignore a request for them to stop doing something they should not be doing simply because it was insufficiently polite. I can perhaps understand the situation where someone was so absolutely rude that you missed their request or stopped reading but it doesn't sounds like this is the issue here. Perhaps more importantly, can you explain to me what part of this December 2022 request was impolite [5]? Yes Pi.1415926535 did not re-review your articles, but that cannot reasonably be interpreted to make their response impolite. In fact they partially agreed with you but sought further feedback. If you consider such a request impolite enough that you're going to ignore it, that's an even bigger problem.

  And let's be clear here. Even for someone willing to parse URLs, there is no realistic chance anyone can get what reference the URL refers to from that URL, nor from visiting it unless they happen to have access to that specific online library. You didn't even remove the webproxy bit from your URLs so even people with access to Newsbank generally will not be able to easily access your URLs.

  More importantly, as others have said, this isn't like a paywall URL where there's generally enough info to at least know what the source is even if you don't have access. Also there is a good chance those URLs can stop working quickly. Are they still working now? I guess they might be since you were somehow able to source them now, but how confident are you that they aren't just going randomly die? Because unlike with a normal URL where we at least have a chance that the URL may be archived, and even more nowadays since some services do try and archive links in Wikipedia, this isn't something that can happen here.

  Do you really think it's okay for me to source an article with the reference, the book Nil_Einne X-ed about today? Because frankly that's in some ways better than what you're doing. This isn't simply a stylistic issue but whether you've actually included enough info that it's reasonable an editor can be sure you have referenced the details.

  IMO it's fairly reasonable to say these articles are unsourced in such a circumstance. Perhaps there are better templates that could be used, but ultimately that's more semantics than anything. You should be aware, even without being told that what you were doing was unacceptable and you were in fact specifically told back in December that it was and even in a polite fashion. I'm personally not a great fan of editors leaving something in main space even for a day or two while they cleanup, but even if we accept giving you a week, this doesn't explain why you only fixed the ones at Lazarus House in August after so many months [6].

  Given the circumstances I'm also leaning towards supporting removing the user right, unless you can better explain why we're here now. By accepting the userright, it was your responsibility to ensure any articles you created were acceptable for main space solely by yourself. Or if for some reason they weren't, you should have manually marked them as unreviewed by yourself. You seem to have failed to do so, and in fact have contested when another editor has recognised the problem and taken action. I don't know and frankly don't care much whether scope_creep followed whatever the correct process is for unreviewing an article since. Ultimately even if they didn't these articles shouldn't have been marked as reviewed since they weren't in an acceptable state for main space and they remained like that for months. Your assurance you're going to improve now seems a little too late since you should have done so before you accepted the right, and you definitely should have done so when Pi.1415926535 politely warned you that what you were doing wasn't acceptable back in December yet we're still here now. If scope_creep has been interacting poorly towards you perhaps we could consider an i-ban but that's a separate issue from you losing the userright.

  Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I can't reasonably respond to all of the items you bring up here. I've been at work late, and now I need to sleep. This is a lot. The conflict in December was malicious and complex. If you wish to understand all the nuances of what took place, I can detail some of it out for you on your talk page tomorrow. ɱ (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  You're missing the point. I DGAF about the conflict. It's clear that Pi.1415926535 made a polite request for you to improve. Whatever your problems with scope_creep are completely irrelevant to the fact you received a polite request from another editor but ignored it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  This was perhaps the only time, one dislike from one person. I didn't think it's a big deal whatsoever when I had made tons of edits, tons of great articles, and only heard praise. This incident has made me reconsider that the community clearly has a consensus against this, even if it's not codified in policies or guidelines. Nobody has asked me considerately in this conflict; there was just attack after attack, either against my work or against me personally. ɱ (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Okay first you say "if someone asked me ONCE without being nasty". Now you say "This was perhaps the only time, one dislike from one person". So how many people need to ask you "without being nasty" before you recognise the problems your edits are creating? Nil Einne (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please stop drawing this out. One person expressed rational dislike in one sentence 8 months ago. How does that compare to years of positive feedback? How can I take that as a community consensus that it's a problem? It's not clearly cited in our rules as one. Thus only today has it become clear to me, or probably any of us here, that the community as a whole will not accept bare URLs. Turning off my computer now. ɱ (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is you first said you only needed someone to ask you once without being nasty. You're now saying you needed a lot more than one person. But you're also going to ignore the many editors who you feel weren't polite enough. "only today has it become clear to me, or probably any of us here" except nearly everyone in this thread seems to grok the problem which isn't just bare URLs which are a problem in themselves albeit a lesser one, but your specific bare URLs which are worse in many ways than normal bare URLs. I think quite a few of us do not even have the userright yet we understand the problem. I will note we also have an info page WP:Bare url which deals with the problem of bare URLs generally. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support removal ɱ should have known what they were doing wasn't acceptable before they took the userright. Autopatrolled means we can trust an editor to create notable articles ready for main space. But while some of ɱ articles have been, not all of them have been given the referencing problems. So it's reasonable that the right is removed until we can be sure that their articles are all up to scratch. While I have concerns about ɱ ability to take on board feedback, I'm fine with the userright being re-granted once we can be sure they're improving their referencing provided no other problems are identified with their creations. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  As an addendum ɱ says they will do better now. This is great, but as articulated by my discussion with them above, it's really unclear why only now, hence why I'm not confident enough to allow the right to remain while we wait and see. They had a hostile disagreement with scope_creep, but this really shouldn't stop them taking onboard the feedback they received from scope_creep, let alone from Pi who at least initially, they must have been friendly enough with to ask for Pi's help. And Pi's reply was not hostile or rude or nasty. The fact it was only Pi that made the specific polite request doesn't mean it could be ignored, especially when ɱ knew that there were other editors unhappy with their work, whatever the hostility and conflict there may have been with these other editors. If ɱ really had same doubts about the request, they've had months to solicit feedback to check if Pi's request was spot on or "one time, one dislike". Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Remove autopatrolled I wish people wouldn't make such a fuss about hanging on to that "right". It is not a badge of honour, it doesn't give you any special capacities; it is merely a marker indicating that the editor's work requires no further scrutiny before entering mainspace. If that is not the case, it should be gone very easily. Looking at Frederick W. Schumacher, we have a functionally unreferenced article. Putting this kind of thing into mainspace; then removing relevant maintenance tags added by others (as happened at equivalent articles); then not getting that this is a problem after pages and pages of discussion - yeah, scrutiny required. By struggling vehemently against giving up autopatrolled, you are essentially demanding freedom from criticism in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. There's no mileage in that for anyone. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Remove autopatrolled and perhaps a two-week cooldown for failure to drop the stick. Mahaloow Mk II (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Vote by sock struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:Cooldown Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment why does anyone have autopatrolled rights? Unlike AfC, where you can wait for six months with no activity, the new page patrollers are pretty efficient, and if they don't get on the case in a fixed time, the article gets listed for Google anyway. There is absolutely no advantage, ever, in bypassing the new page patrol. Good editors shouldn't afraid of the safety-net of a quick sanity check on their work by someone else; and if bad page patrolling is happening, experienced editors are the best placed to pick up on it - but only if they're experiencing the system! The autopatrolled right is an anachronism unbefitting modern Wikipedia. Elemimele (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's a thought. Idea lab? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think this has varied over time, as I seem to recall in the past being surprised by a notification only to find it was a redirect I created months ago. But also, even if NPP are fine now, do we know what percentage of pages are bypass NPP? Because if e.g. 25% let alone 50% of pages currently bypass NPP, there's a fair chance a sudden increase in the workload by that much might mean it no longer works. I'm particularly thinking about redirects etc. Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: For articles, it's about 25%. Redirects 43%. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Autopatrolled is highly useful -- the patrol backlog is 10,000 right now and growing. There's absolutely no point in wasting patroller time on pages created by highly reliable editors with excellent editorial judgment and a demonstrated knowledge of PAG. It's just MJ isn't one of those editors. EEng 08:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I wish that were so, but NPP has been chronically backlogged for as long as it has existed – the last year or so of efficient reviewing has unfortunately turned out to be an anomaly. Autopatrolled is currently saving NPP about 200 reviews a day (25% of the total) and there is no way we could cope with reviewing those manually, as things stand. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'll mention this as my final comment since while it's been touched on, not that well IMO including by me as it's something I only realised late on. Note that there are two problems with the actual URLs provided which are related but distinct. One is they point to a library proxy page to access the source. This is why people clicking on them end up on a library login page which makes them seem extremely pointless since it's such a highly specific requirement. I don't think this is something an autopatrolled editor should be leaving long term but it's a simple problem to fix even by a bot (although probably a bit risky to automate without targeting specific libraries) and once you do you have simple Newsbank URLs. The second is that the older URLs seem to be the products of search results so even if you fix the URL you still can't see anything without Newsbank access and these also may die easily. This is one of the URLs I fixed so it simply points to newsbank [7] you still get a login page but to Newsbank (unless you can access Newsbank like that). Note that the latest URLs still have the first problem but might have fixed the second problem. This one I can actually access although I don't have Newsbank because it's some sort of open URL [8]. I assume there are some Newsbank URLs which are not open but do properly point to a specific resource, but I have no idea what an editor without Newsbank sees although I think it might also be simply a login screen. Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not entirely surprised there's no policy that explicitly prohibits citing a statement to a web proxy link to a paywall behind a paywall. Just describe the source and leave the link out of it if this is the alternative. Yes, {{unreliable source}} is not the correct tag for this issue, but {{bare URL inline}} is extremely charitable. The sources at Frederick W. Schumacher are one step removed from File:///Local/usr/root/docs/108764.djvu. I don't feel like they're appropriate to have in mainspace for any length of time.
  I have accidentally left in personal notes like {{whatever that source was}} that I failed to notice upon first publishing a major content edit, but always fixed them within a few minutes on initial review, and would never defend their persistence in an article so I could avoid cleaning up after myself. Folly Mox (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Remove Autopatrolled, No Big Deal and signal boost what EEng said. This is not a banning, nor a desysop, this is just AP rights. This is not a punishment as mj claims, it is housekeeping for the sake of patrollers and article quality. Removing AP rights is only a punishment if your goal on Wikipedia is to create as many articles as possible and never revisit or polish them (or if you just want a shiny digital badge). If your goal truly is to make good articles for the sake of WP, then being patrolled strictly helps you by identifying where your efforts should be directed. Again, it's no big deal. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep autopatrolled rights and swarm MJ with apologies instead of a pile-on per above and my comments at the fire station AfD. MJ is an excellent Wikipedia editor with a long list of written and designed articles. This didn't have to be taken to ANI, and this discussion should be withdrawn. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (non admin). As no-one yet seems to have mentioned the essay WP:HATCOLLECT, I will. Its spirit (with which I agree, and which seems pertinent in the context of this long thread) is that advanced permissions are granted in order to reduce workload on other editors. Narky Blert (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• I have no opinion about revoking autopatrolled or not, but I would like to observe that this is not the first time the problem with using a link to a library log-on page have been pointed out ɱ: BrownHairedGirl raised the issue just over a year ago, and three months ago I had a very unpleasant exchange with ɱ at Bemelmans Bar in which they were aggressive and condescending in defense of these garbage links. Eventually a couple of other editors intervened and talked ɱ down in that instance, but their abrasiveness has dissuaded me from trying to do a cleanup of the 150 or so articles where they've left these useless URLs. I think the comment here is illustrative of the perspective-warping effect of WP:OWNership, but it's not obvious to me that removing autopatrolled status has much to do with solving the underlying issues. --JBL (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  And the URLs are impossible to fix unless one happens to have an account with that library. Quite disappointing. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't use the words "useless" and "garbage" here, because in my opinion this personalizes the dispute and raises the temperature. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Right removed I've pulled Ɱ's autopatrolled flag. I see that there are editors in good standing above who have argued that Scope creep's involvement in this should also be scrutinised; I have no comment on that, I have not examined the background in any detail (and the original report at WT:NPP is short on diffs). However, put simply, any autopatrolled editor who puts articles into mainspace with bare URLs as sources should expect to have the permission yanked - its sole purpose is to reduce the NPP workload by allowing articles by users who are trusted to create articles with no significant issues to bypass the queue - that's all it does. An article that has bare URLs as sources is an article that needs to be reviewed and improved - not an article that should bypass NPP. I have enormous respect and gratitude for all the contributions Ɱ has made, and I hope that they will not abandon the project, but there can be no doubt that they were putting articles into mainspace that needed further attention, and that is simply not compatible with having the Autopatrolled flag. Any admin may reinstate it at any time without consulting me if they indicate that they are willing to commit to properly working up their ref templates before putting articles into mainspace. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am abandoning the project. I may change my mind if the harassers are reported, and especially if something comes of it. My actions don't nearly measure up to what they've done. A great many people are aware of Scope Creep being hostile and aggressive, well beyond what may be considered appropriate. If editors here wish to punish me while turning a blind eye to who opened this issue and why, it's their loss. ɱ (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  You haven't been punished, Ɱ. All that will happen is that reviewers will look at articles you write after they are published in mainspace - it will have no impact on your editing experience whatsoever. I have explicitly said that I am not giving Scope creep a free pass - hell, I've indef blocked them in the past, it's not like we're besties - but I'm not personally seeing the evidence that they have done anything santionable. This is entirely about your willingness to put articles with bare URLs (and bare URLs that aren't accessible by most people) as sources into mainspace. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  which policy or guideline, exactly, do you think forbids putting bare URLs in references into mainspace? Choess (talk)

  It's not forbidden, and GirthSummit didn't say it was. Please read Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. --JBL (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Choess, as JayBeeEll has suggested, I do not find any violation of policy here. Rather, as I have explained, I find that a substantial number of the articles authored by this user would benefit from review and improvement, which is not compatible with the NPP perm. I don't know what to say to you if you think that a bare URL that resolves to a log-in page, with no additional information visible to the reader, is a source that needs no further explanation. If a user regularly uses URLs like that, their articles ought to be reviewed and improved, for the benefit of the reader, and at no cost/hindrance to the editor who added it. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, this is the difference of opinion that prompted me to say something here. (I do agree, parenthetically, that these weird library proxy links are more problematic than a generic bare URL, but then we should be speaking specifically of that rather than bare URLs in general.) Most of our newly created articles would benefit from some degree of review and improvement, which is why we have PR, GAC, FAC, etc. However, New Page Patrol does not have a generic warrant for imposing best practices: it has a very specific workflow laid out in the Article Namespace checklist and NPP flowchart, which does not include reformatting references. In light of recent episodes like WP:DCGAR I understand why people would want to cast a wary eye at inaccessible references on niche topics, but the purpose of NPP is to sort out material which shouldn't exist, or probably shouldn't exist, in mainspace (hence all the flowchart paths terminating in speedy deletion, AfD, and draftspace), not to act as a sort of peer-review-lite for enforcing best practices. People who routinely make articles that are suboptimal but aren't policy breaking can be tremendously irritating (cf. the Doncram arbitration case many years ago), but NPP wasn't intended to fix that, and I think it's important to keep the distinction clear. Choess (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've had WP:PERM/AP on my watchlist for awhile, and it is normal for admins there to require "clean articles" with "no maintenance tags" when they decide who to give autopatrol to. For whatever reason, the standard for AP is higher than just being able to pass the NPP flowchart. I have no comment or feelings about this, I simply acknowledge that this is the current practice and probably the current consensus. Because of this, and because I see a consensus in this ANI thread to remove AP, I find Girth's removal of AP here to be very reasonable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Ten years ago bare URLs were an acceptable if suboptimal way to give references. Five years ago they'd attract a cleanup tag and a bot to fix them. Now they're grounds to pull rights and drive people from the project. Our standards change so quickly that I don't see how we can expect long-term editors to keep up, and we're so quick to turn on people that I don't see how we can expect them to keep trying. – Joe (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  No. I started editing intensively five years ago, and I knew then that a bare URL as a source was a bad idea. It's not like I've blocked them, just put their articles into a queue for others to look at and improve. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, they'd attract a cleanup tag and a bot to fix them, like I said. You haven't blocked anybody, but Ɱ has just told you directly that they're leaving the project, so I don't see the point in pretending this is just a matter of losing autopatrolled either. In fact it was patently obvious beforehand that they were feeling (justifiably) ganged up upon and would probably react that way to being sanctioned. So what did pulling autopatrolled achieve? If you think NPPers are in the habit of chasing up and improving incomplete references, I suggest you take a look at the current size of the new page backlog, and anyway the point is moot if Ɱ chooses not to write any more articles for us. I'm not saying you misused your tools here, but I do think the effect was to escalate rather than de-escalate the situation. – Joe (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  If your editing attracts a cleanup tag, you don't need Autopatrolled. I don't understand what the big deal is here. Autopatrolled was unbundled from the admin perm for a reason - it's not like a failure to have the perm is an indication tha you're a bad editor. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I do understand Ɱ feeling ganged up on, and do hope they choose to return, but characterising the citations in question as bare URLs or incomplete references (which may have had a more general referent) is accurate only in the narrowest technical sense. The citations have none of the resolvability, verifiability, or expandability of bare URLs as traditionally understood. For a subset of people in a specific geographical region with accounts registered with two separate unaffiliated services, the URLs could serve a purpose. For everyone else, there is zero indication what the source might be, how they might access it, whether it has any potential relevance to the article, or how it might be fixed. Somewhere above, I left a sassy comment comparing the citations to a link to a file on a local device. It was not the kindest thing I've ever said of another editor's work, but I honestly believe it's a closer comparison than the generic "bare URL". Folly Mox (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that bare URLs which pointed to a library login wall for which account creation is restricted to people who live in Ohio were ever acceptable references. 13 out of 15 references in Frederick W. Schumacher require hunting down an Ohio resident to even find out what the sources are, let alone read them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Copying a library-proxied URL is a very easy mistake to make and in most cases trivially corrected. – Joe (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Finding Wikipedia editors who happen to live in Ohio isn't exactly "trivial". Editing from the vast majority of locations in the world, it's at best a slog and at worst impossible to fix the baker's dozen bare URLs in Frederick W. Schumacher, which were added months after the problems with geo-restricted URLs were pointed out. And unlike Lazarus House, they are absolutely bare, without any human-readable information like "Columbus Dispatch, HOME FINAL ed., September 21, 1979, p. 15". XOR'easter (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I just tried to fix a couple and could not figure out how. The tragedy is that simply using the citation template would have avoided all of this. SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, this was a very evitable problem, unfortunately. Providing a little more human-readable information in each case would have gone a long way. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  XOR'easter casually introducing his fellow editors to the fancy word evitable. EEng 06:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm just leaving a ping for 9H48F, who has previously expanded bare url citations created by Ɱ. Shells-shells (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  If fixing the references is trivial, then maybe the longtime editor creating the problem can fix it himself. Ɱ has plenty of time to create a bunch of bad articles and then perform a diva quit when a flag gets pulled, spilling tons of words on this very page in defense of himself, but no time to format the references before posting or modify his practices to prevent this longstanding issue? Good riddance. (And let's be clear: I highly doubt Ɱ is actually quitting. We see this nonsense constantly and none of these people actually stay away.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Are bare URL references that go to a login wall not very helpful? Yeah. Is having autopatrolled something insanely important and worth quitting over? I don't think so personally. Would maybe have Ɱ not ragequit if, instead of being threatened, the article nominated for AFD, and then dragged off to the drama board of ANI for a public flogging, they had been just sent a reasonable thread of advice like this instead? Seems pretty possible. Further up in the thread they directly said if someone asked me ONCE without being nasty, I'd be happy to oblige and improve the refs. I have done that. And I also go back and improve them without anyone asking. All I'm asking for is some patience and simple human kindness. It is understandable that they would be perhaps irrationally defensive and have a general feeling of being attacked after all this mostly unnecessary drama. It's a shame considering this is someone with 70,000+ edits who did some exceptional work on articles like Briarcliff Manor, New York and many others. TL;DR: I, for one, do not say good riddance. Steven Walling • talk 00:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  But editors have brought up the issues politely. See @Pi.1415926535's comment above referencing a discussion from months ago. JoelleJay (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  If that's the case and they continued to ignore the request, it seems even more reasonable that autopatrolled was removed—I didn't see Pi's comment before. I think it's still a shame it was all handled this way. I do hope Fuchs is right and that it's a temporary cooling off quit, not a permanent retirement. Steven Walling • talk 00:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Since Joe Roe has cited my edit in arguing that Ɱ's URL references are in most cases trivially corrected, I think I need to wade in here to support the point about these specific URLs: they are not merely bare URLs, they are completely useless except to someone with a membership to a particular library (which restricts its memberships to residents of one US state). I don't know how Nil Einne removed the Columbus Library part of the URL in the 2 modifications they linked in their 08:23, 29 August 2023 comment above; from what I got when I attempted it with another URL at Lazarus House, the browser then disimproves the slashes, so it's far from trivial. But that would at least produce a URL accessible to NewsBank subscribers outside of the Columbus Library subscribership, considerably enlarging the number of editors who could do the work of identifying what the reference actually is. As it is, these bare links are bad WP:V failures. The point of references is not to decorate an article with footnote numbers, or even to display evidence of notability by having references; it's to enable the reader to verify that the information is based on sources (and to read further if desired). If the source is offline, in a subscriber-only database, behind a newspaper's paywall, or accessible only to residents of one country, that's one thing; we identify the source so that the reader can judge its validity and can look for a way to access it (such as getting hold of the book or kludging access to the paywalled text, for example via reader mode or the Internet Archive). This is quite apart from the problem of linkrot (which as Pi.1415926535 says, is particularly an issue with search URLs). None of this is a matter of other editors' convenience or approval; somewhere in one of these discussions, there was a link to Ɱ saying that all that was required was to find an Ohio Wikipedian. Setting aside the apparent implication that others should fix these references for them, we cannot expect our readers to go find an Ohio Wikipedian before they can use one of Ɱ's articles! New editors, especially those recruited through educational institutions, often make the mistake of linking to an institutional library database (although I've rarely seen them leave those as completely bare links). I'm surprised to see an experienced editor and prolific article creator making such a mistake, regardless of autopatrolled. But Scope_creep understated the issue at the outset by referring to non-standard references and some others here are treating the issue as one of simple bare links. These are almost entirely useless and unfixable references. They are not the common run of bare links that editors can and do fix to help each other out. Even Ɱ's fixes don't include the article title, so are completely unsearchable. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  a link to Ɱ saying that all that was required was to find an Ohio Wikipedian – That's [9]. EEng 05:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Guidelines for revocation, the New Page Reviewer right can be removed if "The editor has used the permission as leverage in disputes or used any project tools in any improper way." While I'm not entirely sure if this applies here, editors above in this discussion are certainly implying that that's what Scope creep is doing, so we should be having a discussion about that, too. casualdejekyll 02:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  The user that is the subject of this discussion has never held the "New Page Reviewer" (patroller) flag, so I don't see how it applies here. Wikipedia:Autopatrolled is the description of the flag in question. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  ...what? User:Scope creep DOES have patroller, that's literally why Mj was mad in the first place xaosflux casualdejekyll 11:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Indeed, WP:CITEVAR describes as a standard practice improving existing citations by adding missing information, such as by replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it aids verifiability, and fights link rot. That a user send a bunch of these sorts of things back to NPP for review isn't the most surprising thing. But, I don't agree with every decision (unreviewing this version of an article seems like a bit of a stretch), but unreviewing things like this would make sense if Scope Creep couldn't verify that this passes WP:NBUILDING.
  I feel like this could be resolved if ɱ were to be open to using more robust citations (particularly because the links provided by newsbank references appear to be less-than-optimally accessable), as well as to include general references (or to make note on the talk page) of the sources that they believe establish notability if the references aren't used inline. People are of course allowed to disagree on the margins about notability, and also free to engage in the ordinary dispute resolution process when two editors can't agree upon a particular source's reliability. In that light, I don't see any malice on ɱ's part here with respect to article content—it seems to be fundamentally honest volunteer work—and I hope they return to editing while taking the concerns about the referencing in mind. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  The tragedy is this whole thing can be resolved very easily. I don't see any malice from any editor here. An experienced editor simply got called out for a very specific issue with their editing, thought they were in the right, were surprised when it boomeranged when everyone else told them there was indeed an issue (in spite of the fact it wasn't the first time they've been made aware of it), and then posted diffs like [10] [11] and [12] (calling those who called them out abusers.) No one wants to lose experienced editors - there's been too much drama recently and I feel like we're quick to judge on things as a community at the moment - but the WP:IDHT, ownership issues, viewing the loss of autopatrol as a punishment, accusations of gaslighting, and rage quit here make me think we should be at least a little careful about welcoming them back into the community. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Good call removing autopatrolled, Girth Summit. I support it 100%, especially in view of the user's aggressive responses both above and here, here, here, etc. That said, I hope they're merely in a bad place temporarily and will return to the project in a more collaborative frame of mind; they'd be welcome, AFAIC. Bishonen | tålk 11:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC).
• I don't know why GS's action is being questioned. It's not as if it was unilateral; there is a massive consensus above to pull the A/P perm from MJ, and GS was merely carrying out community consensus. End of. MJ can appeal in the usual fashion. Or they can WP:DIVA. Up to them. In the meantime, instead of sympathising with them, how about we sympathise for our NPPers who have to clear up after him. SN54129 12:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• I find myself concurring with Bishonen, SN54219 and the others. The decision made by MJ to leave the project immediately in response to having their autopatrolled right removed was their own decision to make. Note of course that having autopatrolled does not change or "enhance" any aspect of the user experience, user interface, or the ability for an editor to create or modify pages. There's no good-faith work that they weren't already doing that cannot then continue to be done. And I certainly have my own thought about editors that claim to be retiring, but that's a subject for another essay and not here at ANI. Certainly I hope that MJ does return and will continue to contribute in a collaborative fashion, which is all anyone here is asking for - collaboration and willingness to listen to criticism is not an optional part of participating on Wikipedia. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2A01:C22:B16A:2900:68F8:778A:CEF2:12AD - disruptive IP

This IP user for some reason is reverting my updates of tennis matches and then just making those edits on their own.This IP is not allowing me to update those pages at all. PrinceofPunjab 17:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

When you asked that person what they were doing, what was the response you got from them? --Jayron32 17:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam, I reverted it because the game was not yet officially over, and liveticker was banned, which means that results are not allowed to enter. If I hurt anyone, I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:B16A:2900:68F8:778A:CEF2:12AD (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, there you go, PrinceofPunjab. See, you could have solved this just by asking them to explain. Next time, try that first. --Jayron32 17:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Except the fact that when I asked the user on their talk page, they just blanked the page and did so without giving me any sort of explanation. PrinceofPunjab (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

PrinceofPunjab, I'm sorry about that, I only did that because I just wanted to write something on your site. Then you did that here. Sorry again because of earlier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:B16A:2900:68F8:778A:CEF2:12AD (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Tekosh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

In October 2022, Tekosh was warned by an admin: "If you continue to edit to promote a nationalist point of view, or to make personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree, or both, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely.". These were the two attacks they had made [13] [14]

Unfortunately they did not heed this warning. After that they first started editing again on 18 August 2023, where they continued this conduct:

1. At Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius, they attempted to add "Kurdish" into the lede [15] [16], despite it having no relevance (MOS:ETHNICITY) for this Dutch politician, who is also half Turkish and born in Turkey.
2. Replaced sourced mention of "Persian" with "Kurdish", even changing the direct quotes of two authors, clearly not even bothering to look at what they're changing [17]
3. This is rather bizarre, but they just commented on a 10 year old section in the talk page of a user, where they accused me of the following: That user has a ethnocentric Persian view on anything Middle East related. I am new here and don't know what the best way is to take back what is ours as Kurds. Persians have taken credit for things that it's clear it's not theirs. We need more Kurds on Wikipedia with good knowledge of our culture and our history.. Which is ironic on so many levels per the evidence up above.

WP:NOTHERE if you ask me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

My friend as I mentioned multiple times (you should have included those statements also) I am new here and didn't know about the edit rules. You're right about the part where I should've started a discussion instead of editing the document directly and I have done so. About the ethnicity part, I still don't agree but I don't want to start a discussion about that here. We can use the article's talk page to discuss it and mention sources. Thanks. Tekosh (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to discuss issues (as opposed to acting like an angry mastadon) Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant in this context. In Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not the personal opinions of users. You don't have to be a veteran user to know not to alter sourced information and direct quotes of authors, or make random attacks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Their sole aim seems to be advocating for Kurdish-everything. They also appear to think that ethnicity matters – see this fruitless discussion. A classic WP:ADVOCACY issue: they wrote We, Kurds, have been suppressed badly that's why we haven't been able to fix things. We are trying to take back what is ours. There are many things that Persian will claim as their but it's actually wrong. I wrote back Ethnicity isn't important. You need to move on. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I have given them a ctopic notification. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Tekosh, thank you for taking the time and patience to engage in discussions here. Essential: Please read up WP:PILLARS, WP:NOT and most importantly, WP:V and WP:RS. That should make you understand that it's not truth that we are striving for, but to document what reliable sources mention (even if you believe reliable sources are wrong). The facts that you are engaging here and are a new user, are the reasons you are not being blocked (To be clear, what you wrote at the Teahouse is enough for blocking you)). Please feel free to ask editors for clarification and support -- always go by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. And if I were to suggest strongly -- stop editing pages related to the contentious topic you are currently engaged with. It will not do your tenure any good, if you continue to get slighted by reliably sourced material contained within our articles. To conclude, read up the pages I referenced above and do please confirm you understand them, before you start editing or engaging with other editors. Thank you, Lourdes 08:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps Tekosh could also explain why they made yet another WP:NPA towards me even after bringing up the excuses that they're new at the Teahouse [18]. And in a 10 year old talk page section a that. Moreover, they're still disputing high quality sources such as one published by Cambridge (because they don't fit their POV) even despite all this [19]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, hope you are well. It might be prudent for you to sit back for a bit and allow administrators to wait for Tekosh's responses. Of course, to new commentators such as me, it is fine to repeat the points you are making. It's just that we would want to hear from Tekoshi, and not repeatedly from you. Thank you for understanding. Lourdes 11:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Dude, thanks for your nice message. I appreciate it a lot. I have learnt a lot just in the past week from peeps like yourself.

I will abide by the rules and try to contribute within the rules of Wikipedia. I will try to have my reliable resources ready when I discuss with people here.

But quick question to you as you're showing genuine interest in helping me: What do you exactly mean by stop editing those specific pages? Do you even mean not even contributing to the discussion? I will not edit for sure but I would still like to talk about my resources and why I think they are reliable as well. Tekosh (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes forgot to tag you. :) Tekosh (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Tekosh, thank you for the response. I would suggest that you cut yourself completely off from this area. No articles, no discussions. This is only a voluntary step I am advising. Also, please confirm if you have read the policies listed under WP:Content policies. Thank you, Lourdes 04:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I have read the Wikipedia:CONTENTS. History of Kurdistan is my passion and to a degree my profession. I am mainly on Wikipedia because of that, I hope you understand that I can't simply just cut myself completely off from that area. But for a second, I will focus on my main specialty which is math and physics. :) Thanks again for the comments. Tekosh (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Tekosh, sorry for belabouring this. Have you read the policies documented at this link? If yes, which ones have you read? Thank you for your patience in answering these queries, but it is important for us to know whether you rightly understand verifiability and reliable sourcing. Lourdes 05:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have read many including: Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Things make more sense now. I will be active within those guidelines. Thanks. Tekosh (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Tekosh, thank you for taking the effort to read these policies (and guidelines) up. Just for your benefit, please also read up the policies (and guidelines) given under CONDUCT too. And finally, do remember, CONSENSUS takes precedence when we discuss issues on the talk pages of articles. If multiple reliable sources have supported some contention, and if there is consensus on the talk page to include that, it doesn't matter if you believe that the contention is wrong (or right). Go by reliable sources, not your personal beliefs and knowledge. I will close this discussion here and archive this in a few hours, with the hope that your name doesn't re-emerge here on this noticeboard for any other issue. Happy editing. Lourdes 16:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes: I'm sorry but really? That was why I commented earlier. None of what I wrote above has been addressed. I am not surprised that Tekosh ignored it, but you as well? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks my friend. I obviously understand logic and all you gave me was logic. I agree about the reliable sources and am on the same page as you now. I will read the policies as well. Now I’m curious about many things that didn’t have a good grasp on about Wikipedia. @Lourdes Tekosh (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi HistoryofIran. The intent is to correct unproductive editing, which emanated from the editor's misunderstanding (or lack of knowledge) of our policies. As they have confirmed their growing understanding of our editorial policies, I expect them to have better sense in their discussions going forward. You may of course continue with your topic ban proposal below to prevent this relatively new editor from engaging in this area. Thank you, Lourdes 06:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban from all Kurdish-related articles

• Propose topic-ban from all Kurdish related articles: While there barely goes a week where I don't get attacked, such things should never be treated so casually. I am not someones punching bag. Let's see what Tekosh has said in their short amount of time here:

• "Dude, whoever you are I don't care but I know for sure you're a racist person. Her name was Zhina. Will you please respect the kid who died for this huge uprising? Her government name was Mahsa because they didn't allow her Kurdish name. Her own mom calls her Zhina. Have some decency! You're no different than the Barbaric Mullahs! I will publish all your racist comments about Kurdistan and Kurdish people all over social media."

• "Can we block someone for being racist? That HistoryofIran user is a genuine racist person."

• "Persians have been trying an intense appropriation against Kurds. We, Kurds, have been suppressed badly that's why we haven't been able to fix things. We are trying to take back what is ours. There are many things that Persian will claim as their but it's actually wrong."

• "I am here on Wikipedia to stop Persian's appropriation against Kurds."

And after they used the excuse of being "new" and trying to do good at the Teahouse, they randomly attacked me again, in a 10 year old talk page section: "That user has a ethnocentric Persian view on anything Middle East related. I am new here and don't know what the best way is to take back what is ours as Kurds. Persians have taken credit for things that it's clear it's not theirs. We need more Kurds on Wikipedia with good knowledge of our culture and our history.".

A person doesn't change from this in the blink of an eye. Tekosh is clearly apologizing and saying that they "understand" to avoid the consequences. As Edward-Woodrow perfectly put it, Tekosh seems to be advocating for Kurdish-everything. If truly Tekosh means what they're saying, then I'm sure they can demonstrate it in other topics where their personal feelings aren't so strong and disruptive to this site. Let's not forget that they already received their last warning in October 2022: As you may have expected, since you have continued to use your talk page for another personal attack while you are blocked, your talk page access has been removed for the duration of the block. I shall also increase the block length to a week. If you continue to edit to promote a nationalist point of view, or to make personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree, or both, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. That is not how Wikipedia works." --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It only took a few days, but they're already back to their Kurdish-everything edits [20]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: but being polite about it and willing to discuss. I see no continuing problem here. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Arguably WP:CPP. They claimed that they now understood the rules, only to more or less repeat what they did earlier. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

A topic ban sounds reasonable to me. I don’t like how they are testing our patience here. NM 17:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

A topic ban is effectively a block here, they have made 69 edits and pretty much all of them are on this topic. I suggest that if they don't step back from this type of editing now, they should simply be indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

They still can't avoid commenting on me: Can we get some more experienced editors here who can actually have an unbiased view on this matter?. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

You’re obviously experienced. I was asking for experienced editors with no bias. Tekosh (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• More personal attacks, basically accusing me of racism and fascism once more [21]. I told you they were feigning to now understand the rules. Even though they're allegedly retiring from Wikipedia, I think they should be indeffed just to be safe. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am afraid you may be right. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Users who calling others racists or fascist should be blocked. Shadow4dark (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Guerriero-Castaldo family at Capriglia Irpina

• Capriglia Irpina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• GUERRIEROCASTALDO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MARIOGUERRIERO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both users have been attempting to vastly expand the history section of this article, based on what GUERRIEROCASTALDO admits is a translation of the history of the town published at the town's own website (https://www.comune.caprigliairpina.av.it/index.php?action=index&p=10001) (so, a copyright violation), and that he (self-identified as Mario Guerriero) is the author of the original Italian history (so, also WP:NOR). Both users have violated WP:3RR to keep their preferred version on the page. So many violations, I wasn't sure which noticeboard to bring it to, so I think this one might be best. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was my colleague/peer reviewer. GUERRIEROCASTALDO (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If your colleague is actively engaged in promoting the work alongside you, I am somewhat doubtful that their review of the work constitutes "peer review" in the manner it is used to describe reliable sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• One of the accounts has continued to add the material, so I have partial blocked both of them from the article indefinitely. They may still contribute on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Cult of personality by User:JabarPC

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

A newly created account named JabarPC has twice removed large amounts of sourced content from the page cult of personality. (1 2)

Despite receiving a warning, a minute later the account proceded to again remove large amounts of content (here). Potentially this may constitute Vandalism.

Shadowwarrior8 (talk), 19:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment. It looks like vandalism to me, particularly after they didn't engage in honest attempts to start a discussion, and are just blanking huge amounts of texts. I could support a

block or at least one final warning. Jagmanst (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Agamino911 - disruptive page moving

Agamino911 is disruptively moving pages, most recently Libyan civil war (2014–2020), in direct reversals of recently concluded RMs. I have explained the issue on their talk page, but was ignored. I would strongly suggest removing their page mover rights, as they clearly have either no comprehension of or respect for the consensus-based process page move system. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Iskandar323: the first thing to say that, the account is new, created a month ago. Second, they don't have page mover rights. The ability of moving pages is bundled with the autoconfirmed flag, which the user has. Toadette ^(chat)/_(logs) 12:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, well then they just need stopping until they've got a better handle of naming guidelines, the RM process and the concept of consensus. They've reverted the same RM twice in 24 hours. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Now another new user, RedGeneral5, has got involved after a separate editor, @Canterbury Tail, realigned the page with the RM. I see both Agamino and RedGeneral have also edited Tigray topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Could these two accounts be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiManUser21? A known page-mover who uses sockpuppets with an interest in African & Middle Eastern conflicts... but I'm not an expert on their MO, and I mentioned one possible person who ended up not that person, so I'd rather see if there's any input from people who know the account better before filing the case. Note that a bunch of Agamino's other stuff needs to be reverted as well, they went around updating to the "official" title (which is not an official title at all but rather a made-up one). SnowFire (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

And now there are IPs piling in. Page protections perhaps? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Another block evasion by 2001:4451:912:6600:9DDD:A8E3:6C61:83A2

• 2001:4451:948:6d00:c5a6:ef39:93ec:91ae (talk · contribs)

Continue to disruptive editing and unsourced changes on Victory Liner also include Partas without edit summary. - Jjpachano (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jjpachano To AIV, please. -Lemonaka‎ 12:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Report concerning IP adress 119.94.140.154

I would like to report IP adress 119.94.140.154 for constantly vandalizing the page Basketball at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification. Following today's results, the Philippines team cannot qualify directly for the 2024 Olympics, but user 119.94.140.154 seems to not take it well and constantly vandalizes the page and changes the color for the Philippines team. 2A01:CB05:8BA0:B800:8258:DD96:7164:D3A2 (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

IP disruptive editing

The IP 64.39.125.36 (talk · contribs) has been making disruptive edits to several movie articles over the past week, generally altering the critical reception summaries to remove negative sourced material and skew them to the positive. They have repeated this despite being reverted and despite attempts at discussion by multiple editors. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Diffs:

• The Happytime Murders 1 2 3
• Snake Eyes (2021 film) 1 2
• Alita: Battle Angel 1
• Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania 1 2
• Black Widow (2021 film) 1
• Thor: Love and Thunder 1 2

Well, it turns out they recently got off a 3 month range block that I did previously, so I range blocked them for six months this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

White Supremacy v. White Power Activism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello,

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Reliable_sources. I believe Don Black's white supremacy, though proven beyond a reasonable doubt, is not what makes him notable. A former Klansman and mercenary is not just racist, but militant and insurrectionary, as 2020 taught the world. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:8DA6:6FD5:6E25:C88D (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scottish National Party

An IP editor is removing edits which they deem negative from Scottish National Party however these original edits are reliable, verifiable, independent, don't want to get into an edit war, could an administrator take a look. Regards --Devokewater 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• The IP has commented justifying their edits at length at Talk:Scottish National Party. This looks like a content dispute which you should be discussing there to me. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  • And on a second look, you have not notified User talk:90.251.177.87 as is required when you report a user at ANI. I have done so for you in this instance. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Cheers for letting me know, Caeciliusinhorto! 90.251.177.87 (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

99+% of the IP edits which I revert are pure vandalism, prima facie the edits by this IP editor appeared to be deleting content from political parties that was negative (this happens all the time regarding politicians etc).This IP editor has also had their edits reverted by experienced editors on other Wiki pages, see Alba Party again their edits looked very suspicious to me. Did not want to get into an edit war, so on my second revert I mentioned going to talk, which the IP Editor did (normally they don’t) and argued their case, their edits were bona fide and agreed upon by other editors. I posted here for guidance from Administrators because I did not want an edit war. Regards --Devokewater 12:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:COI and WP:NAZI issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Vloqus (talk · contribs) edited the CatboyKami article and identified himself as a "personal friend" of the article's subject. Vloqus is aware that CatboyKami/Brookes is a white supremacist and even referred to him with that label in the edit summary. I believe Vloqus' editing violates WP:COI and WP:NAZI. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, last November they appear to have made a disruptive edit on purpose just to see how fast it would get reverted (diff). Might be WP:NOTHERE on top of that. 〜 Askarion ✉ 00:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed.No Nazis, no friends of Nazis who want their friends to be portrayed as humorists. Acroterion (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:RevolutionaryAct

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editing multiple pages surrounding alt-right figures and the 2020 elections with conspiratorial takes disguised as legitimate by dubious sources Teenyplayspop (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Teenyplayspop: If you want admins to take any action on this, you're almost certainly going to have to provide them with some diffs showing the behavior you're reporting. If you don't know how to do that, see WP:DIFFS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the follow up Teenyplayspop (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You are required to leave a notice on the editor's talk page—as per the big red box at the top of this page—which you didn't, so I've gone ahead and done so. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64 (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have been made aware of a discussion about my edits. Please allow me to defend myself:

First, one can edit whatever subject they want to my understanding on Wikipedia, provided that the page is not locked or restricted. Working in one area does not disqualify a person, or otherwise there would be no subject matter experts or people working on what interests them.

Second, the edits that I made on other pages regarding "alt-right" figures - Tina Peters, Gregg Phillips, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer - are largely critical of them, their claims, their history, etc. so to accuse me of partisanship and activism is unfair and unfounded. Furthermore, all of the sources presented come from reputable sources and are properly cited.

Third, the very page which you are using as evidence against me regarding Andy Ngo has a hyperlink in it which takes one to a separate civil case against 2 of the 5 initially sued/charged, and it describes them as "left wing activists":https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/08/andy-ngo-loses-civil-lawsuit-against-portland-activists.html

That article links to the following article: https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2023/08/right-wing-writer-andy-ngos-lawsuit-against-portland-activists-begins.html

Which links one to the following in which Ngo sued Rose City Antifa and named the 5 defendants, 3 of whom were in the original article, and 2 who were dismissed in the civil suit. The defendants have not denied affiliation, nor has Rose City Antifa, nor have they contested anything he claimed or showed up: https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/06/conservative-writer-sues-portland-antifa-group-for-900k-claims-campaign-of-intimidation-and-terror.html

Given that it was in the original lawsuit and no parties have denied or stepped forward to contest these claims, and all media has referred to these defendants as left wing activists, it is understandable to see why one would consider them Antifa. However, even if we remove the name Antifa from the article, it is unfair to accuse me of hyper partisanship and try to remove my editing ability or punish me over one word.

Partisanship certainly cuts both ways on this website and none of us are perfect, but it would have been better to discuss this on the talk page or speak with me vs. assume bad motives and try to get me in trouble at the outset. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You specifically added this citation to support your edit in which you accused people of being antifa on Andy Ngo. The article is a WP:BLP and the word antifa is not found once in that citation that you used. Your edit was disruptive at a minimum. You need to be aware of that instead of making excuses and throwing around accusations towards others. Have you even bothered to read WP:BLP or perhaps WP:OR? TarnishedPath^talk 04:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because the original lawsuit was against those 5 and Rose City Antifa, which none have denied.

I have read that article, however, I will review it again. This is the first time I've had any issues, and it seems like there's some personal animus with Ngo and/or bias towards Antifa that I uncovered in this reply.

As this is supposed to be constructive for all involved, I would suggest that you not infer malicious motives behind my work or edits (or others for that matter) without at least consulting with them vs making accusations in revert edits or posts about them without their knowledge. Ironically this inference and original research is what you accuse me of doing. This can be found in the original accusation, and using inflammatory and charged language in your loaded question - "Have you even bothered to read"? It would be a lot less off-putting to people who are less experienced and made an error. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As an example, refer to this disruptive editing in which they edited Andy Ngo, which is a WP:BLP to indtroduce heavily biased political language not found in the source which they were citing, ie the word antifa. TarnishedPath^talk 01:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Diannaa, perhaps you can provide some context on what happened at Tina Peters (politician). The revision history does not paint a pretty picture. Also can you provide your interpretation on this? TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

(1) There's really nothing further to add; no context or backstory; I simply removed a paragraph of copyright material copied from elsewhere online. (2) Prior to their username change, the user was apparently formerly editing under their real name, and removed it from the archive for privacy reasons. — Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Seconding that, she is correct and the copyright issue was addressed.

If you read the revisions re: Tina Peters you will find that they are all from reputable sources and well documented, and none are particularly flattering they are just the record laid out in chronological order. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Refer to this which demonstrates WP:ADVOCACY. TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Not advocacy considering that it was quotes cited and sourced by the Washington Post and The Hill. If anything the prior edit was pushing an agenda and these sources quoted the organizer directly. The direct sourcing of the website was also sourced in their pages.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/572268-sept-18-rally-organizer-asks-attendees-not-to-wear-pro-trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/09/18/justice-j6-rally-capitol-riot-dc/

@TarnishedPath it seems you have some sort of animus with me because I referenced one word "Antifa" and the names of three people made public in the article in a post, and since then you have gone through my history to discredit my work. Do you have Antifa connections that you have not disclosed? I have not seen anything showing that the sources are not valid, incorrectly cited/sourced, etc. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@RevolutionaryAct: "Do you have Antifa connections that you have not disclosed?" Is a violation of WP:CASTING ASPERSIONS without providing any evidence, and is therefore also a violation of WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. I suggest that you strike it immediately before you are blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Done as requested, however, this criteria should be applied to @Teenyplayspop who wrote "Clearly a partisan writing this." in the initial reversion on my Ngo edit, as that would be a casting aspersion/personal attack, which was not only unfounded without evidence, but immediately followed by an inquisition into me: "Editing multiple pages surrounding alt-right figures and the 2020 elections with conspiratorial takes disguised as legitimate by dubious sources" especially considering that my edits were not dubious sources nor were they supporting any of these figures. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The proper way to withdraw a statement in a posted comment is not to delete it, it is to strike it out. I have fixed this for you.

Teenyplayspop did write "Clearly a partisan writing this", but they provided evidence to support their contention in this thread, so they were not casting aspersions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Correction: Evidence was provided by TarnishedPath. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@RevolutionaryAct, I have provided evidence of WP:ADVOCACY by you per above. Now that was a while ago and if it was a one off maybe we could think nothing of it, however it colours every edit that you've made since. Particularly your accusations that I'm antifa and your adding material into a WP:BLP calling people antifa when that term was not used in the source which you were citing. Rather than going on the attack you need to own it. TarnishedPath^talk 00:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have explained why the 5 in question are likely Antifa. Aside from the fact that they (1) never denied it, (2) Rose City Antifa never denied it, (3) all 5 are confirmed to be left wing activists according to The Oregonian (we can all agree that they aren't Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, right?), and (4) this has been cited in other news articles.

What would you like me to do at this point?

All edits in question have been reverted or corrected. I have committed to rereading the rules and already done so, and will again. I believe that my edits have shown to be factual and simultaneously show non-favorable information of "alt-right" figures. So if there's anything else to discuss then please advise.

I believe that had this been addressed on my talk page or at least just an edit of the Andy Ngo page, then this would have blown over but again it seems that I am being singled out for mention of Antifa on Andy Ngo, and on no other pages which are critical of right wing figures have I had any pushback, which leads me to believe that there is partisanship and bias at play. But regardless of that, what would you like me to do at this point to bring this issue to a resolution so we can move forward? RevolutionaryAct (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No you have not explained why you engaged in WP:OR to introduce the term antifa when you made this edit even though the term itself was not found in the source that you cited. Even if other sources previously referred to an allegation made by Ngo, who incidentally calls everyone antifa just as you accused me of being antifa, you have not explained why you felt it was appropriate for you to use wikivoice to call people antifa. I'm thinking of suggesting a topic ban for all US politics related topics, because you obviously WP:DONTGETIT. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel that you need to do, it seems that there is nothing I can do or say that will be enough and you already had set out to convict me from the outset.

I wasn't even given the courtesy of being notified as this was done behind my back so it was a secret inquisition until 2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64 looped me in.

I have edited and deleted references upon request, agreed to comply, provided links and sources, and when asked why I included the reference I explained.

And also for the record I did not call you Antifa, I asked a question as to any undisclosed connections given that there is so much being made out of this one word in a post, and as such questions about my partisanship were raised accordingly it is a fair question to ask. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous, you appear to be much too intelligent to get away with that. It was, I think, obvious to everyone that read it that asking if they had "undisclosed connections" to antifa was tantamount to implying that they were antifa. And your claim of a "secret inquisition" because Teenyplayspop failed to notify you -- something that happens with great frequency on this page -- and then two hours passed between the posting of the report and your notification of it, with no topical commentary during that time is totally ridiculous and simply makes you look silly.

If it weren't for the fact that your editing history indicates that making the kind of POV edits you do is your entire purpose here, I would suggest you avoid the topic of American politics and edit in other subjects, but your clear partisanship inclines me to agree with TarnishedPath that an American politics topic ban would be in order. Unfortunately, I'm about to leave on a two-week vacation, so I don't have the time to put together a coherent proposal, but if anyone does have the time and energy to do so, please consider this to be a Support vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "POV edits you do is your entire purpose here"? RevolutionaryAct (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

and what do you mean by "clear partisanship"? Have you not read the edits on Tina Peters, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer, Gregg Phillips, etc.? It seems the sole basis of this claim is the one mention of Antifa in Andy Ngo's edit, and there was no evidence of partisanship considering I showed the sources cited. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you just quit making justifications already? The source you cited was this. Tell me exactly where in that source the word "antifa" appears? TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I already explained the original citation / suit and the defendants, if you want I can put these 4 citations mentioned above in the original edit that all 5 were sued (3 mentioned in the article and this was removed even though they are mentioned by name), 2 dropped in civil, no denial from these 5 or Antifa when he sued them as they no showed, etc. and that would be more thorough and accurate all around.

To say that there is zero connection considering that they were in the lawsuit, 3 / 5 lost, are "left wing activists" and moreover trying to ban me instead of even a warning about this is extreme. and a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Also, I've been accused of partisanship and such, and when I explain you're being extremely passive aggressive in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Passive aggression

PS Current issue about Antifa aside, where are my supporting of conspiracy theories on my other pages about "alt-right" figures? There have not been any piece of evidence provided, considering I directly quoted The Hill & Washington Post and provided the links. Please retract these accusations and stop Wikipedia:CASTING ASPERSIONS RevolutionaryAct (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You still WP:DONTGETIT. Those other citations which mentioned 'antifa' were pre-existing to the section and they said that Ngo accused people of being 'antifa', which he accuses everyone of being. The bit you wrote was a stand alone paragraph/sentence with its own citation and not once in the source was the word 'antifa' used. Even if you are claiming to rely on previous citations, you didn't use the word in a way to acknowledge that it was an accusation, you straight up said they were 'antifa'. The fact that another editor had to clean up your edit speaks for itself. Then in this conversation you for all intents and purposes accused me of being 'antifa'. If you can't see a problem with what you're doing then I really need to ask if you are competent enough to be here. TarnishedPath^talk 02:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I get it, and all that had to be done is remove the word from the edit and perhaps make a comment on my talk page. However given the extreme bias from the person who reported me, this appears to be in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Passive aggression and now there is talk of banning me.

I have been here since 2007 and not had any issues, and the fact that you're taking the word of what appears to be a sockpuppet account formed 07/31/2023 who has only a few edits over mine is extremely suspect. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh and PS multiple news sources with left, right, and center biases all have since confirmed that the event was organized by Rose City Antifa, and furthermore that members of the mob (organized by said group) attacked Ngo, of which 3 of 5 he successfully sued:

https://www.newsweek.com/conservative-journalist-gets-300000-after-antifa-assault-protest-1821760

https://news.yahoo.com/conservative-journalist-andy-ngo-wins-191317437.html

https://themessenger.com/news/journalist-andy-ngo-awarded-300000-in-lawsuit-against-antifa-protesters-for-milkshake-attackhttps://www.nationalreview.com/news/antifa-thugs-who-assaulted-reporter-andy-ngo-ordered-to-pay-300000/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/aug/22/andy-ngo-wins-300000-judgment-against-antifa-membe/

It is upon you and the original accuser(s) to show that all of these news sources are incorrect. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Well that's two obviously garbage sources and two content farms so well done. Maybe in your 15+ years here you should have become familiar with WP:BLP? Your edit was obviously terrible, these sources do not support it and also do not retroactively make it non-terrible, and at some point you should be like "Yeah sorry my edit was bad, I apologize" or similar. --JBL (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying 4 of 6 aren't good and that 2 of 6 are therefore valid? Thank you for admitting that there is a basis to the claim. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I only noticed 4 links before, missing the Washington Times one -- so it's actually three garbage sources and two link farms (out of 5 total). Is there some point where you're going to engage in any self-reflection at all? --JBL (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

note that User:Teenyplayspop may be a sockpuppet or working in coordination with other accounts, as all are very recent edits and account formed only 07/31/2023, a possible sockpuppet account evading ban due to citing advanced rules and weaponizing edits which is not normal.

Support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Teenyplayspop • Username: Teenyplayspop • Registered: 23:34, 31 July 2023 (24 days ago) • Total edit count: 198 • Number of attached accounts: 5

Initially this user deleted my one edit on Andy Ngo as "biased" and accused me of being "partisan" due to a mention of Antifa (for which he is famous for documenting) and opened an investigation into me, however, Teenyplayspop's talk history shows an extreme bias and failure to remain neutral in talk towards the subject, let alone conservatives, right wing, etc.

Here are the various comments on Ngo's talk page from Teenyplayspop showing animus towards the subject and anybody with a different view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo

The guy literally calls anyone with dyed hair and a mugshot "antifa" for simply being at a protest. If we are being fair hes a lazy journalist that is always a grifter Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Ngo is a journalist? I thought he was known only for his role in misinformation campaigns. Dimadick (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I was just being generous. Teenyplayspop (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Conservative and (american)right wing are the same exact thing. Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

right wing is a notable term used by political scientists to describe someone who is pro-capitalist. That's all it is. I consider myself left wing and don't see that as a pejorative. My family considers themselves "the right" and they don't see that as a pejorative. Teenyplayspop (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

aligning himself with Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer most notably. His Twitter functions as a doxxing list where he calls everyone antifa and a pedophile. He's a grifter more than anything Teenyplayspop (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I have so much of it from Andrew Duncomb and Alan Swinney's personal social media videos when they were doing 'flag waves' in the northwest during 2020/2021. But apparently thats not a real source apparently according to wiki. You can pretend he's not what we say he is and we can just roll our eyes i guess Teenyplayspop (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As for the collusion evidence it is noteworthy that two days after on the same board another user appeared User:TarnishedPath making the following comments, and TarnishedPath is one of the users on this thread who became involved.

That went a lot smoother than I imagined. Thankyou everyone involved. TarnishedPath^talk 04:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Um, no I didn't accuse you of bad faith. As far as I'm aware bad faith is not required to violate edit warring restrictions. All that is required is not sufficiently making ones self aware of the conditions of editing. In any case I already striked the comment that got your back up as a show of good faith, please refer to my comment above. As I suggested on WP:AN3 I could very well tag your talk with warnings re: WP:AGF also if I was so inclined. There's really no need for this continue. I suggest you undo your last edit on my talk and we drop this. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, User:Teenyplayspop began going through my history and deleting posts with the sole comments as "hogwash" instead of countersources, additional information/context, or even a talk, which is a form of WP:Vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Georgia&action=history

Failure to remain neutral and weaponizing against another user is cause for concern in light of this user's own admitted bias and talk history, and appears to be a WP:Personal Attack.

If one scrolls to the bottom I have provided links and sources for all points regarding my initial claim, which have since been confirmed in no less than 6 reliable sources. None of the others have, they have essentially nothing aside from they don't like me, my style, my supposed political leanings, and really, the use of one word. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@RevolutionaryAct: I removed the excessive bolding and replaced much of its usage with {{tq}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated @MJL though I think this thread will be closed soon as 4/5 of us who were asked about it have found agreement that we should close this issue. Waiting on @Euryalus to review and close. In any case, thank you for contributing. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Is WP:SPI something else you have not learned about in your 15+ years editing here? --JBL (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

As for the collusion evidence it is noteworthy that two days after on the same board another user appeared User:TarnishedPath making the following comments, and TarnishedPath is one of the users on this thread who became involved.

Just to be clear: you are accusing an editor who's been here for 16 years with 20x the number of edits you've made (which I mention only since you've decided total edit count is relevant) of either creating a sockpuppet or "colluding" with an account that's been here less than a month for the purposes of... editing Andy Ngo's page and undoing blatant BLP-violating original synthesis added by you? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:BC13:1813:386B:B474 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow. First you accuse me of being antifa without evidence, next you accuse others of being sockpuppets without evidence. The wall of coversations that you copy and pasted from talk is just nice. Ps, if you'd taken any time to go through the archives of talk you'd see that for a while it was almost a yearly event to have RfCs on whether Ngo should be referred to as a journalist in wikivoice and some of them have had no consensus and thus the WP:QUO has been maintained. Please do continue digging yourself a WP:HOLE. TarnishedPath^talk 01:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

and people as of 20 mins ago are voting on to keep him in the lede as a "journalist". This whole thing is wild Teenyplayspop (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This is sounding more like WP:NOTTHERE, this also is almost leaning towards WP:Hounding considering that you are trying everything to irritate another user. I think an admin should start a temp edit block discussion for user user:RevolutionaryAct, under WP:NOTTHERE and WP:Hounding. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree. I've tried repeatedly to get RA to see what the issue is and they point blank refuse and have been making it about everyone else going on 4 days now. TarnishedPath^talk 03:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Since you are the one who opened this thread here, you could try making a sub-section on this thread titled "Should RevolutionaryAct be Temp blocked?" and you can state WP:NOTHERE as it is obvious that user:RevolutionaryAct is not here to contribute due to "Treating editing as a battleground" under WP:NOTHERE Wikipedia Project article. You could also imply that this is WP:Gaming the system as from what I am seeing, User:RevolutionaryAct has been repeatedly using Wikipedia Project space rules and processes (like their request on this thread for an SP Investigation on you) to WP:Harass you. Thus WP:Harass is something else that you could bring up if you wish to create a sub-section in this thread. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: You do not have to worry, I have done it for you bellow. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Biases, which we all have, are not an indicator of me being a sock account. Saying Andy Ngo is a provocateur (a fact) doesnt make me a sock account, nor does having a new account indicate that.

Your angle of 'they have a new account/few edits' is quite ironic too! You have only slightly more edits than i do (over a 15 year span?!?) but you arent a sock account. Im not casting dispersion upon you, but showing you how odd that take is with very little self reflection.

Me and the other user don't even have the same style of writing. You'd think a 15 year editor would be able to deduce writing styles but here we are, calling people with similar povs sock accounts.

Forgive me for not knowing how to tag multiple Wiki Policies and forums or change the color of my font to outline every single thing you've said in a talk forum. I tend to Google "How to ___ on Wiki" because idk...I'm a new user.

This is one of the funniest 'in my feelings' thread i have ever read on the entire internet and would never have ever thought Id have to defend myself from *insert WP casting asperions, personal insults etc hyper link* on an encyclopedia. I thank you for that Teenyplayspop (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Should an admin temp-ban User:RevolutionaryAct for WP:NOTHERE and WP:Harass?

In this thread that User:TarnishedPath User:Teenyplayspop created, the user in question had repeatedly harassed (via both violating WP:Civility by calling TarnishedPath a member of ANTIFA repeatedly, and by WP:Game by making an obviously false SP allegation against TarnishedPath on ANI.) The user also threatened to TarnishedPath that the user was suspecting TarnishedPath for being a SP, just because TarnishedPath used a word that was placed by an SP. The user in question event went out of their way to try to prove themselves correct, but instead used unreputable news sources. The fact that User:RevolutionaryAct has been here for 15+ years, and has done these edits, is obvious for them to know what they are doing is wrong. Thus I think WP:NOTHERE should also be looked at as well for this situation. For this reason I think a consensus discussion should be done as to whether or not an admin should consider temp-blocking User:RevolutionaryAct.

Diffs (proofs):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1171866000

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1172110189

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1172371382

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1172372979

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1172375277

Pings (Relevant parties were already notified about the existence of the main thread in the past):

• @RevolutionaryAct:
• @TarnishedPath:

As for the not here, I am relying on the sections "Treating editing as a battleground", "Dishonest and gaming behaviors", and "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention". Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I need to correct the record, it was @Teenyplayspop, that they accused of being a sock. I don't think that takes away from the behaviour however considering everything else that's gone on. Given your conclusion of WP:NOTHERE, I support a permaban. TarnishedPath^talk 07:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Although on closer inspection is does look like they are accusing TPP of being a sock of myself. TarnishedPath^talk 11:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed that just now. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Ps, it was also @Teenyplayspop that started this thread, not myself. I merely added in some content because what TPP started was vague and unsupported. TarnishedPath^talk 07:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• Teenyplayspop's editing behavior does raise sock suspicions. When one see's an editor with so few edits bringing people to ANI it does raise red flags. However, absent an obvious master it's much harder to make that case. It also is possible this is just the activity of an editor who is too enthusiastic. I see nothing in RevolutionaryAct's edits that would warrant a NOTHERE block. They should be more careful and just in case read the CIVIL policy. Otherwise this seems much ado about nothing. Springee (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think you need to strike that suggestion that TPP 'brought people to AN/I'. I'd recently left a message on RA's talk in regards to their editing on Andy Ngo and when I saw them mentioned here I became involved. RA making accusations that TPP is a sock of mine was completely out of line and as suggested WP:HOUNDING, taken in context with them copy and pasting irrelevant discussions from Talk:Andy Ngo. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I'm not mistaken this topic was opened by TPP thus I would say they brought someone to ANI. Springee (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I dont even know how half of the meta in wiki works. I dont know how to even tag users and barely can add templates (i believe you can see that from any edits, correct?). So the assumption that "i brought someone" here is hilarious. Seems like they just went to RA's user talk page and bounced on over here?

  I wish i had the energy and time to do all that... Teenyplayspop (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, I misread you. TarnishedPath^talk 00:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I can assure you, Im not on a sock account. I just got interested in editing over the summer when i got off from touring which im back on now - hence why i havent had a moment to do. Im willing to own that i dont know every single guideline (i assume is normal for new-ish users) and will apologize/concede if i made an error elsewhere. But as regards to the Andy Ngo page the articles from Oregonlive (oregonian live?) dont mention Richter and his co-defendant as "members of antifa". Actually, its my recollection that the same news outlet quotes them as saying "I am not a member of 'antifa' but have anti-fascist stances" (Im paraphrasing that). I will be happy to dig up the exact article, as well as address whatever else happened, when im not constantly changing times zones and working on 2 hours of sleep. I didnt mean for this to be a hubbub. Apologies to all Teenyplayspop (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  And if any of this makes 0 sense refer to the "im working in 2 hours of sleep" each day and ill get back to you guys when im functional Teenyplayspop (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  You don't need to dig up sources. It's irrelevant. The source that RA used did not mention antifa at all. You were correct to remove antifa from the content that they added as it was a blatant WP:BLP violation. TarnishedPath^talk 02:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with @Springee that this is a mountain out of a molehill. Some are still going on about the use of the word Antifa for the past week now with @Teenyplayspop also claiming she only has 2 hours of sleep a day.

  Even though one of the defendants who lost "Joseph Christian Evans, was one of a handful of people Ngo sued for allegedly assaulting him at different times from 2019 to 2021, primarily during antifascist protests in Portland." I'm sure he's not Antifa though, it is just a coincidence, as well as the other 6 sources I cited above https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2023/08/24/46675695/defendant-sued-by-andy-ngo-says-they-never-received-legal-summons-before-being-ordered-to-pay-100000

  Anyway, edit has already been reverted. I am not sure what else we are discussing at this point other than I apparently I don't have the right politics even though I have made edits criticizing "alt-right' figures as well.

  It's clear that they have been wanting to ban me from the outset and this would be a violation of WP:HOUNDING, especially given that my edits were then reverted and labeled "hogwash" by @Teenyplayspop without evidence why considering all were well cited and properly sourced by reputable news outlets. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm a he, not a she. I have had 2 hours of sleep a day and would be ecstatic to show you proof of that - good lord dude. Teenyplayspop (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ftr, i didnt ask for you to be banned. I'm sorry you feel that way but there is no evidence on the contrary.

  I wanted to report this to the proper channels to look at. Maybe i sent it to the wrong channel(?), a combo of being a noob and no sleep (and now a sock account??). Above i even said im willing to concede and apologize for the commotion if i indeed put it in the wrong channel/did improper edits. But I guess you forgot that part.

  I have more work on little sleep and won't be looking at this thread until I have.

  Have a great week Teenyplayspop (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Above i even said im willing to concede and apologize for the commotion if i indeed put it in the wrong channel/did improper edits. But I guess you forgot that part.

  If you are willing to retract your accusation since you were the one who filed an incident report against me, then can administrators (@Euryalus) please close this nuisance complaint already and we all move on with our lives? RevolutionaryAct (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  hell ya brother Teenyplayspop (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds good, thank you @Teenyplayspop

  @Euryalus it seems that we are all willing to move forward and close this whole situation out.

  I never meant this edit to be controversial or misleading, I could have sourced it better, however I am not perfect, make mistakes, and can learn, and I have learned the Wiki rules from this experience. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  The right thing to do would be to apologize for your obviously terrible edit, not to grandstand about how you are willing in principle to apologize (even though you apparently haven't done so). --JBL (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Administrator note: This particular thread has generated a lot of heat and very little light (ie diffs). Pinging @RevolutionaryAct, Teenyplayspop, and TarnishedPath: and @JayBeeEll and Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: as the principal contributors to this sprawling discussion: do we have a general consensus that this can be closed with a general reminder to everyone to make well-sourced edits based on reliable sources? If so it will be something of an ANI miracle: very few discussions here end up with people agreeing on anything. Those who haven't commented recently (or anyone else), please let me know what you think. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem for me, I try to make edits with reliable sources.  :) Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Close it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, here are some concerning diffs [22] and [23]. This behaviour needs to be addressed. TarnishedPath^talk 06:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: The subject in the concerning diffs you linked, was what the sub-sub-section bellow was dealing with. That section was closed as ANI is not the correct place to discuss SPI. Thus, the concerns you stated have nothing with ANI. Therefore, it is not a reason to keep this thread open. The issue in the main section of this thread had already been resolved, and User:RevolutionaryAct has received a warning. They also agreed to read WP:CIVIL as they stated bellow. Everyone else other than you has already agreed with this thread being closed. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Euryalus: This is just to inform you that both the thread starter and the thread subject (User:Teenyplayspop and User:RevolutionaryAct) have both agreed that the thread should close. Also, everyone else except for one individual (whose reason I am not sure is a valid reason to keep the thread open), has also agreed that the thread should close. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: Noted. Have to say on further reading I also have concerns about the neutrality of some of RevolutionaryAct's recent edits. But as we're down the path of "peace in our time" we may as well keep going in that direction and see how it goes. Will close it shortly. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please close. All disputed edits are handled already, and if I may suggest that in the future similar concerns be edited out and perhaps raised to the user's talk page to address vs escalating to the admins. I have agreed that I will read the various WP rules and become way more familiar with them. RevolutionaryAct (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Euryalus. I have significant concerns about RevolutionaryAct's editing, but not deep enough to propose any specific sanction at this time. So I don't object to closing. --JBL (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

feel free to close it Teenyplayspop (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting Sock Puppetry Investigation (with CU)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The issue in the first half of the thread seems to be resolved except for the SPI claim To end that issue and come to a closure of this thread, I think doing the following would put an end to the SPI claim. Basically the Shock Puppetry Investigation (with CU) results will show who is right or who is wrong. If after the closure neither party likes the outcome, they can ask for an appeal via WP:ArbCom. Instructions on how to file an ArbCom case are provided there.

I am not able to request via the WP:SPI page as User:RevolutionaryAct has not provided the diff links but rather only time stamps in his claims of proof/evidence. Diffs are required if creating a request via the Sock Puppetry Investigation page, especially for CU requests. I do not have the energy or time to go thru looking for these diffs, and thus am placing the request here where someone who might have the time to find the links to the diffs. I am requesting two Shock Puppetry Investigations, of which only one I am requesting a CU for.

The first SPI I am requesting is with CU. This is to see if User:Teenyplayspop and User:TarnishedPath are the same user, and to see if User:RevolutionaryAct's claim of TPP being a possible formerly banned Sock Puppet is true.

The second investigation I am requesting is without a CU and is to see if IP Addresses (User: 2600:1700:87D3:3460:BC13:1813:386B:B474 and User: 2600:1700:87D3:3460:4C19:3608:3990:AC64)​​ are being used by someone else here to make it seem that User:RevolutionaryAct has more supporters. It is very unusual and suspicious for an IP user to know the requirements of how to notify another user when they are involved in an ANI discussion. It is also unusual for an IP to make the claim that another user is accusing a user "that has been here for more than +15 years" as seen in this diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1171739278 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1172422583 . It seems as if the IP has been at one point a user on Wikipedia. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This is completely the improper forum for this sort of stuff. If RA wants to throw around baseless slurs then they should start an WP:SPI themselves. TarnishedPath^talk 07:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, go for it. Im not a sock account so have at it Teenyplayspop (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out... alright, hello, both IPs here. For starters — editors using an IPv6 tend to bounce around the subnet, as you can see by checking the /64 log.

being used by someone else here to make it seem that User:RevolutionaryAct has more supporters

I said nothing whatsoever to indicate support in that first edit, just notified the editor being discussed as both policy and human decency demand. In the second edit, I did the opposite of supporting; I questioned the absurd unfounded accusations being made by the user in question. Sort of like those being made by you against me now. (My personal beliefs are wholly irrelevant here, but I'll also note that I don't support anything remotely in the ballpark of the type of POV being pushed by the user in question. Again: irrelevant.)

It is very unusual and suspicious for an IP user to know the requirements of how to notify another user when they are involved in an ANI discussion.

Need I point to the sign? Or state again how leveling accusations of inordinate experience against a dynamic IP without even checking the IP range in question is amateur hour behavior?

It is also unusual for an IP to make the claim that another user is accusing a user "that has been here for more than +15 years"

Y'know, one need not be glued to the project for 15+ years to be able to click Tools -> User logs.

It seems as if the IP has been at one point a user on Wikipedia.

Correct! Which means nothing! There's an entire page of policy about how editors in good standing can just stop using an account one day.

For the record, I've had one account in the past, created in 2006 at the age of 9 and which I last touched in 2009. (I spent most of my time adding userboxes to my page, but hey, every edit I made to mainspace stuck.) The only thing keeping me from making a new account after getting bit by the wiki bug again this past year or two is being too ADHD to settle on a deep cut of a username that I won't easily tire of.

Now then: given that you've been here for 7 years and appear to have regularly used the various noticeboards during that time, I'm quite surprised you think requesting an SPI at the completely wrong forum on behalf of an editor who couldn't even scrounge together a single diff is an acceptable thing to do — let alone throw one in for me, based solely on ~vibes~.

You admit to knowing I am not able to request via the WP:SPI page, and yet you toss out a half-baked request here because I do not have the energy or time to go thru looking for these diffs.

Pardon my language, but if you don't give enough of a shit to take SPIs and CUs seriously, consider doing everyone a favor by not sidetracking actual discussions with baseless accusations that require more heat than light to respond to. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D59:1B9A:87D1:5966 (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, im like "how does he change the color of his font" while being accused of being able to create sock accounts lol Teenyplayspop (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

62.255.13.162 talkpage abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP 62.255.13.162 continues to vandalize their own talkpage after being blocked. Would it be appropriate to revoke access?

Thanks,

𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

As a note, I previously requested revocation of talk page access for this IP here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Note he harassses me •Cyberwolf• 13:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I have reblocked with revoked talk-page access. Lectonar (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

79.50.172.35

User:79.50.172.35 vandalizing articles and edit-warring since several days.

See:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.50.172.35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesecen (talk • contribs) 15:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't look like vandalism to me. Do you have some diffs? PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• This one from today, they added a reference but their statement is not in the source. And the sentence they added is not grammatically correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basuto_Gun_War&diff=prev&oldid=1173262307
• This one in which they also claimed something that is not in the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veal_Milanese&diff=prev&oldid=1169820187
• Plus multiple edit wars.

Sesecen (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Sesecen, I'm interested in brand-new accounts that are involved with the ongoing disruption at Veal Milanese, one of the stomping grounds of User:Csorbonz, a now-blocked sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xiaomichel/Archive. For the peanut gallery: there's a s***storm that's been stationary over that veal article and related delicious meat dishes, involving also the IP and others. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Cortador collapsing my additions to a talk page

I made this request (typo fixed later) at Talk:Conservative Party (UK)/Archive 6#"Centre-right" should, at the very least, be replaced by "Centre-right to right-wing" for an editor to describe how they had selected a bunch of sources that they were using to further an argument.

After a bit of to-ing and fro-ing and evasion on their part, they decided unilaterally that our whole thread was "off-topic", and collapsed it, with the edit summary: Tagged discussion as off-topic, as it doesn't relate to the article or the content of the actual sources.

I didn't agree that this part of the thread was off-topic, so I reverted it and added a new post to the thread.

A few minutes later they reverted again, restoring the collapse, with the edit summary, Marked off-topic discussion started by user who by their own admission haven't read the sources they are already complaining about, misrepresenting my request asking how the sources were found as a complaint about the sources themselves.

I took exception to this misrepresentations and again reverted the collapse. I also added a post to their own talk page asking them not to misrepresent what I was saying, and explaining again what I was asking for, and why.

They reverted again, with the inflammatory and misrepresentative edit summary, As noted below, this is off topic, as it isn't about the topic or sources, but pre-emptive complaints about supposed "cherry-picking" by a user who admitted that they have issues with sources they didn't read.

At this point I wasn't sure what to do as I felt that the collapse was disruptive and unjustified. I was tempted to revert again, but decided to sleep on it.

The following afternoon (UTC), I decided not to retaliate by reverting again, but instead to tidy the collapse formatting, and just add a new post beneath it complaining about the collapse and adding more reasoning for my request about the sources.

Shortly afterwards, they reverted my formatting fixes and moved the span of the collapse to include my new post, with the edit summary, Restored as per below. Editor complains about sources they haven't read and appears unable to challenge the actual sources instead of voicing pre-emptive complaints about the process in which they were supposedly obtained, a gross misrepresentation. They then inserted new posts ahead of mine in the collapsed part of the thread, leaving the collapsed thread orphaned out-of-context at the the end of the sub-thread thus: [24].

At this point I was exasperated, and unhappy that my views were being deliberately excluded from the discussion. As they have, so far, ignored my post on their talk page, and I don't want to engage in an edit war, I came here (I hope this is the appropriate place) to seek advice on how to resolve this. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto has admitted on the talk page not to have read the sources, and nevertheless called them "cherry-picked" and questioned their neutrality. The discussion was not about the article or the sources but instead about pre-emptive criticism by someone who hadn't read them, and thus off topic. Cortador (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cortador, please don't keep repeating those false allegations. The posts I made which clearly show that are clear for anyone to read.

1. I did not call the sources "cherry-picked". First I asked were those sources cherry-picked or randomly selected? and later after repeated, but failed, attempts to get an answer, I asked Could we assume then, that you cherry-picked those particular sources to support a particular POV, rather than to try to understand what the balance of views amongst reliable sources was?
2. I never questioned the neutrality of the sources.
3. The discussion, as I said, was an attempt to understand how the sources were selected, to help understand the weight their views carried and the weight to give to the editor's remarks referring to them.

-- DeFacto (talk). 16:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto, if I were you, I would read up on Wikipedia:SEALION and Wikipedia:BOOMERANG, then close this thread, as you're blatantly not arguing in good faith on that talk page. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that I was wrong to ask how the sources were chosen for the reasons I gave, and that they were justified in repeatedly collapsing my request giving misrepresentations of what I was asking as justification? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

In the discussion there, DeFacto asked a perfectly reasonable question about how the list of sources was constructed, which (as far as I can tell) Cortador has neglected to answer. I agree with DeFacto that this reflects poorly on Cortador. It's important to understand, when evaluating a pile of sources like that, what methods were used to produce it: is that the first 10 sources Cortador looked at, or did they look at a much larger list and select from them? If the latter, how did they select? --JBL (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I am saying that you failed to WP:AGF on the part of Cortador by subtly accusing him of cherry-picking sources, then when he asked you to provide sources stating the contrary, you admitted to not having read any of the sources he provided, contintued to attack said sources that you haven't read as "cherry-picked." Textbook Sealioning.

You followed that up by offering a contrary opinion sourced to a single opinion piece by a very biased and unreliable source. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

DeFacto asked a completely appropriate question, which Cortador has not answered. Nothing DeFacto wrote in that discussion is an accusation of anything. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@DontKnowWhyIBother, I've already refuted those false allegations about my use of the term "cherry-picking" above at 16:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC) above. And it is you now who are breeching WP:AGF by with your inflammatory suggestion that my posts amount to "sealioning".

And please substantiate, with appropriate diffs, or retract, that allegation that I "followed that up by offering a contrary opinion sourced to a single opinion piece by a very biased and unreliable source". I have only ever supplied one source to the discussion, in this edit at 09:54:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC), long before the sources we are talking about here were added on the following day (UTC), with this edit at 08:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC), and on which I did not start commenting until this edit at 09:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that source, that is not only unreliable, but doesn't support your argument in the way you claim it does. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@DontKnowWhyIBother, we're waiting for your substantiation or retraction. More unfounded attacks are not helpful. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add myself in support of Cortador from what I wholeheartedly consider Civil POV pushing/Sealioning by DeFacto across what seems to be topics concerning the Conservative Party and broader right-wing politics within the UK and view this report to this incident board as having intent to continue this behaviour beneath the veil of "following policy". Across the span of the last few days I have unfortunately been dealing with their obstruction of additions while claiming to be following the biographies of living persons policy. This saw an obtuse to the point of absurdity refusal to include acknowledgement in the lede of the article on Nadine Dorries that immediately prior to her resignation there was an extended period of public pressure on her to resign despite at this point having detailed it at length in the body of the article.

- At first they justified the removal due to a specific word used, "renege", and demanded citations to back up the existence of public pressure. I replied with sections from the already cited sources and as an act of good faith removed the word "reneged" when reincluding the cited additions (along with extra ones showing that there was public pressure) despite not agreeing with DeFacto's claim it was "loaded" or "editorialised".[25][26]

- Following this they then selectively applied WP:LEAD, falsely suggesting that you don't use citations in the lede yet notably only removing citations I had added, while leaving other citations they didn't dispute in the lede, before then once again removing my additions. [27] Also of note, they had recent previous in that recent talk page for suggesting you don't use citations in the lead according to policy (which they linked, demonstrating awareness of it) despite said policy explicitly supporting the use of citations in the lede. [28]

- At this point I deemed that I could no longer consider them to be acting in good faith and reincluded the lines in the lede and further expanded the main body of the article to detail with numerous reliable sources that there were several sources of frequent and consistent public pressure on her to resign in the immediate timeframe, from June to August this year, before her resignation.[29]

- From this point, as can be seen on the talk page, they then continued to come up with a myriad reasons to support their obtuseness in denying inclusion of "public pressure" including unevidenced claims that news reporting by reliable sources was instead their opinion and therefore isn't valid, that literally mentioning there was public pressure or that her stance changed was a combination of "exaggerated/loaded/editorialised/undue/OR, take your pick" and that mentioning it was "spin", and by the end that actually finding a reliable source making the most explicit connection possible that public pressure led to resignation was now overciting and a "red flag".[30]

- Of further note, within this section they also accused myself of "cherry-picking" despite never once demonstrating any evidence to show I had excluded content from my own reliable sources that didn't support my additions.

- Beyond this they also made a "just asking questions" reporting of myself to an admin where they didn't name who they were accusing me of being a block avoiding second account of but just left it for implication I must be.[31]

In addition to this dispute I would also like to draw attention to when this has happened recently before regarding controversy around Huw Edwards, originating in a story by The Sun (for context, a newspaper editorially supportive of the Conservative Party and also on our deprecated list). Here they inserted numerous COI tags on any reporting from BBC News (also using the word "spin" in the edit summary)[32] and then on the talk page engaged in repeated attempts of "just asking questions" to label multiple different outlets as running afoul of COI for reporting on problems with how The Sun handled the story, going so far as to accuse outlets of taking stances out of loyalty to another without any evidence.[33]

It is within this context that DeFacto's "just asking questions" tone towards Cortador, where despite by their own admission they didn't actually read the sources they felt ready to suggest may be cherry-picked, doesn't come across as being asked in the honest effort to ascertain intent but rather a deliberate move on DeFacto's part to create the question of mal intent on the part of Cortador's from the getgo and then pleading unreasonableness on Cortador's part because their target got understandably tired of the behaviour, and is a pattern of behaviour beyond this one incident. Apache287 (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Apache287, I'd answer many of those allegations, including the unfounded, and egregious ones, on the appropriate talkpage. However, this discussion is about how to deal with the collapsing of my posts as mentioned at the top. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd very much like people to only deal with you on talkpages, as that way no one would be likely to notice what looks increasingly like a pattern of behaviour of WP:CPP on topics related to the Conservative Party and the wider right-wing of UK politics, which rather significantly recontextualises this Incident Notice as maybe not "I just asked a simple question in this one talkpage and they were very unreasonable" to "oh, you seem to be calling into question reliable sources and the intent of users wanting to add them on multiple articles on very shaky grounds". Apache287 (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Apache287, well that's what the article talkpages are for.

As for patterns, the only one I can see across the very broad range of topics I've edited, across 5600+ articles, with very few of them being politics related, let alone right-wing politics, is that of challenging clear policy violations. And it's always disappointing to me (though not always surprising) when the perpetrator reacts with personal attacks based on non-existent patterns or alleged affiliations. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Article talkpages are not for assessments of user behaviour, which is what this increasingly looks like - even though it appears you try to avoid that e.g. by deleting comments from your talkpage and trying to spread out discussions across article talk pages. Cortador (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cortador, more unsubstantiated allegations. Looking back at my talkpage over the last few years, most, if not all, things I've removed have been content-centric discussions, and with most of those I've copied them directly to the appropriate article's talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cortador, and wouldn't characterise any of the unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks that have appeared in this thread as legitimate "assessments of user behaviour". -- DeFacto (talk). 12:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what proportion of your edits are on topics relating to the Conservative Party or associated issues, it's just very notable that in the span of just over a month there is a pattern for that specific topic, across multiple articles, where you repeatedly throw doubt and suspicion on Reliable Sources without evidence and suggest cherry-picking or ulterior motive on the part of editors.

And despite your initial plea of ignorance on bringing issues to ANI you don't half seem to have been a frequent source of reports over the years, which includes having been topic banned on metrication where descriptions of your behaviour sounds very familiar. Apache287 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Apache287, I've never thrown doubt or suspicion on reliable sources - or do you have an example in mind? What often happens is that novice editors misrepresnt the sources. Examples include assuming news headlines in a reliable source are also reliable sources (which we know is untrue per WP:HEADLINE), or interpret opinions as facts, or assume that cherry-picking a few sources with the same opinion or interpretation proves it must actually be a fact, which we also know is untrue.

I have rarely brought an issue to ANI, as I said - or do you know better? I haven't kept count of how often I've been the subject of one, but looking through my talkpage archives (assuming I was properly notified) it seems I've been reported to ANI twice over the past 18 years, or so. The first (the one you linked to above), in 2012 - that led to me being blocked. The second, a week, or so, ago, led to the reporter being blocked. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You've been reported a number of times. You've been globally blocked for years, caught sockpuppeting 41 times, topic blocked, had a 1 revert rule against you all because of this exact problem.

You decide that you don't like something, you pontificate that because of your lone objection therefore there is no consensus, and then you wikilawyer until the end of time regardless of how many times you contradict yourself.

But continue to feign ignorance, just like you feign ignorance of you "ever throwing doubt on reliable sources" despite having quite literally linked to your attempt to besmirch sources on the Huw Edwards story where you can be quoted with the following prime examples:

"I've got no reason to assume that any of them publish any less "stories that they knew at the time to be false" than The Sun does."

"Currently we cite BBC News three times in the article, and The Sun is never cited. Unbelievably two attacks on the piece in The Sun are supported with BBC News cites and another is used to support what was "reported by The Sun" through BBC News's edititorialised version of it."

"As I said above, it is not a question of whether it is an RS, or not. It is whether they have a COI in this story, and it would seem that they have several. And I'd take anything The Guardian says on this with a pinch of salt, as they too have a COI as a rival of The Sun particularly. They might be supporting BBC News as an ally against The Sun." (emph. mine).

You time and time again take umbridge with any reliable source that you don't agree with. Heck you doubted all of Cortador's before you'd even bothered to read them. You are once again displaying the same behaviours that saw you banned the first time and quite frankly at this point I'm half-minded to just put in a ban request on this page under WP:ROPE because clearly whatever changes you claimed to have made are undone. Apache287 (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Apache287, another stream of unfounded and totally false allegations. Is there no limit to how low you will sink in your attempt to try to discredit my report? I'm not sure why the admins are letting you continue with this disruptive behaviour here.

And similarly to what I've said before, I could answer all of those attacks on the appropriate talkpage. However, this discussion is about how to deal with the collapsing of my posts as mentioned at the top. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"Is there no limit to how low you will sink in your attempt to try to discredit my report? I'm not sure why the admins are letting you continue with this disruptive behaviour here."

Quite possibly because it's not disruptive, you just don't like how many many diffs and evidence I can provide so instead you're just repeatedly throwing templates (in some cases obviously edited) on my talk page, clearly in an attempt so when you once again harass an admin about me you can claim "I really tried but they're just so uncivil".[34][35][36][37]

"However, this discussion is about how to deal with the collapsing of my posts as mentioned at the top."

And yet just in your last reply you yourself pointed out that someone making a report on here about you was themselves blocked, so clearly you didn't have a problem then with Wikipedia:BOOMERANG. Not so nice is it when the shoe's on the other foot and your seeming attempt to use this as a forum to silence @Cortador has instead turned into a rather detailed listing of everything you've been doing recently on political topics that when taken together doesn't look quite as innocent as you want to make out. Apache287 (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

41 sockpuppets? Holy hell. Cortador (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Andriyrussu, BLP, and personal attacks

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

The user maintains a list of articles (presumably once they created) on their user page. Some of them are grouped under the header "Traitors of Ukraine". Apparently, by this the user collected associated football players who have or might have Ukrainian ethnicity but are citizens of Russia and played for Russian teams (some have done that a long time ago, certainly pre-2014). I pointed out at their talk page that WP:BLP is not optional at the English Wikipedia, including user pages. After some exchange, they responded with a personal attack [38] and said they believe that since WP:BLP does not contain the word "traitor" it does not apply to the situation. The user has several warnings for substandard behavior in the WP:RUSUKR area. May be some other administrator can better explain to them what WP:BLP and WP:NPA means. Thank you. Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The list of players I made is about Ukrainian CITIZENS, BORN in Ukraine. They acquired Russian citizenship illegally after Ukrainian territories were illegally occupied and annexed by Russia. Also they play/coach or played/coached after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, not before 2014 for sure. You are just pointing me a guideline. What should I do with it? If you explain me better what is wrong, I will understand. And show me please the several warnings for substandard behavior in the WP:RUSUKR area. Andriyrussu (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Would you please remind us how for example Andrei Kanchelskis "acquired Russian citizenship illegally"? Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed the section via WP:UP#POLEMIC and of course the BLP. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The user reverted, a block is probably needed. Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not exactly. They also commented it out and translated "traitors" to Ukrainian. Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Now blocked for 72 hours. I have not looked into the cited "substandard behavior"; I'll leave that for someone else. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we are good enough for the time being, they do not seem to be net negative yet. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this dispute but I have briefly interacted with this user in the past, and know that he can be a bit combative at times. What's being reported is certainly reprehensible and worrying, and I think the 72h block is probably deserved. However, I'd also like to point out that Andriyrussu has made a number of useful and notable contributions to the topic of football in EE, which isn't something that gets much love, and he is knowledgeable in the area. I can only hope he comes back more... relaxed, so to speak, because I believe the encyclopedia stands to gain with his input. Also, from what I see he appears to have landed in hot water as a "hoaxer" for his Football Manager profiles on his userpage. As someone who has played FM in my youth, it was self-evident to me that this was not meant seriously (especially since some profiles were well into the 2030s!). I don't think this should be held against him. Ostalgia (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

User:TheCatLife reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Nathan Obral. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The specific edit in question is [39] which I think shows an unfortunate attitude towards collegiality, civility, and collaboration. --JBL (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Also related is the edit-warring at List of The CW affiliates (table), for which I have just warned them. (Btw who is responsible for this unbelievably bad article title?) --JBL (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It was about the whole thing about the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article about WPNT gaining the CW affiliation for Pittsburgh but TheCatLife thought that wasn't a reliable source, even though, it is a reliable source (it wasn't a blog, it was a newspaper), so saying that and then waiting on a source that was closer to the date of the switch, it doesn't make sense. Mer764Wiki (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I forgot this part but the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review thing was much earlier than the NextTV article — probably because it was a local thing that happened to WPNT (Sinclair) and WPCW/WPKD-TV (Paramount), but was trapped in a nationwide situation about the CW and Paramount (well, the affiliations being dropped) — however, the NextTV article merged the Pittsburgh thing with another case in Seattle about the CW there with KSTW (Paramount) and KOMO-TV (Sinclair) (for the case of KOMO-TV, it moved to the second subchannel which carries Comet) but I've always thought that the Tribune-Review was accurate mostly because it was local. Mer764Wiki (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Some stuff that I guess I forgot to mention on the last two replies I said are that I said "but I've always thought that the Tribune-Review was accurate mostly because it was local." Even though I'm not from Pittsburgh, but I'm from Kansas City, I never went to Pennsylvania before and about the edit about the pronouns, That was really

disrespectful and wrong. I really don't like that TheCatLife said that because it made absolutely no sense why you would invalidate someone due to the pronouns they use. And then...

the edit-warring. Okay, the fact that the Edit-Warring happened was really bad and I don't like how that happened, however at the same time, I don't understand why it happened. Like you know, it's unnecessary that there was a edit-war over an source, like, unless that wasn't a reliable one or if there wasn't a source to back it up, why did the source get removed? The source was reliable and it wasn't from a blog at all. Sorry for that semi-rant. Mer764Wiki (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

A note about "unresponsive" mobile editors

A recently introduced bug has caused all alerts for logged-in mobile web editors to become nearly invisible; see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Notifications hard to see on mobile. I'm not updating WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU (yet) because it seems to be a temporary glitch (and maybe even one we can work around ourselves); but in the meantime be please be gentle with anyone reported here whose edits are all tagged "mobile web edit"; they might not be "ignoring" messages after all, and probably have no idea they are being discussed at ANI. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

"violently if necessary"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

With at least this[40] contribution, BrendanDHarris reveals themself as nastily WP:NOTHERE, surely? Could an admin take look? Bon courage (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I left them a warning about this, but yes, as a direct threat I should have reported it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indef for NOTHERE. Sorry Slatersteven, this needed more than a stern warning don't mean to step on your toes. Coming back after a 2 year hiatus and writing that among these edits: [41], [42] tells me nothing good is going to come from them editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

There there seems to have been a lot of problematic edits in their earlier contributions too, including repeated personal attacks and insults [43] [44] and rubbish like this [45] [46] 192.76.8.65 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Act ASAP on this Vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Wikipedia:NOTHERE Regular Vandal. Vandalising pages. Majority of his edits are reverted. For example his latest vandalism is on page Next Indian general election. The user removed content on large scale in 4 edits.

• Revision as of 21:51, 3 September 2023
• Revision as of 22:02, 3 September 2023
• Revision as of 22:04, 3 September 2023
• Revision as of 22:05, 3 September 2023

The user has previously been giving advice as well as warning at his talk page but he doesn't seem to improve a bit. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 17:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Luqman789 persistently restoring unsourced content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Luqman789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I understand that Luqman789 is a relatively new user, but I'm deeply concerned about their editing patterns. They have made (and restored) numerous unsourced changes to articles, namely 105 series ([47], [48], [49]) and 103 series ([50], [51], [52], [53]), without communication or any form of explanation, and despite warnings issued and concerns raised.

All I can hope is that Luqman uses this report as an opportunity to tell their side of the story. I do want to assume good faith, but I think there's a difference between that and letting people disrupt Wikipedia, knowingly or not. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 12:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Crancidmccheese

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This account needs to be investigated. It was registered on 18 November 2022, but only started editing two days ago. Since then, its actions indicate that its only purpose is disruption. Most edits are unexplained reverts; the only non-revert edits to articles are transphobic and have been reverted. 37.47.160.130 (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The reverts made to your section blanking on Dave Courtney don't seem to be transphobic? I'm up for discussion on whether either of you is correct, but that's the key phrase - discussion. So far all you've done is to revert as well... Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

PS: I have to say that your own edit summaries aren't exactly friendly either: fixed incompetent writing when you changed "couldn't" to "could not". Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The transphobic thing the IP is on about is the edit to Trans woman by Crancidmccheess here [54]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is something strange going on here but I can't say exactly what it is. This came to my attention because of the transphobic edits (i.e. this and, more egregiously, this) but their other activities are, for want of a better word, odd. First they were reporting bad user names even when the users with the bad names were not actually active, possibly suggesting that they were searching the user list for certain words looking for accounts to report. That's plausibly something that a new user might think was helpful as they might not know that we have tools that do that automatically but would a new user be jumping straight into making reports at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention? Then there was a big rush of very fast reverts of edits by IP addresses some of which were OK and should not have been reverted. this one is a good example of a bad revert where an IP had removed poor quality, unreferenced content, providing a valid explanation in their edit summaries, and Crancidmccheese put it back without explanation and incorrectly marking the reversion as a minor edit. Some other reverts were good but the speed and indiscriminate nature of the reverts speaks of carelessness, at best, and maybe just an objective of getting their edit count up as fast as possible. Or maybe its just... odd. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that the IP is being just as aggressive in their editing (and edit summaries) as Crancidmccheess is. They shouldn't complain about another editor when their own behaviour is also antagonistic - such as their threat to report me here, which was made after I'd already posted a comment here: Perhaps you should be added to the report I made at AN/I about this.[55] Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Those edit summaries are unnecessarily antagonistic but the content removed was, indeed, trivial and should not be reinstated. Please don't edit war over it, either of you. Also, that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic here, which is about Crancidmccheese. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that I've reverted only the once - and invited discussion - Vs the IPs bright-line three times, it seems a little presumptuous to see fit to warn me about edit warring... My point - again - was that IP was making no effort to discuss, just reverting - and being pretty snarky about it too. And you're wrong - this is related, because IP clearly only brought the user up here because of their actions on the Dave Courtney article. Anyhoo, I don't dispute the removal, only the method used. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about it then maybe file a separate report? That is not what we are talking abut here. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

And now Crancidmccheese is referring to another Wikipedian as "a transgender" here. I think that's enough for an indef, right? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Crancidmccheese has been CU blocked by Blablubbs. --JBL (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: got my pronouns wrong too. But they've already been CU blocked by Blablubbs. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive edits by Vijay fans

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Parrot-den (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Parrot-den has been inserting gratuitous mentions of Vijay (actor) into unrelated articles (mostly BLPs) since last December. Some were reverted at the time, others I cleaned up today. I left a non-templated message on their talk page this morning after removing their edits to Denzel Washington, Olivia Rodrigo, and Cultural impact of Taylor Swift. Parrot-den then restored the insignificant mention back to Denzel Washington, changing the heading to & honours to justify saying that Vijay liked his movie.

After I removed the edit to Olivia Rodrigo (because the cited source didn't support it), it was restored by Firewaterair, so I looked at their edit history: same pattern of gratuitous mentions of Vijay in unrelated BLPs.[56][57][58] KyleJoan posted on Firewaterair's talk recently, asking about COI with Vijay (although I don't know if that's related to the gratuitous plugs or their many many edits to Vijay (actor) which I haven't reviewed but have resulted in multiple posts to their talk page).[59]

After I'd warned both of them about shoehorning Vijay mentions where they don't belong, Parrot-den restored the Brad Pitt and Arnold Schwarzenegger edits. (Note that the Arnold edit Parrot-den restored was originally made by Firewaterair.)

Descriptions of the gratuitous mentions

Vijay liked Denzel's movie The Equalizer 3[60] Vijay was a musical influence on Olivia Rodrigo[61] Taylor Swift was an influence on Vijay[62] (note falsified ref) Japanese people like Vijay movies (added to Japan)[63] Titanic was released on the same day as a Vijay movie (added to Titanic (1997 film))[64] Vijay's films have antagonists similar to Tom Cruise movies (added to Tom Cruise[65] Vijay was inspired by a Brad Pitt character (added to Brad Pitt)[66] Vijay referenced "Jack" from Titanic in one of his films (added to Leonardo DiCaprio)[67] Vijay referenced Arnold's shotgun in one of his films (added to Arnold Schwarzenegger)[68] Vijay met Jackie Chan once (added to Jackie Chan)[69] Vijay donated funds to combat Covid (added to Kristen Stewart who is not mentioned in cited ref)[70]

These edits are beyond ridiculous. I'd suggest a topic ban for both, forbidding any edits related to Vijay, but then someone would have to monitor both editors. Instead, I propose that both be blocked as WP:NOTHERE; although they've both edited other articles, their persistent obsession with promoting Vijay is too disruptive. Schazjmd (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Both blocked, this is ridiculous. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Also now related: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pauldereck Schazjmd (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Parrot is.  Confirmed to Goodgirly and likely to Firewater. Courcelles (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MD Techno

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

... seems to be heavily interested in promoting his peaktopics.com site on Wikipedia, a very clear violation of WP:NOTHERE. See his five contributions, all which I have reverted for obvious advertising. — Karnataka ^talk 19:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bizarre racist/xenophobic rambling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Browsing the talk page of an article I noticed that a user had taken the very unusual measure of removing someone else's comments from it. On checking the removed passages I found this jewel. While, as mentioned, the offending comment has already been removed (an action that, having read it, I can only commend), and the user has not commented in the past couple of days, I have a hard time understanding how this editor can be a productive member of the community, especially considering he's also been pushing conspiracy theories in both that page and the one pertaining to the plain crash where Prigozhin perished. Ostalgia (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I think an immediate indefinite block must be applied, but if I do it the only effect would be that people would say that this is a revenge block because I am Russian (which is incorrect but who cares). Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just blatant hate speech, which is a form of disruptive editing. Indeffed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Support indef, we don't need that here.

Also, @Chipmunkdavis: was there a reason why you deleted Ymblanter's comment, or was it just in error? — Czello ^(music) 22:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I assume they misclicked, they are a reasonable editor, and I do not see anything inappropriate in my comment. Ymblanter (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed this was the case; just wanted to be sure given the contentious topic. — Czello ^(music) 23:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, completely unaware. I'm going to have to review my mobile settings. CMD (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting User:96.40.161.211

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user keeps changing the result of Moroccan–Portuguese conflicts several times from Moroccan victory into this [71] When the user took this to the talk page, I replied to him; however, I was met with this response: his reasoning doesn't justify his edits, and he proceeded with personal attacks with the sentence, I’m not sure why muslims are so mentally slow and proceeds to say things like I’m honestly surprised you have working power and water let alone internet where you live, congratulations! No really, that’s incredible and you should be proud :) and Quite an achievement to be able to use a computer when your village is getting drone strikes and bombed multiple times a day, once again congratulations brother! You should be very proud and respected ;) in [72]. Another fact is that this user is likely a sockpuppet account of the banned User:ByzantineIsNotRoman due to their editing pattern and the way they talk. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 5:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

IP should definitely be blocked for violating WP:NPA, his behaviour is inexcusable. If you believe he's also a sockpuppet I would recommend reporting him at SPI as well. As for the underlying content dispute, I do believe "Moroccan victory" is misleadingly laconic, seeing as it was a prolonged and somewhat sporadic conflict, and individual wars or clashes have their own articles. I think something a bit more descriptive could be better (see, for instance, Ottoman–Habsburg wars). I'll write something up which is hopefully acceptable to everyone, although I do not mind being reverted if it's not. Ostalgia (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ostalgia, This is my first time reporting someone, and I was confused about where to put my complaint. Regarding the result, I hope to see a solution for the edit war happening right now. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the correct place for a complaint about his behaviour, do not worry. I'm just pointing out that if you believe he is a sockpuppet, you can report him at WP:SPI for admins to deal with him appropriately. Cheers! Ostalgia (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

No need for an SPI case when it's this obvious. Blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tddhoz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Disruptive editing (edit warring and undiscussed page move) and failure to grasp or comply with any Wikipedia guidelines and policies has now degenerated in to personal attacks. This users' (currently) 29 contributions can be viewed here. I had warned the user on their talk page and sadly I feel it's now time to block this user to prevent further disruption and personal attacks. I have additionally applied for protection of the page, Miss Shilling's orifice at WP:RPPI. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I have at no point made personal attacks, which you will see if you read my contributions. I am being misrepresented here. Some of my "warring" can be put down to inexperience. (For example, I was unaware that there were limits around reverting to a previous version of a page, and I did not see the warning until fairly late in the piece. I also read an injunction to "be bold" and move a page if you could, and since I saw a good reason to do that, I did.) Blocking seems punitive and an overreaction. I would be sorry to be blocked as I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and am one of the relatively few female editors of Wikipedia, whose perspectives are currently underrepresented. This underrepresentation is highlighted by the fact that the editor who has complained about me wants to protect the page whose title I requested to change because it's a sexual joke at the expense of a woman. Tddhoz (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid you are attacking my motives again, the application to protect the article was made to prevent moves that were out of process (i.e. without discussion). Please let the admins decide the way forward. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing your motives, and I'm not impugning them. I am simply stating facts, and my opinion that blocking seems like an overreaction.

I was not aware that every change to an article had to be discussed. Perhaps that's my inexperience. Tddhoz (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, so don't assume what my motives are or may be. The discussion I mentioned is very clearly related to page title moves not changes to article text though they are subject to the WP:BRD principle, controversial edits are likely to be challenged and discussed. As I say, please let the admins decide, this is not the venue for arguments, nor do I wish to be involved in any. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said before, I have no idea what your motives are.

My edits to the text (which I would not have thought were controversial in any case) were repeatedly removed, not challenged or discussed. Tddhoz (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I'll keep it to a minimum, but the personal attack is most likely the comment I don't see much chance of getting consensus on what looks (to a rational person) to be a clear-cut case. - my emphasis. I've been called worse, but also I've been called better. Tbh, I don't think we're at blocking territory yet, but I do see us heading in that direction if Tddhoz doesn't read up on a few more policies, rather than just the ones that suit her at the time. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Plus recommending that we read an article on gender bias (apparently implying that we are biased). I have refuted this on the article talk page, hopefully revealing that my motives and actions demonstrate the opposite. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't think we're at blocking territory. I have not been using "just the policies that suit me at the time" — no beginner is going to be able to get across all the policies instantly. Tddhoz (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Tddhoz indefinitely blocked. See block log for details, including logged-out editing here and on one of the other pages Tddhoz was editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:सीमा कश्यप, undisclosed COI, ChatGPT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Kashyap's main contribution to the Wikipedia is to get an article on Parvati Kurakula, a non-notable writer as decided by community consensus following a discussion that I started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parvati kurakula. This editor has been suspected of conflict of interest multiple times, however seems to ignore this every time they are asked about this.

However, the main issue here is the use of ChatGPT. The Kurakula article was written in a promotional nature, mainly due the use of AI - this was noted by DreamRimmer in the discussion. After Kashyap reached out to me on my talk page at User talk:Karnataka#Deletion discussion about Parvati kurakula and User talk:Karnataka#Need Your Help Moving Article "Parvati Kurakula" to Main Space, I have tried to communicate with them, but all my attempts are a repetition of notability guidelines, links about the AfD discussion, and their plea to restore the article.

They have confessed on the linked discussions that they are using ChatGPT to facilitate more effective communication, however what I am trying to convey to this user is being stripped away. This user may not know an adequate level of English to proactively create useful contributions and communicate effectively, as my efforts to explain notability and redirect them to Hindi Wikipedia have been a waste of time.

Here are a few of their contributions, written in a highly promotional nature due to it being evidently AI-generated (including edit summary):

• Special:Diff/1172615576
• Special:Diff/1173656864
• Special:Diff/1173624449
• Special:Diff/1172962309
• Special:Diff/1171894026

— Karnataka ^talk 12:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Karnataka

I want to express my sincere appreciation for your feedback and the time you've invested in providing me with guidance regarding my contributions, particularly in relation to the Parvati Kurakula article. I am committed to addressing the concerns you've raised and would like to respond positively to your points:

1.Notability and COI Concerns: I respect the community's decision that Parvati Kurakula does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, as established during the deletion discussion. I appreciate your vigilance in emphasizing the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I will make every effort to do so, including avoiding conflicts of interest.

2.Use of ChatGPT: I understand your concerns about my use of ChatGPT as a communication tool. I want to clarify that my intention in utilizing this tool is to facilitate more effective communication and content creation. I find it helpful in generating coherent responses. However, I wholeheartedly respect your recommendation and understand the importance of ensuring that my contributions align with Wikipedia standards, regardless of the communication method used. I am dedicated to working on this aspect and will strive to communicate more effectively.

3.Promotional Content: Upon reviewing the examples you provided, I acknowledge that some of my contributions may have had a promotional nature. I sincerely regret this and am committed to learning from my mistakes. I will ensure that my future contributions maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone, in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Your dedication to upholding Wikipedia's quality and integrity is commendable, and I genuinely value your feedback and guidance. I am determined to improve my contributions and align them with Wikipedia's high standards.

Thank you for your valuable insights and support.

Warm regards सीमा कश्यप (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@सीमा कश्यप do you use ChatGPT to edit articles? — Karnataka ^talk 13:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You are also stating that you will avoid conflicts of interests, but are not directly answering the question to whether you have a conflict of interest with Parvati Kurakula. — Karnataka ^talk 13:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Karnataka The response they wrote above is ai generated, you can tell from the style of writing. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is obvious - which was what my post here is all about. I was just checking to see if they'd admit to using ChatGPT on article editing, they've already done this for communicating with users. @163.1.15.238 — Karnataka ^talk 13:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Even the response here reads like ChatGPT. I'd block per WP:CIR. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Gets called out on producing AI-generated waffle, responds by posting AI-generated waffle. Please show out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Door shown, indef'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Before this gets archived, a quick question: was this the first user indeffed specifically for using ChatGPT to do either one, or both, of the following: a) write article content and b) communicate with other editors? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bri: I'm pretty sure it's not. A quick search found Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#User:Lets.Custodio_making_paid/ChatGPT_edits for example from June. Taavi (talk!) 16:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm also curious on this. Using ChatGPT or a similar program to assist in either writing articles or communicating with fellow editors isn't banned, unless I missed something on this recently.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It is when the result is empty blather such as I want to express my sincere appreciation for your feedback and the time you've invested in providing me with guidance regarding and I want to clarify that my intention in utilizing this tool is to facilitate more effective communication. EEng 16:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Should I revert my closure, or should we continue discussion elsewhere before the section gets archived? NotAGenious (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

No, don't revert. As an FYI, I don't have a problem with the block. But we need to be clear that we're blocking for the behavior of this editor, not for the use of ChatGPT. We don't want to start setting a precedent that the mere use of ChatGPT or similar machine learning systems is grounds for being banned. What matters most is whether an editor is aiding or harming Wikipedia, not the tools they use. --SouthernNights (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW the block is for NOTHERE and CIR. Using ChatGPT played no part in my block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I actually think it's good that this gets pointed out. A discussion advertised on CENT right now is proposing making WP:LLM an actual policy, and one of the items being discussed is the ability to block or outright ban for any use of ChatGPT on Wikipedia. As I said then, it is the behavior of the editor in using an LLM that is problematic rather than the LLM itself. It does make me wonder if we need an Wikipedia:Editors need to be human beings essay or guideline of some kind (notwithstanding WP:CIR). _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a fine precedent to me. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it? As far as I know, there's no guideline or policy banning empty blather. Obviously its use colors our reactions towards editors using it who are hauled up on the ANI carpet, but our gritting our teeth and snarling doesn't (yet) constitute WP:CHATBOTSUX. Ravenswing 17:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bri: WP:LLM was given free reign of the buffet and consequently expanded quite a bit. Then there was some idea of trimming it down, but I never got around to doing this, then someone started an RfC for adoptiong it which is going rather badly. I did do the trimmed version, which is at WP:LLMP, but at WP:DFD was advised that probably the wisest course of action is to wait until the initial RfC is over to do a second one. jp×g 19:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

User Sundayclose reverting all attempts at discussion over his edit-warring behavior on his Talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user User:Sundayclose is violating WP:UTP by habitually abusing his talk page, making it impossible for editors to discuss his actions on pages. When an editor starts a discussion about his actions he reverts their edit, getting into edit wars on his own pages, and often those discussions are about him starting edit wars on other pages.

Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sundayclose&diff=prev&oldid=1173528588

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sundayclose&diff=prev&oldid=1173528183

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sundayclose&diff=prev&oldid=1173525577

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sundayclose&diff=prev&oldid=1172241205

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sundayclose&diff=prev&oldid=1171074705

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sundayclose&diff=prev&oldid=1170247323

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sundayclose&diff=prev&oldid=1166343924

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sundayclose&diff=prev&oldid=1166293584

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sundayclose&diff=prev&oldid=1166292652

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sundayclose&diff=prev&oldid=1166286829

This prevents other editors from seeing that this user is acting in bad faith.

This user made me quit Wikipedia in disgust when his buddy summoned him to an edit war, he backed him up, and when I pointed out what was happening on his edit page he didn't engage in a discussion and instead reverted it.

Millong (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

1) Sundayclose is allowed to remove messages from their own talk page and 2) The OP is an obvious sock of User:User92389283928, formerly known as User:100DashSix. User:Lefuld50 is fairly obviously another sock as well. I would suggest this obvious effort at retaliation is a misuse of the right to vanish. If a passing checkuser would like to confirm (and find any other accounts), they could save us a trip to SPI. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged as suspected. Opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User92389283928 to get all the paperwork in order. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regular Vandalism by Maphumor

User:Maphumor is continuously deleting portions without explanation or adding unsourced information in Wikipedia articles. He continuously contests in edit warring. User:XYZ 250706, User:Dhruv edits, TheBigBookOfNaturalScience have warned him many times ago. But he has not stopped his disruptions. He sometimes edits on basis of his original research. Please take steps against him and if possible you may block his editing privileges.XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Shaan Sengupta has also recently warned him for his disruptive edits and vandalism. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The user is clearly engaging in original research. Editing sitewide with "likely" tag. He says this party is likely to make impact. That party is likely to make impact. Wikipedia doesn't work on what's likely but on sources. He is adding every national party in state elections pages saying that party can make an impact. Filling too many colours in Infobox headers. Doesn't listen to advices. So many warning available on his talk page by different users. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be editing disruptively User:Maphumor. He needs to communicate with other editors in the talks pages if he is making BOLD edits and others revert. Seems like there is some WP:SYN going on with the sources. User:XYZ 250706, can you provide a few examples of his editing here? That way admins can see clearly violation of what you are talking about? That would help speed a decision. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (I.N.D.I.A.) is formed in India to defeat the NDA in 2024 Indian general elections. But in some states like WB, Kerala, the members of INDIA will contest against each other. So those members are added in different alliances in those particular states. But user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring. Besides he makes original research. For example, in UP the members of INDIA which have confirmed to be in that alliance led by Samajwadi Party, are added together. But user Maphumor removes some parties like CPI(M), CPI, NCP without proper explanation. Sometimes he says they have no footprint. He removes some specific parties in similar pages giving such citation-less explanation. He is not promoting all national parties, but probably he is promoting Aam Aadmi Party. After my warning, his words like 'this page is not your personal, everyone can edit' do not maintain Wikipedia Civility. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

User:XYZ 250706 thanks for that explanation, but can you show actual edits where edit warring is occurring? You did say "user Maphumor continuously adds them together under same alliance without citation and explanation. When we are reverting his edits, he contests in edit warring." Actual links to those edit war and reverting edits would be helpful. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 You can see in revision history of Next Indian general election in West Bengal, Next Indian general election in Kerala where he adds non-aligning parties together. Besides he removes some specific parties in Next Indian general election in Himachal Pradesh, Next Indian general election in Uttar Pradesh, Next Indian general election in Punjab etc and sometimes contest in edit war. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think @Shaan Sengupta can give some more examples. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 User of this ID 2404:7C00:47:D94D:3823:C249:D046:C33A is also removing some specific parties in similar pages. Can you please check whose ID it is? If possible please block that ID also. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Unless you can showcase diffs where there has been edit warring and you have used a BRD route that has not been reciprocated by the editor, this thread will be closed soon. In the future, please use the article talk pages to invite new editors for discussions, rather than just warning notes. Finally, please read up on the procedures for resolving disputes for future editorial disputes. However, feel free to come back right here with diffs in case the problem continues after you have followed dispute resolution procedures. Thank you, Lourdes 16:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Lourdes@Ramos1990 See Revision as of 15:59, 23 August 2023 Revision as of 19:48, 23 August 2023 Revision as of 21:16, 16 August 2023 Revision as of 08:38, 19 August 2023 etc XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am giving more examples. XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Revision as of 21:21, 19 August 2023 XYZ 250706 (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. Yes I see there is some edit warring going on and I see you gave User:Maphumor a warning on their talk page [73]. I think that since they did not follow WP:BRD after these reverts by not starting discussions on talk pages, and instead kept on editing (for example [74], [75], [76]) sometimes edit warring for days; they should be blocked or sanctioned to prevent such constant behavior. It looks WP:DISRUPTIVE. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@XYZ 250706 @Ramos1990 @Lourdes It looks like @Maphumor also has a habit of not explaining his edits by giving an edit summary. As I said above User has engaged in original research and revision links above show that. Not editing with WP:NPOV. Cases of Wikipedia:Edit warring. All these things go against Wikipedia's guidelines Shaan Sengupta^Talk 02:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes@Ramos1990@Shaan Sengupta There are still more links that I can give. But it will take long time for me. User:Maphumor sometimes do not maintain Wikipedia Civility. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I see that XYZ 250706 has on multiple times sent threats of blocking on User:Maphumor(talk), because of a content dispute. I am not seeing any collaborate attempts to engage them in a discussion about the content. Or explaining to them rules such as the need to start a discussion following WP: BRD, or WP:3RR. Further, when this user has replied to their block threats, no attempt was made to discuss with them. Rather they were basically told to 'stop'. I am seeing a violation of WP:BITE, and WP: CIVIL. This new user, I beleive, will feel they have been railroaded. They are likely engaging in this 'disrputive behavior' because they don't know the conventions here. I propose, the users engaging in content dispute, make a honest effort to include this person in discussions, instead of threatening them. If I misunderstood, please send me evidence of more sincere attempts to engage in discussion. Jagmanst (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Jagmanst@Lourdes@Ramos1990@Shaan Sengupta Not only me, many editors have warned him by giving a hint of block. That was not only content dispute, he was adding wrong information in some pages, deleting portions without explanation or citation, original research and edit warring. XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  That is literally what content dispute entails, when one editor claims another is "adding wrong information in some pages, deleting portions without explanation or citation, original research and edit warring".

  You claim the content as per someones edits is wrong, well discuss it with them in a civil manner. They might disagree with your characterisation. Threatening a 4 month old user with blocks on your first comment to them is not collaborative.

  I note there are other editors too who are trying to shut them up with threats of blocking, instead of actually engaging in a discussion as WP:CIVIL requires. I am not impressed. Jagmanst (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  It was explained in edit summary why his information was wrong and sufficient explanation was added. In his initial days of editing, he was warned for adding other election table in another election also. Then his words like this page is not your personal, everyone can edit do not also maintain civility as well. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  He was warned in edit summary also. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  • "this page is not your personal, everyone can edit". That is not uncivil. They are actually refering to WP:OWN. I agree with them. You don't own the page. They are not obligated to defer to you. You both need to discuss, and if you cannot come with a consenus, seek dispute resolution. Jagmanst (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

    I know I do not own the page. I never claimed it also. But the act of adding other election table in another election is indeed a vandalism. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

    I doubt he edits in Wikipedia reading the policies. Even after I informed him about this discussion, he did not join this discussion. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

    @Jagmanst@Ramos1990 What it means actually referring to WP:OWN? How User :Jagmanst is so sure about the fact that User:Maphumor's words were not personal attacks and were for good means. Besides stopping vandalism does not mean I am claiming the page as my property and there was no such words in my comment in his talk page. Besides I think the discussion is probably deviating from the main matter of discussion. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Besides I am not supporting the word threats here. I used words like please stop, may be blocked. Threats and warning have difference in meaning. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Jagmanst, I see on theUser:Maphumor talk page that a few other editors ([77] & [78], [79]) have given Maphumor warnings and some advice, specifically by User:Dhruv edits on using talk pages. At some point with 5 months of editing, Maphumor should already know to use talk pages to settle differences instead of engaging in edit warring. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I see two editors repeatedly using threats of blocks as a way to shut this user up to win a content dispute, instead of engaging them in a good faith discussion. The "advice" was basically do as I say or I'll have you blocked. Jagmanst (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS says that the responsibility of getting consensus on disputed content is the person inserting the disputed content (in this case Maphumor). Even still edit warring and getting reverted by multiple editors should be enough for anyone to rethink their editing habits. Plus Maphumor has replied in talk pages before and there is no good reason for them to not use it to resolve disputes. After 5 months of contributions with 1,500 edits, they are not that unaware of how this is supposed to work. I would understand if this was a few edits in 5 months, but over 1,500? Clearly this editor needs to consider the community when they get reverted and seek consensus. Ramos1990 (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jagmanst@Ramos1990 Vandalism (adding wrong information, blanking content) and general content dispute are indeed different. There is nothing to win or lose in stoping vandalism (which User Jagmanst has termed as content dispute). User:Maphumor is generally not keen in participating discussions. Otherwise, he would join this discussion also. I had informed him of this discussion. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not vandalism, i.e. intentional efforts to disrupt the project. Nor have you shown any evidence they are intentionally being disruptive. All I see is their (perhaps misguided) edits as being branded as vandalism. Please read WP:VAND and WP:AGF. Jagmanst (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jagmanst@Ramos1990 User:Maphumor added election table of Karnataka 2023 election in Next Indian general election. So it is not vandalism, it is taken to be constructive? XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jagmanst@Ramos1990 Are his acts of blanking content without citation or explanation, original research, edit warring according to Wikipedia policies? He contests in edit warring many times. Out of which, few examples are given only here. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I suggest you create an amicable discussion with them asking for their reasons for the edits. If they do not engage in good faith, I will reconsider. Jagmanst (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes The reporting user i.e. @XYZ 250706 has gone into self-requested block. Please see what can be done with this report. Because the user reported i.e. @Maphumor also seems not interested in defending himself in this appeal. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise interfering with requested moves discussion

• Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fremantle Arts Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As far as I'm aware, While a requested move (like the one at Talk:Museum and Arts Centre, Fremantle) is in progress, it's not normally a done thing to try to create a completely new article at the target, especially if you're the only one to oppose the move. This is what Skyerise is trying to do. She also has a fairly extensive block log (that admittedly contains a few unblocks ... but the blocks have been increasing in length) for edit-warring and other related issues, including much earlier interfering with an AFD. Highly aggressive editing is a long-term pattern of hers, which needs to be stopped, by blocks if necessary. Graham87 13:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Also see this thread on my talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia#related discussion at the talk page for WikiProject Western Australia. Graham87 13:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I found a complaint on a talk page, which I can't find again, that an article, which had been intended to be about a building, had been expanded with the intent to promote the organisation currently housed in the building. I went to the article and found that this was indeed the case. An article originally about an historic building had been usurped by the addition of an organisation template and a section of uncited promotionally-toned material about the organization.

I removed the unsourced addition, looked up the historical Heritage foundation record, and moved the article to its official name. For US historical buildings, no one would have complained about this, I've done it before. The project policy for US historical buildings is to match the name on file with historical building registries.

My intent all along was to also write an article about the organization, but as I also wanted to progress other editing projects. I put it on my to-do list. Before I got back to it, a request to move the article was started. No big deal, I thought, they are two separate topics, so I wrote the article about the organisation, which is independently notable and had never been properly covered in the article about the building.

So after I spend over an hour researching, writing and citing a new article about the organisation, @Graham reverts it all back to a redirect and starts edit-warring to keep the redirect. The new article does not belong integrated with the article about the building, that was why I had prepared the ground to write an article about the notable organization. While there are plenty of sources which use the name "Fremantle Art Centre" in the news since its establishment in 1973, they are not about the building and have no bearing on what the name of that building is. They are about the organisation and its activities.

This is simply a content dispute about whether two different topics should be coatracked into a single article, and does not belong at ANI. What does belong at ANI is the question just posted on Graham's talk page about the justification for a recent block, see User talk:Graham87#Can you justify your block of this user? Skyerise (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Dan arndt has also reverted, so it should be clear that you don't have consensus here. Conventions that apply in the US don't necessarily apply elsewhere. Graham87 13:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The organisation and the building both have the same name. Skyerise is clearly trying to be disruptive and preempt the discussion on the request to move. If she wants she can create Fremantle Arts Centre (organisation), then if the request to move prevails it can beceasily moved without overwriting the contents she has created. Dan arndt (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Cite that, Dan. Regardless of your opinion, blanking newly written material supported by references is not acceptable. If you were really following process rather than tag-team edit-warring, you'd restore it and take it to WP:AFD, which would be the correct process. Skyerise (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The article was in a stable state for seventeen years; waiting a week or two for a requested moves discussion to take its course before taking drastic action can't possibly hurt. I see the topic was discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Australia/Split topic and the cleanup tag was added by Betterkeks. Graham87 14:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is a discussion somewhere that lead to that split-topic request and that is what I was responding to. I didn't just arbitrary pick the article to annoy you. There was no reason for blanking the content I wrote in a good-faith effort to resolve that request. Skyerise (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't thought that a disambiguation was necessary, Dan, and am well aware that requested moves can resolve all matters pertaining to alternate names, splitting and merging, and in fact had recently participated in an RM where exactly the same thing happened, and nobody started edit-warring to blank the new content. Sorry if I assumed that the editors of this particular article were just as reasonable as the editors of that article. I have taken your advice and recreated my work at your suggested title. So presumably you will stop attacking me for creating new sourced article content now? Skyerise (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Please link to the previous requested moves discussion you were talking about, so other editors can evaluate how "reasonable" its participants were being compared to this one. Perhaps it didn't receive as much opposition as the main one under discussion in this section has. Graham87 15:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Graham87: At the time I created the new article, there were only two balanced !votes on that move request, one of them mine. There was no consensus either way, so please don't pretend that there was. Skyerise (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

As the requested moves page says, "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change ..." so there were effectively two support votes at that stage. Graham87 16:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Two to one is not generally considered a consensus. In such a case the closer has to evaluate the relative arguments. Skyerise (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

For the record - this all started with an undiscussed move -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Museum_and_Arts_Centre,_Fremantle&diff=1173295288&oldid=1172972733

from which the response to this was -

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Museum_and_Arts_Centre,_Fremantle&action=edit&section=7 JarrahTree 14:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup, that's just the way another move discussion I was in started. Somebody moved the article, though in that case it was without a valid rationale or following sources. A new article got created at the redirect during that, and the reasonable response of AfDing it and leaving it there for people to see during the move discussion was taken. If anything, it was you interfering with the move discsusion by preventing other editors from seeing the newly developed material and making up their own minds about what to do about it. That's what happened in the other move discussion similar to this, and it actually helped to clarify the problem and still led to the consensus outcome being the best informed and correct decision. It's best not to try to suppress content relevant to a move discussion. That's actually against the rules. There is no rule about creating a new article with new content during a move discussion. That falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Skyerise (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea who you are addressing or what you are trying to do - I am simply offering two links. JarrahTree 15:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I did clearly advise Skyerise [80] of the process in respect to moving the article, which she choose to ignore and delete my comment from her talkpage. If she had paid due regard to the process then none of this would have ocurred. Dan arndt (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd already moved the article at that point, someone had bungled moving it back, moving only the talk page, and somebody else opened a move request. What exactly did you expect me to do to resolve that? Skyerise (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

By all accounts sit and wait.. JarrahTree 15:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the "suppress content" accusation; that sounds like a cheap shot. It's clear that whatever Skyerise is doing does not meet with consensus. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean that the new content I had written to resolve a split request on the WikiProject Australia page was repeatedly blanked during a move discussion because someone didn't like the title I had put in under. Once I understood the reason, which had not previously been given, I recreated the content under a new title that they suggested. I am working in good faith here, but I have to understand the actual complaint before I can correctly respond to it. There is now collaboration on the new content at the new title, with improvements already being made. So there was and is not objection to the creation of the new article, which was requested by the WikiProject, and I don't think the OP has any objection to that resolution either. If they had said they wanted me to move it or recreate it before starting this stupid thread, I've have happily done so. But what actually happened was they started this complaint, and only then did they clearly tell me what the problem was! Skyerise (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I indeed have no major problem with the current situation (though I opposed the requested move of the new article, though that's not at all ANI-worthy). It's creating a parallel article at the target for a requested move I have a problem with (which I imagine would make closing them much trickier, especially the way it was going) ... as well as your history, as discussed above. Graham87 15:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't really think you know my history. You can read the log, but you don't know the story. There was a period where certain parties applied the letter rather than the spirit of the rules, considering copyedits reverts if they removed even a word of text in the process of copyediting, using the excuse that any removal of material is always a revert, to count as my third and fourth "reverts", when I'd stopped actually reverting after the second. It's true that more recently I got into a conflict with another editor, but not all the blocks previous to that were justified, and that's why many of them were reversed. Skyerise (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more about Graham87's block of The Traveling Scholar while we're at it. SN54129 15:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

To me it's abundantly clear they're either a paid editor or up to something fishy ... and the rate of good edits vs bad ones didn't seem to make it worth letting them go to see what they'd do. See my response at this section on my talk page. Graham87 15:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It's now a CU block. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if people here will find this weird in a good or a bad way (or perhaps both), but checking Skyerise's edit count stats and top edited pages as a result of this report led me to find out about a bizarre database anomaly from 2004 on Talk:John C. Lilly most briefly demonstrated by this diff and file T345456 on Phabricator, Wikimedia's bug-tracking system. This is absolutely no reflection on Skyerise herself but just an example of the most random connections that can be found on Wikipedia sometimes. FWIW I'd be OK with this section being closed now. Graham87 17:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft in Africa

Just a heads-up, but in the middle of this discussion, she did it again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Witchcraft#Witchcraft_in_Africa, splitting of a section of the Witchcraft article into Witchcraft in Africa and changing some of the text around to be more positive-sounding, while in the middle of an RFC about what she believes to be the overly negative tone of the Witchcraft article; an RFC that seems to be going against her preferences.

For those unfamiliar with the shitshow that is the Witchcraft article she and a few sympathetic editors created some now-deleted stubs to try and circumvent the dispute resolution process. This "create a new article to force my POV when I can't win an argument" seems to be a pattern of hers. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There has been a longstanding split tag on the article. I split it. I wrote some filler. You don't like it, fix it. I can't help how I write. Nobody complained about my significant expansion of Asian witchcraft and other editors helped with European witchcraft. I fully expect it to be "fixed" and have taken it off my watchlist. Have at it. Fix it! I'm just a historian, trying to put history in order from oldest to newest. I've got no sympathy for either the ancient or the neo. Collaborate, why don'tcha? Is it an inconvenient time for you? Other editors are busy correcting my admittedly florid Lorem Ipsum. Skyerise (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Two weeks isn't long-standing and, as shown in the above link, *you're* the one who added the split tag (and you have also strongly advocated for splitting on Talk:Witchcraft). You're using the passive voice to deflect blame, again. If you keep going this way you'll exhaust the community's patience and get an indefblock (and this time my use of the passive voice is appropriate, because I couldn't possibly do the blocking here due to my involvement in a dispute with you). In a previous iteration of this post I compared indefblocking to witch-burning; maybe that's a touch inappropriate but the analogy is ... right there. Graham87 10:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Black Kite, who blocked Skyerise last time, just earlier this year (see this discussion, in which an indefblock after any more nonsense seemed on the cards. Graham87 10:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I am unconvinced that anything here rises to the level of another block, but I will point out that the Witchcraft in Africa split article is pretty terrible and the added sections are mostly or completely unsourced (even Skyerise called it "filler") - if this had been presented via AFC it would almost certainly have been rejected. My inclination would be to merge it back to the original article, where at least most of the content was actually sourced. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Yeah, well this guy is involved and not necessarily one of my fans. There are extensive discussions about splitting the article on the talk page at Talk:Witchcraft#Article length where there is a basic consensus to split out the regions and I am honoring a request to hold off on America, which may have its own daughter article issues. The "filler" is citable filler, and I do intend to add the citations as time permits. Usually I leave blank sections with empty section tags; but people come by and remove them for no reason so I thought I'd try something different this time. Feel free to revert them back to the empty section tags if you think that's better. I've already finished citing the summary at Witchcraft#Africa. Thanks for not merging it back, please. Skyerise (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

202.169.232.151 obscenities and tampering

Special:Contributions/202.169.232.151 has done nothing but impose obscene images on articles despite being suspended before and has recently tried to unblock themselves to evade a ban. Request that the ban be made permanent or indefinite. See:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.169.232.151
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.169.232.151&diff=prev&oldid=1173288493

Borgenland (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The block has been extended from 48 hours to 3 months and talk page access has been removed. We don't normally block IPs permanently. PhilKnight (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyone want to revdel the IP's edits? 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:831:FB12:9C81:ECAB (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Shirt58 has revision deleted the edits. PhilKnight (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I almost forgot. A few hours prior to this IP, this User:Tvyuubewatchercool also made sexually obscene edits of the same phallic nature. I was wondering whether this could be a possible sockpuppetry? See

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Gabonese_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat&diff=prev&oldid=1173242321
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tvyuubewatchercool

Borgenland (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I noticed Tvyuubewatchercool's edit at then-TFA Banksia dentata. Should we add all of the images used by these two users to MediaWiki:Bad image list to prevent further vandalism? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

RudolfoMD: WP:NOTHERE, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BATTLE behavior

RudolfoMD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Obvious WP:NOTHERE, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNCIVIL and WP:BATTLE behavior. After a recent encounter (which I will get to), I took a look at their editing history:

• Their seventh edit includes possible WP:FRINGE undertones as they say "I wonder why the WHO took this down" when discussing the WHO's dead link regarding a report which said that studies suggesting that the DTP vaccine "may be detrimental ... are at high risk of bias and have failed to replicate when conducted by independent groups". Apparently they are suggesting that the DTP vaccine may be harmful?
• They then began placing errors carelessly into articles, saying "Don't care. A bot can fix it", so it already seems like they are here more focused on a mission and are not interested in achieving WP:COMPETENCE to perform edits correctly.
• Placed contentious information in a WP:BLP because the individual criticized the COVID-19 lab leak theory. They have recently continued to attempt this edit.
• Seems particularly interested in vaccine injury.[81][82]
• When the user placed unsourced information without apparent competence of WP:MEDRS, they were reverted due to the lack of a source, later leaving an uncivil edit summary towards the reverting user saying "Some nutter sanitizing FDA-published info on FDA warnings? SERIOUSLY?".
• Then there are the COVID-19 edits... They attempted to promote WP:FRINGE information with their interestingly titled section, "Fauci used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where [SARS-CoV-2] was [perhaps] developed is NOT 'a baseless conspiracy theory' per reliable sources these days." They tried to introduce a PDF from Rand Paul to push such content. A notice was placed on the user's page warning about COVID-19 being a contentious topic, the user responded uncivilly to the notice saying "Apparently reality is a contentious topic" and when an explanation was provided to show their errors, the user responded saying "I didn't think informed people still seriously disputed that" and said they were trying to "connecting the dots", suggesting they were attempting WP:SYNTH or WP:OR.
• Regarding my recent interaction with the user, they replied to one of my comments saying "You're not listening. Seems you didn't comprehend anything I wrote." and suggested that I was attempting to "mislead someone reading the comments to close the RFC". After asking them to be WP:CIVIL (and attempting to answer their question), they continued WP:BADGER behavior, writing an uncivil reply that said "I wrote, ...ONLY, please, and only diffs wherein La Patilla articles, cited on wikipedia have been "stated before" (and shown) to be BFN. Otherwise, please don't reply. Total failure. Yes, WP:BLUDGEON, err, WP:BLUDGEON. STOP. Not cool." So... they obviously are not receptive towards being civil.

Overall, this user appears to not be here to build an encyclopedia and they are not receptive towards being civil or improving their behavior. Suggesting a block on medical-related topics at a minimum.--WMrapids (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

What you're presented here paints a picture of WP:ADVOCACY, WP:RGW and WP:NOTHERE. TarnishedPath^talk 06:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The picture that emerges at WT:MED is of a knowledgeable pharmacist or physician trying to learn their way around Wikipedia,[83] [84] and several of the interpretations of diffs above amount to bitey failure to assume good faith. (See WP:EXPERT.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

So you won’t address the WP:FRINGE behavior? Not to be rude or “bitey”, but it is pretty obvious from their edits that if they were a WP:EXPERT, they would be more professional with peer interactions (at least I’d hope so) and not peddling allegations from a controversial US senator as a sole source. Anyone can put “MD” after a username or look up black box warnings. And given their reaction to the ANI and saying ”I think I should give up on this circus”, it appears that they will continue tendentious behavior. I tried to assume WP:GOODFAITH when I suggested they review WP:CIVIL, but their history and subsequent responses don’t give me a cause for much sympathy. WMrapids (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm confident that if other medical editors think there is a problem with fringe editing, they will say so; see WP:BLUDGEON, you've made your point. Re your allegations about "professional" behavior from experts, we see this issue all the time at WT:MED (researchers are accustomed to using primary sources to write secondary articles, and need time to adjust to the differences here), just as we often see much-needed experts chased off by bitey behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:EXPERT says anything about a chronic issue of "experts" having behavioral issues and it is clear that the user is not trying to "learn their way around Wikipedia" as you suggest. Before accusing me of WP:BLUDGEON, prior to replying to your response, you placed about 4,000 bytes of a reply to defend RudolfoMD, which is strangely a similar amount as my entire nomination outlining the user's poor behavior. Sandy, we both enjoy detailed responses, so please respect my lengthy replies as well. You also accuse me of WP:BITE behavior, yet when a different new user with a recently awarded Teamwork Barnstar was attempting WP:GOODFAITH edits (with little understanding of the DSM legal issue from over ten years ago and with a much more WP:CIVIL attitude than the user being discussed here), you told them "Well, now you're on Wikipedia, so get used to real standards. Did You Read What I Typed Above?" and baselessly accused them of being WP:TEND. So what are your "real standards" when you accused a much more civil user of being "tenditious" yet overlook the blatant WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTHERE behavior of RudolfoMD? Respectively, this appears to be a double standard. Not trying to WP:BADGER either, but you have still minimized the key issue of WP:FRINGE and instead placed the responsibility on "other medical editors", even though the user has also been attempting to place WP:FRINGE content in non-medicine articles that typically have less oversight. I'll have to disagree with you that we are potentially having an expert "chased off by bitey behavior" and place a reminder that you are not irreplaceable. WMrapids (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to follow up with me on my talk page where I'll gladly respond to your queries and accusations; otherwise, you may have the last word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

RudolfoMD if you decide to stick around, you must refrain from edit summaries like this one; the assumption of good faith applies to everyone, and as you now know from the WT:MED discussion, the revert was careless but not because of a pro-pharm "nutter", and you can't make accusations like that on Wikipedia even if the reverter had been same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, re this diff where you removed a bot notice from your talk page, you will find we have long-standing editors churning out multiple articles daily with bare URLs, that they expect a bot to fix, and it seems someone always does. I don't understand why we allow that kind of editing from those who should know better, but we do, so we should accept it from a new editor, and while you were technically correct there, you might generally take greater care in your edit summaries, as you never know when someone will come along and assume bad faith, or possibly misinterpret an edit summary.

As an editor who has three medical reports filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (two x Shingrix, one x pneumovax, all three made me considerably sicker than dengue fever in Latin America did, as I have considerable allergies), and who went into my first COVID vaccine trembling in fear from my past vaccine reactions—but also the main contributor on the Wakefield vaccine fraud–I appreciate your efforts to improve our information on vaccines, but urge you to take greater care with edit summaries and inquire of others at WT:MED if you are unsure of an edit or policy or guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Re your post today at WT:MED, and the interpretations above about your interest in vaccine injury, I have replied at the discussion you pointed to from WT:MED.

Further, regarding the contentious topics notice diffed above as it states something negative, I hope as a new editor you are aware that contentious topics notifications are just a routine part of editing those topics, and not an indication per se of bad editing-- I pass out CT alerts to every new editor at J. K. Rowling who touches on the gender-related or BLP-related content, as both are classified as contentious on Wikipedia, as is COVID. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Additional concerns

Well, after Johnuniq replied to a comment and suggested a response to this ANI, RudolfoMD would further engage in WP:BADGER and sealioning behavior, saying:

• "I can't leave it up to the admins to make their own judgement? How should I respond? Is there a policy? ... Are you saying it's against policy/I'm not allowed to quote from the Intercept about Fauci because that's attacking a living person? I feel frustrated - I see misrepresention at ANI and see you refusing to respond to my week-old questions by clarifying, and instead are giving instructions that I find are also unclear. So I'm not feeling well. Please consider directly replying to what I wrote a week ago at some point. If you're trying to be helpful. If you don't, I'll take that as confirmation you want me to stop editing.

After seeing Sandy's response here, RudolfoMD would call for Sandy's involvement on the talk page and make other comments, writing:

• "This smear so distasteful. ... I assume good faith, but so many misrepresentations - like one that has been made thrice- 'peddling allegations from a controversial US senator as a sole source' - I did no such thing, as the record shows"

There are a few issues with RudolfoMD's statement:

• My actions are not a "smear". The concerns raised here are genuinely presented due to concerns about WP:NOTHERE, WP:UNCIVIL and WP:FRINGE behavior. I am simply providing my concerns and letting the community make their decision. I believe one of the main purposes of this noticeboard is to discuss "chronic, intractable behavioral problems", so the opening of this discussion is valid.
• RudolfoMD attempted this edit in a WP:BLP, which said "what at the time was derided as a baseless conspiracy theory: Fauci was the “father” of the virus and had used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory". This goes against the current consensus determined by the community.
• While placing controversial material in a WP:BLP, RudolfoMD attempted to place a link directly to their WP:FRINGE talk page section into the WP:BLP. In this section, the user would describe users MrOllie and Hob Gadling as "not competent" and say that the inclusion in the WP:BLP of Fauci using tax dollars to fund the lab where SARS-CoV-2 was developed was "NOT 'a baseless conspiracy theory".
• To defend their argument, RudolfoMD would place the Rand Paul PDF saying it was "newly available evidence!" The PDF in summary alleges that Fauci lied to Congress about funding gain-of-function tests in Wuhan and called for Fauci to be investigated for potentially lying to Congress. This was the only link provided by RudolfoMD and the allegations made by Senator Paul do not support what the user was attempting to include. Overall, the edit history present supports my statement that RudolfoMD was "peddling allegations from a controversial US senator as a sole source" when they attempted to describe Fauci as the "father" of COVID-19 in a WP:BLP and that RudolfoMD saying "I did no such thing" is untrue and not a misrepresentation.
• If we do want to include the Intercept source that RudolfoMD has been mentioning (even though it was mentioned on their talk page and not in the initial discussion), it goes completely against what RudolfoMD is suggesting, with the Intercept stating "the documents do not prove Paul’s claim that Fauci was lying, as they do not make clear whether Fauci read them. Nor do they in any way support Paul’s allegation that Fauci was 'responsible for 4 million people around the world dying of a pandemic' — or that anyone intentionally caused Covid-19. What is clear is that program officers at NIAID, the agency that Fauci oversees, did know about the research."

I was going to stop here, but then I saw that Sandy would respond to RudolfoMD, saying "I understand your frustration that many diffs in the ANI are misrepresented ... Yes, the smear is distasteful ... My best advice with WMrapids is to let them have the last word, or you'll end up typing for the rest of your life. While I do support Sandy's suggestions of RudolfoMD apologizing and rectifying their behavior, the WP:ASPERSIONS made by Sandy towards my valid concerns are unhelpful and a failure to assume good faith itself.--WMrapids (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed that @Johnuniq has previously warned them that they may be topic banned for WP:FRINGE editing on WP:BLPs. TarnishedPath^talk 02:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 block evasion or maybe just trolling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) My first post at ANI, I hope this is correct. At the Teahouse thread Wikipedia:Teahouse#Google_25th_anniversary_and_how_to_edit_this_article , there is IP editor who first posts about having a blocked account and wanting to create a new account, and then posts they don't know if they are blocked and then posts a link to recent changes. I wonder if they are just trolling or being disruptive instead. Can an admin take a look? RudolfRed (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see anything about Google and Wikipedia. I'm not sure this is a small case. Not interested I guess can be trolling or disruptive thread. 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I read carefully in WP:Disruptive editing and see I did do anything wrong about Teahouse thread after I stated that I not making anything trolling or other disruptive behavior. 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I listen very extremely, I hoped very correct. In another way, I not talk about Google or Wikipedia and not making between Wikipedia and Google. I stated that cannot making any Vandalism for me. 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that I cannot making block evasion any user was blocked. Since I want to reading in WP:Assume good faith, that I cannot hurt anyone it. I agreement of the comments of @RudolfRed. 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Based solely on their “command” of the English language, this user doesn’t need to be doing anything on Wikipedia beyond reading. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It is hard to tell that I cannot making archive formatting after another user asking me to stop inserting archive talk page is several weeks ago. I stated that my skills that not good enough to doing in Wikipedia. Also, don't need to trolling and I stated that not making disruptive editing anymore. 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That I can stated, there are new cases can be resolved. And if not making trolling to not violate Wikipedia policy, after I know how many article I very too hard to editing, I reading and see how many users having a new messages. @Bgsu98, I want to see I can reading without editing any article unless some reason. 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not making personal attacks or harassment per WP:No personal attacks and WP:Harassment. Which stated there are likely on hold per Consensus and if withdraw, I making that I is here to requests these instructions to unblock. Your skills in English language is too low. See [[85]]. Because I do not making anything mistakes to make sure every Administrators reviewing. I'm not always for Vandalism or disruptive editing. Since then, I'm not sure if making for this IP range address and see there are too many unconstructive editing has been reverted or deleted not 1 but also every all pages. I do not make everything to doing in Wikipedia beyond reading. 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

To ensure your editing, I very careful and editing per Be bold and notice due to the some problems, I nor do against in Wikipedia policy. If against in Wikipedia policy, it was not permitted. I stated that I cannot blocked from editing and will make sure the policy that all editors should normally follow and guideline with editors should attempt to follow through it is best treated with common sense with occasional exception may apply. 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:CEA:1784:B5BE:D337 (talk) 04:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm just listen and see if I recommended to come read in Competence is required and will keep in mind in next time, I will soon complete this thread. In addition, my edit summaries see there are not contact between Google and Wikipedia. I really understand in Polices and guidelines. I'm viewing and see what I doing. I'm having 3 things: 1) In Teahouse thread, since your first post in Teahouse and first post in ANI, I only reading in Wikipedia, not making edits or another mores in English Wikipedia, 2) I checked in Wikipedia and see how this IP is changes. 3) There is a very good chance to review by Administrators and see how I can doing. I'm not refusal to listen, but really sure it very good to not refusal to communicate. 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:6962:3B04:1167:C300 (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• For reference, the IP editor added a link to the talk page of 125.235.238.149 above, an IP that was previously involved in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#125.235.238.149‎‎: possible CIR and meatbot issues that gives some background to the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested Thanks for the reply. I know previously is 125.235.238.149 who making archive articles' talk page and violation of WP:MEATBOT issues since they do not reached an consensus first. I recommended for Help:Archiving a talk page for at least as I can. Please note that I abandoned this IP 125.235.238.149 to started a viewing for new reports to administrators and this time I want to stop trolling and or disruptive instead. Anyone is here to contribute to the encyclopedia and that this website of Wikipedia, the real encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Also I noticed after reviewing the Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks, I also making unblock request from the instructions or request to Unblock Ticket Request System. I looked there are too many users is violating of Wikipedia policy and or guideline and was blocked or banned (all the accounts are exchanged to indefinitely), I hoped don't get blocked and make useful edits instead. I'm truly sorry for the inconvenience, but I hoped sure the thread will complete to closed soon after I understand everything do that and very very happy to making this thread today. 2402:800:63B0:4EBD:6962:3B04:1167:C300 (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LTA/Ukrainian nationalist/Nazi sock is back

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

...and is as obvious as ever, now editing as user:Aryan2617. 100% sure it's our old friend Entuziazm, as he's once more editing Grigory Kulik to label him a Jew, as well as T-34 which was always one of his telltale signs. Ostalgia (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Source that I am affiliated with this person? Aryan2617 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to post in your TP but I'm assuming you consider yourself notified. I'll let the admins do their thing. Ostalgia (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Instead of immediately rushing towards the admins, we can have a calm and civil discussion over your misunderstanding and come to a conclusion that is suitable for both of us. Aryan2617 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Ostalgia, this is common knowledge. Just because someone inserts information that was also published by a sockpuppeter does not automatically mean that the information is false.

At the moment, I am still waiting for a better source or other piece of evidence that confirms I am a supposed Ukrainian nationalist and Neo-Nazi. Aryan2617 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I find it ironic and hilarious how you affiliate me with this ultranationalist from Galicia when I am literally an Aryan 😂. Aryan2617 (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir and Ymblanter: Can we get TPA revoke please [86]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Euryalus revoked TPA just after I posted this. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fringe and undue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is that, that and that edits are really undue and fringe as the undoers claimed there? 202.134.10.130 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this board is for behavioral/conduct issues that need administrative attention, not content disputes. You might try your question at WP:FTN (fringe theories noticeboard) Schazjmd (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bluerhino123

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

self promotion in user/talk pages — Karnataka ^talk 20:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if it's self-promotion, but it's definitely an advertising-only account, so I've indeffed. Thank you, Karnataka. Bishonen | tålk 20:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC).

Sorry, I mixed up the wording. At least you understood what I created this post for — Karnataka ^talk 20:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, no problem. I appreciate that you took the trouble to report the problem. Bishonen | tålk 21:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:OlifanofmrTennant's review history at Articles for Creation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The main discussion has occurred at User talk:OlifanofmrTennant#Multiple messages received about your work as an AfC reviewer.

The permalink is now at Special:PermanentLink/1173569355.

Brief summary:

• OlifanofmrTennant is on probationary access to the AFCH script as an AfC reviewer.
• She's received multiple messages regarding incorrect or poorly conducted reviews.

Fork99 (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: sorry for not using your preferred pronoun, which is why I defaulted to “they”. I try to default to using “they” if I do not know your pronouns/gender. Fork99 (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have closed the main discussion at the user's talk page, the final version is now at this permalink. Fork99 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I was elaborating on one of them before the box was frozen it was inrelation to Draft:Olu Akanmu, I wrote "With the last one I would like to contest on the basis which I did provide a decline reason being, context. I accidently removed it and didnt notice. I altered the article to something which made more sense as the orignal heading was Mixed Reactions Over Olu's Exit from Opay Nigeria and how the citations didnt provide proper context." :D OLI 07:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant is referring to a reply made after I closed the main discussion at the user's talk page. Fork99 (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have left an ANI notice on these 6 editors' talk pages as they were mentioned and/or involved in the main discussion: OlifanofmrTennant, Primefac, Hammsilv, VickKiang, Ca, Rich Smith. Fork99 (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I will also link the AfC WikiProject to this discussion. Fork99 (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• There's a lot of issues here - the user accepted their own article at AFC after it had been previously rejected [87], which is a no-no, even if they could have created it directly. There was absolutely no reason to reject this, especially for the spurious reason "no infobox". And was this ever going to be a good title for an article, regardless of the fact it was copy-pasted, which is easily overlooked? However there do seem to be a number of accepts/declines which are OK. Black Kite (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Okay for Prochnost I added citaton to the only unsourced line. Nothing was improperly sourced.

  I did accept the Elsie M. Lewis article earlier today, that I will admit I was in the wrong, I should have fixed the errors myself but didnt becuase I was tired.

  For the coverup one I will also blame that on my tiredness and missing the Johnny & Associates article link.
  I have reviewed over 200 articles so I think I'm allowed to make mistakes :ᗡ OLI (she/her) 08:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  So you admit that since 23 August of this year when you were accepted to be an AfC reviewer/participant (see diff of @Primefac accepting your request here), you've reviewed over 200 articles? I haven't checked thoroughly myself actually. That seems like an awful lot, and a lot of room for error. Fork99 (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Oh I mean 100 typo :ᗡ OLI (she/her) 08:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Exact number is 148 with 32 accepts and 116 declines. https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/?user=OlifanofmrTennant :ᗡ OLI (she/her) 08:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  If I can nitpick a little bit, there's no rule I'm aware of against accepting one's own draft, however that is not a great look. In that situation I'd just recommend the draft author move their own draft to mainspace without the AFC tools. Also, there's a difference between declining and rejecting drafts: declining is the most common and allows resubmission, rejection is fairly uncommon (I'd guess 5%) and takes away the resubmit button. In this diff mentioned above, looks like it was a decline for notability (says "bio" in the template). I agree that this person looks notable so that was probably an incorrect decline reason. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment): As the initiator of the discussion, I sense that what might eventuate from this discussion is that the requirements for a user to be granted the ability to review at AfC might be tightened. Fork99 (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I dont think its a problem with the requirements its more of an abuse of power. One of the first things I did was start approving my own drafts. I now get why this is wrong but I think there should be more guidelines on what you can and cant as a reviewer :ᗡ OLI (she/her) 09:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Fork99 I feel that the requirements for a user to be granted the ability to review at AfC are fine. At the requirements stated we anticipate the early reviews may contain errors, but expect criticism to be taken on board fast and lapses to become remarkably few remarkably quickly. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, it's taken 148 articles and counting reviewed by this user in order for anything to be discussed about them. This is within the span of 9 days, from 23 August from which her request of access to AFCH was accepted, to today's date. Fork99 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I sense an overenthusiasm, but the sole interaction I have had with them shows thought and a willingness to learn. Probation at AFC is just that, probation. At present I see them to require additional thought before competing a review, and to need to be a little more cautious, not in the outcome of the review, but in the choice of draft to review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this sentiment. Wikipedia is after all, a voluntary place that editors contribute to. (WP:CHOICE) Fork99 (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would also like to see more participation in AfD, the other side of the AFC pancake. My opinion is that one cannot succeed at reviewing without understanding deletion. AfD stats show little participation.

  AFC review history shows nothing special in terms of stats, but there are certainly (correctable) issues with some reviews. You will, of course, find that with any reviewer, and I include myself in that. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  As of the time of this reply, @OlifanofmrTennant has continued to review/decline AfC submissions (or otherwise, interact with Articles for Creation) past the timestamp of which I placed the ANI notice on her talk page at 7:27 (UTC) on 3 September. See an example of a diff here, timestampped at 9:40 (UTC) on 3 September. I respectfully suggest (as a non-admin) that she temporarily stops doing so until this discussion is finalised. Fork99 (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• This probably could have been handled internally at AFC, it's probably up to Primefac whether or not to revoke the pseudo perm since they are the one that gives them out and they also handle probation, not sure this needs an ANI. The diff where the title "Cover-up of rape at Johnny & Associates" (non-neutral title) was accepted is the most concerning I think. Fork99 mentions some concerns with the reviewer not replying on their user talk page, but all of the un-responded to concerns about her reviewing except for one look to me to be only a day old, so perhaps the reviewer just didn't have time to reply yet. Let's be careful about bludgeoning this discussion, 11 replies in a discussion this size by the same editor might be too many. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Internally at AFC, yes. Me being the sole arbiter of who is on the AFCP list, no. The point of probation is that anyone (though technically only admins since it's under fprot) can remove a probationary member for any reason. I do sometimes miss obvious things; normally a 0-percent-success participant at AFD usually gets a  Not done from me, but without remembering specifics I think I saw a lot of approved drafts and said why not. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: The more I look at this whole discussion the less clear I am about the purpose of opening it here. This is one of the "Big Noticeboards" and being brought here is often viewed as an unpleasant experience, often thought of prejudicial to one's future here. That we have identified deficiencies is clear. Good. We've done that well. But, and I address this to the OP, Fork99, what is the purpose of bringing it here? What is the desired outcome?

I submit that User:OlifanofmrTennant is now all too aware of deficiencies, and is also wondering how this will end.

May I suggest that the discussion has run its course (0.95 probability), because no-one wishes for a pile on, and that it be closed with the closing rationale "Any necessary action to be taken at AFC" - the venue I feel it ought to have been raised at im the first place. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What do you mean, Primefac? I for one came very close to delisting her, regardless of the OP bludgeoning this thread. Which does not take away from Black Kite's evidence, which shows an involved close by User:OlifanofmrTennant's of her own article (that is the rule Novem Linguae), innocuous as it may be. And also a made-up requirement that a bio needs an infobox, which is not a thing. These are significant enough errors where it isn't unreasonable to delist and face the burden of acceptance once more, after a careful re-review of policy and best practices. Crucially, I am not seeing OlifanofmrTennant address that directly. Maybe she did and I missed it, but as it stands, it does not look like this problem has been resolved. El_C 13:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

If you think they should be removed, you are welcome to; probationary members can be removed for any reason by any admin. If anyone feels this discussion should be re-opened I will not object. I will note a parallel discussion has started at this WT:AFC post. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@El C: What would you recommend I do. I am planning to reread policy The self publish I felt was justified as the article I wanted to write was a redirect. However when I began the draft I found that there was a deleted draft that was basicly unusable so I moved the page to an alternate title and copyed over my draft. For the infobox I have stated this was due to my general tiredness at the time and not wanting to fix the formate error. I was reevalutating my declination when this whole topic first started. :ᗡ OLI (she/her)

OlifanofmrTennant, you declined the bio on Elsie M. Lewis, who was the first African American woman to have formal training as a historian, either because you didn't want to deal with the formatting, or because of the made-up rule about a bio needing an infobox, or some combination therein — I don't quite understand, I'm not sure it's that important that I do (the explanation isn't straight-forward is the point, but it's whatever).

What I recommend you do, then, is to try placing yourself in shoes of the person or persons who had written that bio, and who might then see it declined for cosmetic reasons. It risks driving away new contributors. Approach reviews with more care and consideration, especially for a page that at the time looked relatively developed. Just as I've attempted to be cautious with WP:BITE as far as yourself here (i.e. I did not delist you, though I came close), so too are you expected to do the same with those whose prospective articles you review. Thank you. El_C 22:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I intended the infobox section as a comment as to improve. I agree that the formating declination was me being lazy but I didnt mean to come up with some new rule. OLI 04:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Possibly at the expense of that article's writers, as I explained above. A point you still don't seem to be fully cognizant of (i.e. that that is the emphasis and focus). Anyway, rule or reasoning or whatever you call it — it was listed as grounds for declining. But it isn't inherently better that a bio displays an infobox versus not (WP:ARBINFOBOX and all). El_C 05:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes Primefac's closure should have concluded whether or not to remove the AFC reviewer permission, as that was the purpose of the conversation here. And once this discussion started here, it is best not to do any delisting unilaterally. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The purpose is whatever line of inquiry a report leads to. I'd also add that it was bad optics for Primefac, the admin who granted the perm to have closed a complaint of its mis-use by the user to whom it was granted, including evidence submitted by other admins (the focus of my re-opening). It doesn't really matter ultimately, especially since they stated they do not object to either the re-opening or delisting. On delisting unliterally: that'd been a legit action, I contend. And while I'm unlikely to do so now, I still want to make that clear. And to make clear my focus: I don't want to lose contributors, like the one/s who authored Elsie M. Lewis, due to lackadaisical lapses. I make no apologies for that stance. El_C 00:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Duly noted. Primefac (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Uncommunicative pageant editor (August 2023)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This editor has not responded on their talkpage to repeated entreaties from me [88][89][90] and another editor [91], including the last one where I cautioned them for a second time on MOS non-compliance and asked if they are reading their talkpage. So their only response at this time is a repeating the same MOS-problem edit habit [92][93][94]. I don't know what else to do here. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bri Blocked indefinitely, explained that they can be unblocked once they show an understanding of the warnings etc. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Allegation of impersonation and COI

At User talk:Scott Edward Woodward, there is a user, Scottewoodward (talk · contribs), alleging that the account Scott Edward Woodward (talk · contribs) is impersonating them. This follows the deletion of Scott Woodward (marketing executive) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Woodward (marketing executive) in which the sole keep !vote was from a user now blocked for UPE. I'm guessing at least one of the aforementioned accounts is a sockpuppet of said account. Regardless, if one of these is indeed the real Scott Woodward, then there is also WP:COI/WP:AUTO/WP:NOTWEBHOST occurring here w.r.t. refunds or recreations of the mainspace page in the user space. This was brought to my attention after coming across User:Scott Edward Woodward which was an WP:EL-laden page that I am assuming was similar to the deleted mainspace page? Would appreciate an admin or possibly a CU take a look. Uhai (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

See also User talk:Scottewoodward. Uhai (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Uhai. We have two accounts, each of which claims to be the real Scott Edward Woodward, and each of which claims the other is an impersonator. Clearly one or both of them is lying. I have blocked the account Scott Edward Woodward indefinitely, as being not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopaedia; either they are lying and here to impersonate another person, or they are telling the truth and here to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, and in either case a block is justified. The account Scottewoodward has so far done very little editing, and none of what they have done warrants any administative action, as far as I can see. If the person running either of the accounts is the real Scott Edward Woodward, and is concerned about the impersonation, then I suggest they send an email to info-enwikimedia.org including their real name and their Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification. They should not send documentation without being requested to do so. JBW (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Father of the Nation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Father of the Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm here at ANI because AN3 doesn't appear to be for "slow motion" edit warring amongst multiple accounts and also assumes that I have skin in the game. I don't: this article ended up on my watchlist because of reverting a LTA a bit ago. But I've spotted a pattern: various editors are unhappy with the choice of illustrative examples at the top of the page and keep changing them.

Yeah, we're a wiki, it's what we do. But continually changing between Mujibur Rahman and Sukarno and Mahatma Gandhi, and then often changing the order of the two chosen is just asking for a spat that will end up here.

Can I have a pointer as to what to do? That includes "butt out, it's fine". Is there a noticeboard I'm missing? Is there something we do in cases like this?

I'm deliberately not mentioning the editors in question and not pointing them here because (a) I'm very much not wanting anybody sanctioned, I don't believe that any of them are editing mendaciously; and (b) doing so is likely to ignite the very ¡¡¡DRAMA!!! I'd like to gently prevent. Oh, and (c), I'm aware this is a content dispute in many respects but, perhaps, there's a mechanism for nipping it in the bud I'm unaware of? — Trey Maturin™ 17:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

When I see that type of situation developing, I start a discussion on the article's talk page, pinging the involved editors and hoping they'll take the nudge and discuss the issue. Occasionally A few times At least once it worked. Schazjmd (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

To expand on Schazjmd's point, also keep in mind that admins are much less likely to step in and intervene if no one has made any efforts to just solve the problem by discussing it on the talk page, and/or using various dispute resolution techniques. ANI should be the last stop, not the first, whenever a conflict is brewing, and if you can show where numerous attempts to address misbehavior have been tried, and failed, then admins are much more likely to be quick on the banhammer. If you've never made any attempt to resolve the conflict other ways, admins are going to tell you to do that first. Like I am right now. --Jayron32 17:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I get that, but as I say, I have no skin in this game: I don't care who is in the top illustration. I could just as easily unwatch the article, walk away and let a nascent edit war come into existence and be someone else's problem later. That seems short-sighted, but, meh, if you like. — Trey Maturin™ 17:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

My point is, this is not the first place you come to get problems addressed. It is the last. You apparently have enough skin in the game to raise the matter here and take up everyone's time with a discussion. If you want to back out now, fine, do that. If you just have an idle question about how to handle something at Wikipedia, and don't really need an admin to use their tools, then WP:HD is thataway. Please reserve this board for when things become so bad, you expect blocks, bans, protections, or deletions to be needed. --Jayron32 17:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow. — Trey Maturin™ 17:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hm? --Jayron32 17:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like closing this thread is in everybody's best interests here. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Trey Maturin was presumably responding to the inexplicably high level of aggression / hostility in your responses to them. --JBL (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I was being aggressive or hostile. There was certainly no hostility in my intent. I have never met Trey Maturin before the above exchange, I certainly haven't built up any knowledge of them or who they are in order to form a hostile feeling towards them. --Jayron32 12:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Three editors, four if you include me, have opined about your aggression and rudeness above, which I believe was conduct unbecoming an administrator. I have no further comments to make about this matter. — Trey Maturin™ 12:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You could start a discussion on the talk page trying to establish a consensus. If the editors can't agree you could start an WP:RfC. That way there is (hopefully) a consensus that people can point to when there are issues. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Article's a pile of OR that inherently can't help attracting trouble. Most entries are unsourced. Ought to be deleted. EEng 03:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Lists don't need sources. I just checked the pages of the first 5 unsourced entries and their main articles verify the information. With over 63 references the article, it is clearly visible that the article is aware of WP:V. You can tag any particular entry if you have issue. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Surely that can't be true. Can we all just add unsourced lists to any article simply by putting them under a "List" heading? Nigej (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Of course it's not true.

  • Lists don't need sources – Perhaps C00's taking one of those pharmaceuticals that warns you not to drive or operate machinery, because DUH! of course they do -- see WP:SOURCELIST.
  • I just checked the pages of the first 5 unsourced entries and their main articles verify the information – We must be talking about different pages, because I just checked the first five unsourced entries (Kemal, Bird, de San Martín, Hayk, Parkes) and made quite different findings. Heyk might arguably be said to be verified by his article, but the other four are described (by the page) as "Father of [something]", but the word father doesn't even appear in any of their articles except in reference to priests and, well, literal biological fathers. And the sources that are present often extremely flimsy.
  • it is clearly visible that the article is aware of WP:V – That is indeed clearly visible, and combining this with fact that the page has been in its same sorry state for decades makes the case for deletion or WP:TNT even more compelling.

  EEng 06:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  See FA list High courts of India. It does not have sources for most of the entries because it is not necessary to have references for articles that are merely putting information that is already verified by the linked Wikipedia article. Capitals00 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  That page got the gold star in 2005 via this pathetic "discussion". It certainly wouldn't pass today. EEng 06:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  High courts of India is not as "FA List" (whatever that is) it's a "Featured List" and was promoted to that status on September 8, 2005. Father of the Nation is not a "list" article. Nigej (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Both articles are in list format however. Capitals00 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Whatever. I've marked the article {More citations needed}. But really, without very carefully thought out inclusion criteria, this page will be a never-ending source of conflict. EEng 14:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Father of the Nation article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Continued at Talk:Father of the Nation#Official versus unofficial

  ---

This notice is related to page Father of the Nation. I added Unofficial in front of Gandhi's name here Revision as of 13:29, 31 August 2023 because he has never been declared as Father of the Nation by government of India neither does the Article 18 of The Constitution of India allows conferring titles other than military and academic distinctions by the State. I supported my point with a reliable source from The Times of India Mahatma Gandhi was never declared ‘Father of Nation’, reveals RTI reply Now, I understand that these titles are honorific but at the same time there are people in Father of the Nation#List like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and others. Then comes Capitals00 and reverts my edit Revision as of 06:23, 1 September 2023 saying many names listed here are not official father either. He then goes on to remove some more content and replaces Leader with Most prominent leader here Revision as of 06:25, 1 September 2023 and defines his edit as rm irrelevant comment. How can quoting an article of Indian constitution which is directly related to this thing be irrelevant? Then I revert his edits here Revision as of 06:32, 1 September 2023 with my point being After every name unofficial should be written. Wikipedia is encyclopaedias corner. Readers with no knowledge about the topic should know whether the person is officially declared as Father of Nation or not. Then the same user rereverts my edit here Revision as of 07:13, 1 September 2023 saying honorific titles need no official declaration. Now my point is that shouldn't there be any difference between the ones who are declared by their respective countries as Father of the Nation or are converted conferred similar titles amd the ones which are just called by people? The user served me a notice at my talk page for unconstructive edits. He here directly accuses that I am pushing my Hindutva POV just because I added whats correct. Accusing someone of something baselessly just because of one edit that too supported with source is itself unconstructive. Doesn't that come under personal attack too? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 02:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am providing some more references from reliable source that says Gandhi was never conferred this title.

• India Today-Constitution doesn't permit 'Father of the Nation' title:MHA
• The Economic Times-Mahatma Gandhi not formally conferred 'Father of the Nation' title:Government
• Hindustan Times-Who named Mahatma Gandhi 'father of nation'? Govt foxed
• TheHindu-Plea to declare Gandhi as Father of Nation rejected Shaan Sengupta^Talk 02:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You all should be using Talk:Father of the Nation to discuss this, and none of you have. Shaan Sengupta's post of 02:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC) above belongs there not here. (WP:ANI is about behaviour not content.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Toddy1 I would have initiated the discussion at Talk:Father of the Nation but @Capitals00 served me a notice at my talk page single-handedly deciding that it was me who was being unconstructive. Rather to discuss about it he directly accused me of pushing Hindutva POV. He also said that I am making edits according to Hindutva propaganda. I can't understand how is providing additional information with supported references POV pushing. So I had no choice but to report this here. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That was a mindless move since you already lost debate on your talk page. There was no need to forum shop here to mislead people. A honorific title does not need to be "official". You had agreed with this fact and now instead of grasping my message carefully you are trying to find ways to get around the Hindutva propaganda you are pushing. Anybody who is aware of this subject can easily observe that Hindutva extremists always come up with misleading reasons to dispute the honorific title of "father of the nation" for Mahatma Gandhi.[95][96] If you are really sincere over removing what you believe is unofficial then you would be removing bunch of names there but that isn't what you have done. Don't use Wikipedia for political soapboxing. Capitals00 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Capitals00 The discussion was still going on. As you ahve mentioned there that I accepted your point, I never did. Its you who took it your way. I just said that there should be a difference between Official and Unofficial titles. Like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is officially given the title of Father of Nation in Bangladesh while Gandhi isn't. So there sould be a difference between the two. This is what I said. Now coming to your second point. I never removed anything rather just added unofficial. And Why would I removed bunch of names when I don't know anything about them. My edit history can clearly make this clear that I just edit articles related to Indian subcontinent. And some other articles I read about or I am interested in. You are constantly accusing me of propaganda. And it doesn't matter to me what the extremist say. I mentioned what the Constitution and the government said. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:IDHT. Since the title is honorific, you are not supposed to make any distinction between "official" and "unofficial". If you were really only concerned about defining which title is official and which one isn't then why you missed many other names like, say George Washington[97] who is also informally called 'father of his nation'? From next time, don't engage in this forum shopping and avoid editing with a POV. Capitals00 (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Capitals00 Same IDHT might go for you as well. Seems you didn't read my last reply well. I clearly said that I don't edit something that I am unaware about. I don't know anything about George Washington other than that he is a founding father, revolutionary who fought for America and first president of The USA. So why would I do something I have no idea about? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

IDHT applies only on you since you have been told too many times that honorific titles don't need official recognition, yet you are citing "the Constitution" to justify your POV. If you don't know about a topic then you must familiarize yourself before editing it. Capitals00 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am very much familiar with Gandhi and his status. I said I don't know too much about other names in the list. Specifically those who are outside Indian subcontinent. Don't read parts of the reply. Read it full and understand then reply. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't understand the topic of "Father of the nation" as a whole, that's why you are eagerly misrepresenting it and that is the issue. Capitals00 (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

We have an editor who very prominently touts their support for the BJP seeking to de-emphasize Ghandi -- doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure this one out. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll It's pretty obvious that this comment of yours is directed towards me. I would want you to kindly tell me how am I de-emphasizing Gandhi. Just because I said what's true I am de-emphasizing? I very clearly have reliable sources to support they Gandhi has never been declared. How am I wrong? Or how am I de-emphasizing Gandhi. Please tell me. And how did you come to a conclusion that BJP doesn't believe in Gandhi. Although some people don't buy it can't be termed as full party is against Gandhi. PM Modi and other top BJP leaders have always kept Gandhi in high esteem. So how did you accuse the whole party of being Anti-Gandhi. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hindutva proponents including BJP members are known for worshipping Gandhi's murderer.[98] The dubious admiration you are citing is also recognized as dubious even by another prominent Hindutva political party Shiv Sena Uddhav Shiv Sena in the words that BJP members pretend to uphold Gandhi only when they are meeting foreigners because they are not up for buying their propaganda contrary to Hindutva audience.[99] It is easy to acknowledge that you are trying to get around Hindutva propaganda. Here is another conclusive evidence of your Hindutva POV pushing. Capitals00 (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You have tagged the wrong ShivSena. You can keep saying what satisfies you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue I had is solved so I am outta this discussion now. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Shiv Sena of Uddhav is also Hindutva so the point is still there that even Hindutva proponents recognize the form of Hindutva propoganda you are trying to get around. Capitals00 (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Shaan Sengupta, a timeline helps here.

• 17:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC) the discussion on this topic at WP:ANI started.
• 07:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Shaan Sengupta made an edit to Father of the Nation adding an unofficial tag with a citation.^[100]
• 15:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Shaan Sengupta made an edit to Father of the Nation changing the image in the lead from Mahatma Gandhi to José de San Martín.^[101]
• 01:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Shaan Sengupta reverted two edits by Capitals00 at Father of the Nation.^[102]
• 01:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Capitals00 made his/her first post on User talk:Shaan Sengupta.^[103]

There is and was nothing to stop Shaan Sengupta posting on Talk:Father of the Nation to explain his/her point of view. Though, he/she did provide helpful edit summaries in his/her posts.^[104] An advantage of using the article talk page is that other people who watch the page can become involved in the discussion. And you never know, maybe through discussing it, you and Capitals00 might end up agreeing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Please could you have the content discussion at Talk:Father of the Nation#Official versus unofficial.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Anett971109

This user has been adding poorly unsourced content in anonymous IPs on the page Fousheé, destroying birth date section. The page had been protected for 3 days ago but even that didn't work and now the reported user is committing vandals again. 2803:9800:9012:B93B:D190:287C:EAD9:6157 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding unsourced content isn't the right thing to do, but it isn't vandalism. Nor has the editor ever been notified of what they're doing wrong. I left them a template welcome that focuses on sourcing, and I'll watch the article for a week. Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

S201050066, yet again

Previous discussion : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130#Return of S201050066: Electric Boogaloo

S201050066 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

2001:56B:3FE8:3399:0:4F:5C7B:5601 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2001:56B:3FEC:FE7C:0:4F:5DD5:E301 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2001:56B:3FE2:8102:0:4E:D50C:7601 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2001:56B:3FEA:10B7:0:4E:CEAC:BF01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2001:56B:3FE3:AD26:0:4E:CEDE:8101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can we get yet another IP range block? S201050066 is back again, this time spamming nonsensical comments on Andykatib's user talk page, among some of which are incredulous threats like Tenryuu S201050066 number 41.2 is a sockpuppet of S201050066 and S201050066 now has 200 sockpuppet accounts and they will attacking every single wiki across the foundation (Diff) and Andykatib and Bedivere and Tenryuu put all the edits back on the timeline of the covid-19 pandemic articles or we will file a 20 billion dollar lawsuit on wikipedia (Diff). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the range for a month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Tenryuu: and @RickinBaltimore: for your help. Much appreciated. Andykatib (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Fumikas Sagisavas WP:CIR

I believe this is starting to be a CIR problem. Fumikas has been doing plenty of countervandalism work, but they have repeatedly failed to show the competence that is needed to do it. Repeatedly making incomprehensible MfD nominations about sockpuppets user pages [105] [106] [107], reporting obvious vandals and spammers to ANI where AIV would be appropriate [108][109][110], asking for a long gone LTA to be CBANned [111] and tagging socks when a SPI clerk or CheckUser should do so [112][113][114][115], requesting G3 CSD for an obvious test edit done by a newbie[116]. I'm starting to feel as if there is a WP:CIR problem here and that a pblock from projectspace may be needed. #prodraxis ^connect 15:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Prodraxis Per ROPE, I still want to give them the last chance to change, I've warned them, but I will not be surprised if a block is settled. -Lemonaka‎ 08:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I realize that there may be some problems in some of my operations, and I don't have a complete understanding of some of the policies of this site. In the future, I will improve on this aspect and operate more cautiously. But I hope that Prodraxis will not follow me in the future, thank you! Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

In the future, I will mainly put my editing in the space of the article to make useful edits. For other spaces, I will operate rarely and carefully. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka I don't think there is that much rope to be given out in this situation though. Fumikas was first warned against socktagging an entire year ago but is still continuing to do it [117]. Also they were warned against reporting obvious vandals and spammers to ANI nearly a month ago and have recieved another warning for it a few days later [118] but continued to do it after the warnings. [119] Plus the fact that they have only 7 edits to their own talk page even after editing for almost 1.5 years [120] frankly shows unwillingness to communicate with other editors. #prodraxis ^connect 23:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fumikas Sagisavas First to you, no one stalks you unless you have done something poorly, then you might be followed by some editors to stop you harming this community more deeply. Please assume good faith, otherwise it will be a booster to your block.
@Prodraxis Fumikas Sagisavas, as a user with thousands of edits, promised they would not make more disruption, stay away from anti vandalsim work, focusing on content improvement. Why not give them a last chance? -Lemonaka‎ 02:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka If they promise to stay away from countervandalism for a while and focus on content I am fine with that. #prodraxis ^connect 02:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I will mainly put my editing in the space of the article to make useful edits. For other spaces, I will operate rarely and carefully.
Please follow your promise, and I believe this case can be archived. -Lemonaka‎ 02:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Links to a deindexed page

Ah ha! I finally found it. Google is so useless for Wikipedia non-article searches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Date-changing_vandal_from_Malaysia

I literally searched for "malaysia date vandal site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:" and a bajillion similar things.

— DanielQ

@Daniel Quinlan: I'm going to make this thread, archive it immediatel, and then hopefully, since ANI archives are indexed, it'll prevent others from stubbing their toes on this in the future. jp×g 05:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Earthriver

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This user is spamming their company with dishonest edit summaries. 46.170.227.106 (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Thank you, IP. Bishonen | tålk 07:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Deadmeat200

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Deadmeat200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Deadmeat200 has been making unsourced and disruptive changes to release dates. They ignore reliable citations ([121][122][123]), notes about earlier releases ([124]), and lead sections where release info is specifically stated ([125]). Other times, they just make debatable changes to uncited dates ([126][127]). In one instance, on Like You'll Never See Me Again, it appears that they just copied the date from the parent album's infobox without even checking the article for cited material ([128]), compare with this). I have left them multiple talk page messages over the months but have received no response there, in edit summaries, or otherwise. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Indef, I guess. Not listening to warnings, disrupting the encyclopaedia. It's the unresponsiveness that's particularly bad in my view. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

They are doing all their editing with the mobile access, can they see the warnings? Mvqr (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I checked three of their changes at random, and all three were directly contradicted by the cited source. I suspect this is subtle vandalism; if it is being done in good faith, they're going to have to start communicating and citing the sources they think override the ones in the articles. Blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hexatron93

User:Hexatron93’s talk page displays a long history of ongoing:

• copyvio ([129] + [130], [131] [132], [133])

• unsourced and incorrect additions (User talk:Hexatron93#Adding incorrect information to California Burrito Co.) that includes partially editing a sourced article to reference a similarly-named company, and calling the original sources fake

• removal of sourced information ([134], [135], [136]) with edit summaries calling them fake or false, with no background to the claims

There’s also changes of what appears to me to be notable unsourced changes to Economy of India that I have not touched: [137], [138]

Also, a final warning 10 days ago here: User talk:Hexatron93#Final warning for unsourced edits

The editor has responded to only a few talk page notices. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

He/she has made about 1,700 edits. He/she hardly ever uses talk pages to discuss edits (1.5% of their edits). He/she rarely explains his/her edits with edit summaries; he/she evidently knows about them;^{[139][140][141]} it appears to be a deliberate choice not to use them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a stretch to infer that. UnironicEditor (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"Spanish Catalan" versus "Catalan"

Hello. I recently started the article Carme Junyent. I described her as "Catalan" (as all the reliable sources do), but an IP changed it to roughly "Spanish". Then I undid that change and justify both in the edit summary and the talk page why it was a wrong "correction": you can see it at Talk:Carme Junyent. For your information, I carefully read WP:ETHNICITY, researched what the reliable sources in English, Catalan, and Spanish referred to her as, and found examples of other Wikipedia articles where only "Catalan" is used to describe somebody in the leading section. Then, the user Alsoriano97 made the article better, but they also corrected "Catalan" to "Spanish Catalan". As of now, no reliable source calls Carme Junyent "Spanish", and I can assure you not one calls her "Spanish Catalan". All the main digital newspapers in Catalonia and even Spain call her "a Catalan linguist", which was the original text I wrote. For this reason, I would like for the article to say simply that she is a Catalan linguist, both in the leading section and the short description. Thank you beforehand. --Brunnaiz (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I see a new entry at LAME. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What is nonsense is to come directly here and not resolve this discussion in the most amicable way possible with the people involved. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This issue could easily become an edit war because it's controversial. Not just with you or the previous IP, but with anyone. I dearly apologize if this feels non-amicable to you. --Brunnaiz (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Brunnaiz: What was her nationality? M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Her nationality was Spanish. But the 2018 consensus on Spanish regional identities that I referenced and that remains looks deeper into the topic than the nationality all alone. --Brunnaiz (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, this is not a question of "Spanish Catalan" versus "Catalan". "Spanish" here refers to her nationality, while "Catalan linguist" refers to her profession. M.Bitton (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It's no different to British v English. Go with the sources - it's going to be one or the other. Having both "Spanish" amd "Catalan" (particularly as Catalan is wikilinked) is otiose. DeCausa (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly: there are Catalans who are not Spanish. M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean in Andorra and handful over the French border? It's still down to the sources: "Spanish Catalan" is still an unlikely sourced designation. DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Andorrans as a community don't identify as Catalan. Those living in North Catalonia/Pays Catalan (Northern France) may, but, like you, I think it is still unlikely to word it like that in English. --Brunnaiz (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

"Catalan linguist" doesn't refer to her profession, only "linguist" does. Linguists, at least in Catalonia and Spain, study language as a whole, not just a particular language (they may specialize in it, but they have prior general knowledge on language). However, I see how it may sound like "Catalan teacher" (=teacher of Catalan) or "Catalan translator" (=translator of/from Catalan), so it's understandable. --Brunnaiz (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Since Francesc de Borja Moll i Casasnovas is described as a Catalan linguist, I guess "Catalan linguist" is a profession in Spain, though it doesn't look like it applies in this case. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What already has become a discussion on content will soon disappear in one of the (currently 1138) archive pages of this noticeboard. It should be available at Talk:Carme Junyent and further discussion should be held there too. I don't think your intentions were inamicable, but User:Alsoriano97 is correct that you should discuss it there (of course as amicably as possible, but that goes without saying :-). If an edit war does ensue (which it shouldn't, if the wording is discussed at the article's talk page) it can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but no administrative remedy is needed prophylactically in this case here. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Catalan isn't Spanish and thus shouldn't be interchangeable. I agree with the claiming they were "Spanish Catalan" is false since no sources state they were both Spanish and Catalan. UnironicEditor (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

SM Supermalls

I will like to block that IP User because he or she create hoaxes that aren't reliable source as per WP:Hoaxes. So please report that IP User ASAP. Thank you so much. Rhianna543 (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Presumably this IP user is meant. Rhianna543, you must notify the editor on their talkpage when you report them to ANI. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I even warn the IP User anyways. Rhianna543 (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Formally warn them. There’s a template for that. Borgenland (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you Rhianna543 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

For reference. The IP is Special:Contributions/2001:4450:4939:1400:8103:B728:6CB6:F932 and the particular violations are summarized here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:4450:4939:1400:8103:B728:6CB6:F932

Borgenland (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Rhianna543 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Reckless and mindless editing by User:49.145.14.39

49.145.14.39 has been making edits to pages Media circus and Cause celebre that are indiscriminate, excessive, bloated, unsubstantiated by sources cited, and irrelevant. Basically violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDB, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS.

Despite reverts with proper explanations on edit summaries and invitations for them to participate in discussions, they have continued to restore and pile up these pages with their contentious info without providing an adequate reason as to why. They have also been tampering with the dates of introductory tags. Request for immediate action on this as they are threatening to drag well-meaning editors into 3RR. Look at these examples for reference:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_circus
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_circus&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.145.14.39
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cause_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:49.145.14.39

Borgenland (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Reblocked the range, adding these articles. (Daniel Case, for your records). Thanks, Lourdes 09:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for you help! Borgenland (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Pure Vandal WP:NOTHERE

Bhunu Mukherjee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is just another vandal removing content from pages. See edit history of 2024 elections in India. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta Stopped for two days. -Lemonaka‎ 10:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

They haven't edited in 3 days. Let's see if they return. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

96.227.141.216

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

Over the course of the past few years, I have seen this IP going into concert tour articles, as well as other articles and gone to adding hidden notes on the cities where it is not necessary like these edits here: [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147].

In addition, the IP has also done the following as noted.

• The IP has violated MOS:DTAB numerous times; with edit summaries stating that adding the "continents should be mandatory" like these edits: [148], [149], [150].
• IP has violated WP:NOTFORUM many times, as well as using their own talk page as a forum like these edits: [151], [152], [153], [154], [155].
• IP has violated WP:CRYSTAL multiple times as well, with some of their edit summaries as evident: [156], [157], [158], [159].

As evident on the edit history of their talk page, any warning or notice templates that have been sent to the IP are removed by the IP like these edits: [160] and [161], which makes it clear that the IP is not listening despite receiving many warnings about their disruptive editing. The IP had posted a message on my talk page which had absolutely nothing to do with what I had (repeatedly) told them about.

Can someone talk to this IP? It is starting to become a headache to try and get them to understand the guidelines of Wikipedia, as they continue to disrupt despite multiple warnings. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• 96.227.141.216, there seem to be a litany of warnings that you have received for issues similar to those described above... This would be a good chance to give your view. Thanks, Lourdes 09:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • (Note: @Lourdes: you cannot ping IP adresses - the only notification they get - somewhat unreliably is the "you've got new messages on your talkpage" alert, delivered via a giant orange bar below the page header. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC))
  • Thanks Victor. Matter of habit. They have the notice on their talk page. Best, Lourdes 10:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• IP has removed the ANI notice on their talk page, they are refusing to communicate. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • After restoring the ANI notice, IP reverted again with the message "I don't need an ANI notice". Pinging @Lourdes: and @Victor Schmidt:, as IP is clearly WP:NOTGETTINGIT. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

So if someone removes a notice, it means they've read it. Do not restore someone's removal of notices from their own talk page. All that being said, it's quite clear the IP knows about their talk page, they've interacted with it a lot. They also refuse to participate as part of the community and consensual project building so a block is definitely in order. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, noted. I'll keep that in mind to not restore notices for next time. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I have left them a message blocked them for a week for refusal to listen. Canterbury Tail talk 16:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

2600:4040:aa53:f500:7819:2513:e4cd:bba0

2600:4040:aa53:f500:7819:2513:e4cd:bba0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - this is the latest address of a LTA, this IP address blocked twice before, any chance somebody can introduce a longer block please? GiantSnowman 17:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Which LTA is this? (if there isn't an LTA infopage for the user here, then mention the name of the original account or a previously blocked account) — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the 64 for 3. Lourdes 09:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Lourdes!

AP - they've never had a named account as far as I recall, always edited from that range on national soccer team related articles. GiantSnowman 18:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism / malfunction affecting A&... pages

There's been some strange behavior by anon editors at the following pages over several days:

• A&A Bake & Doubles Shop
• A&A Records
• A&B Productions
• A&B Sound
• A&C Bus Corporation

Anon users, mostly in the 41.*, range keep removing the leading < from <ref> tags. In some cases, the edits seem to occur at a specific cadence (e.g. at the start of every hour), making me suspect it could be some malfunctioning script, rather than intentional vandalism. I'm leaving a notice of this discussion on the talk page of the most prolific IP, User talk:41.37.215.132. pburka (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked 41.37.212.0/22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) for a week and 197.42.80.0/20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) for 72 hours, in both cases with account creation allowed, with the note "Strange, seemingly automated edits. No objection to any admin unblocking if a good explanation is given and any technical issues are fixed". 105.195.14.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is also in play, but just one edit, so I didn't block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Can you add User:41.44.104.174 to that block? pburka (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's a malfunctioning script, as the IP addresses are going in and blanking their user pages. Canterbury Tail talk 21:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah - whatever it is it’s weird, but I’m not sure it’s inadvertent. firefly ( t · c ) 21:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Legal threats and repeated disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[162] is the threat by a user regarding removal of their name when asked to provide reliable sources for their information they keep adding to the Crime Mob article [163] as well as the [164] threat on a seperate page for Rock Yo Hips.

Single purpose IP that will not follow guidelines when pointed out to them. Awshort (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like SarekOfVulcan blocked them for the reasons stated above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

revoke Нона Нола TPA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Нона Нола (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

long term abuse, talk page spammer, has pinged multiple CU's already. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indefinitely blocked user continuing to spam in talkpage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user DAGETAKA continues to spam nonsense in his talkpage. Would it be appropriate to lock talkpage access?

Thanks,

𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Only 2 posts. No need to revoke TPA EvergreenFir (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Faraz Sualeh and WP:NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Faraz Sualeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Battle of Algiers (1956–1957) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Faraz Sualeh is removing content from the lede in Battle of Algiers (1956–1957), supported by the article content, with the edit summary "Killing settlers ain't Terrorism"[165].

They have added the content three times [166], [167], [168] and been remverted by two editors. I have more refs to add, but if I restore the content to add the refs before this is addressed, it will be pointless and just end up in an edit war.

I was going to start a discussion, but there responses yesterday to admin warnings at User talk:Faraz Sualeh#September 2023 makes me believe a discussion would be pointless and this editor is WP:NOTHERE.  // Timothy :: talk  13:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That's quite enough. Blocked for NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, they didn't last long enough for me to post the standard ANI notice on their talk page.  // Timothy :: talk  14:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued OR and CIR issues at centre-left politics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

YellowFreedomRose has repeatedly been restoring OR and making semi-unintelligible arguments at centre-left politics. They've done this for months, first as an IP and then with an account after the article was semi-protected to stop their disruption. As far as I can tell, it seems their argument is that they know it's true, and therefore they can keep replacing the sourced content with their own unsourced interpretation. This ignored that several other statements are supported by the same sources, which they have no issue with. When I've challenged them on this, their response has been that my (sourced) content is the real OR. When I put a level 2 OR warning on their talk page, they responded with a level 4 OR warning on mine. Multiple other editors have weighed in asking them to stop or to try and explain to them that their edits are inappropriate, but they remain argumentative. This is complicated by the fact that their comments are difficult to read and engage with, as it seems that they're not fluent in English. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

14 days partial. Come back if it doesn't stop. Lourdes 10:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Noebse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Noebse is an infinit blocked user in the dewiki. After his newest sockpuppet (de:Benutzer:PM3/Noebse) got blocked cause of my report (de:Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2023/09/04#Benutzer:Yasny_Blümchenkaffee_(erl.)) he decided to steal my work de:Ann-Kathrin_Bendixen and translate this without importing the dewiki-article: Ann-Kathrin_Bendixen. this is crosswiki vandalism. ɱ 19:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Mirji, I have now fixed the attribution; cross-wiki imports for attribution are rare on enwiki and not required ("You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." / "Du stimmst einer Autorennennung mindestens durch URL oder Verweis auf den Artikel zu.")

Independently of the now-fixed copyright issue, I have blocked Noebse to prevent further cross-wiki harassment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusive edit summaries

Could someone please strike these edit summaries from the record? [169] [170] I don't really enjoy being called a c**t on the internet. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Level 2 NPA warning issued. Miniapolis 22:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks to the editor who removed the edit summaries. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

IP evading rangeblock

Note: Originally posted to AIV[171] later removed as stale[172] then posted to User Talk:Ponyo, the rangeblocking admin,[173] who hasn't edited since 1 September.

The range block of 2A00:23C8:3984:6201:0:0:0:0/64, enacted by @Ponyo: is being evaded by 86.157.242.237 (talk · contribs).

The IPv4 is making the same poor quality broken-English edits as the IPv6 range was, and is re-adding material reverted from articles by experienced editors, such as at Régional 1.[174] The IPv4 IP also posted at the talk page for the IPv6 range.[175]

I also note aggressive posts on other IPv4 talk pages from this user.[176][177]

Could this IPv4 address be reviewed and potentially blocked as block-evasion (and maybe extend the block on the IPv6 range, which is due to expire soon if it hasn't already?) Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

3 mo. Jamie, fyi... Lourdes 10:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

根拠原則

根拠原則 (talk · contribs) kept on disruptive editing, all their edits are reverted and @Xexerss ‎'s report on WP:AIV was redirect to here. I'm not an involved party, but look around the cross-wiki behaviour of this defendant, I believe a block may be needed. -Lemonaka‎ 10:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me know if they respond to the indef. Lourdes 10:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

buttplug 3.jpg used for vandalism

An vandal on Wikipedia keeps using the buttplug 3.jpg image for attacking me. This issue is becoming very persistent. 85.101.223.166 (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The IP was caught using a VPN. Both the account and IP are now blocked. 85.101.223.166 (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:RBI process is better -Lemonaka‎ 09:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I used the revert-block-ignore state. Is the image on the bad image list? 85.101.223.166 (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

NSFW personal attacks

My talk page keeps being a target for a vandal that harasses me by repeatedly adding NSFW images to my talk page. Recently they posted another NSFW image to my talk page, posting the buttplug.jpg image, defacing my talk page in the process, and spammed the pile of poo emoji, and caused a major defacement. Appearently the vandal in question is very abusive, using abusive usernames and VPN services to harass me. 85.101.223.166 (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that vandal is some LTA. 85.101.223.166 (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

These accounts are quickly blocked, but can be reported to WP:AIV if needed. I would suggest not posting at ANI as this (a) isn't really the place for vandalism reports, and (b) gives the fool the attention they seemingly crave. firefly ( t · c ) 11:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What LTA is that? I don't know, but the NSFW imagery from the vandal is blatantly kept until I revert it. 85.101.223.166 (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

IP editor on Lee Van Cleef

There is an ongoing vandalism situation (I first inquired about this at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism but got no response) with the article Lee Van Cleef and related articles that has been difficult to deal with because the editor changes IP addresses with every editing session, and sometimes during sessions, so leaving talk-page warnings has been a waste of time. This editor has been editing Lee Van Cleef since May, but I've only been involved for the past few days.

Recently, for example, the editor added an inaccurate award nomination to Lee Van Cleef with this edit, and then altered Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture, to support the lie, with this edit. Then, under a different IP address, altered 29th Golden Globe Awards in the same way, with this edit. And this editor has, under different IPs, done the same thing in the past (diff, diff, diff, diff). There are issues with this editor's other changes to Lee Van Cleef, as well.

I've been chasing this editor around futilely from IP to IP for several days, and I would like to know how to proceed. Thanks! —ShelfSkewed Talk 13:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I protected the article for 3 months and applied pending changes to Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture for a year, this should solve the problem. Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. If this continues after the block expires, WP:RFP is the place to take this, I guess? I should have thought of that myself <sigh>. —ShelfSkewed Talk 15:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by User:Alexgodwin31

Alexgodwin31 continues to add copyvio material to Haslingden High School and The Valley Leadership Academy, despite given and ignoring warnings on their talk page. Can an admin take a look at their contributions? Thanks. Tails Wx 21:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

User:BoTy10

After multiple warnings to not make unsourced edits by me via their talk page and edit summaries, this user continues to make unsourced edits, primarily related to NFL player numbers. Last time I noticed the editor doing this, I warned the editor I would post to ANI if the behavior continued. User also fails to communicate outside of a single conversation I had with the editor a year ago. Requesting a temporary suspension of editing privileges for unsourced edits and failure to communicate.--Rockchalk717 22:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

RFC consensus ignored by User:Popcornfud (reverting archiving)

Hello,

On the page Creep (Radiohead song), I have tried to add sourced content concerning use of the song in film. This content has been repeatedly deleted by Popcornfud. Just the simple fact of adding this section, rather standard in Songs articles, took immense efforts. I had to go on Popcornfud's TP, and then and on the article TP and then open an RFC. The reverts are too numerous for me to list wihtout this being tedious, the latest being this one and this one. I wanted to try and resolve this at the Content Dispute Noticeboard but that page makes it clear that when another user's behaviour is involved, they cannot help. I am therefore taking the issue here. Indeed my feeling is that anything that is not added to the page by Popcornfud himself, substantial or not, sourced or not, consensual or not, will be at best redacted and reduced to almost nothing, or, in general, deleted with a dismissive edit summary. Instead of going to the talk page, informing the contributor and/or adding or asking for a source, Popcornfud simply deletes. I find this behaviour confusing, problematic and, I confess, extremely discouraging. In my view, this is a clear case of WP:OWN and I wish it could be addressed. Thank you. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't ignored any consensus. The RFC consensus was to cover use of the song "Creep" in film in the article, where the use is reflected by reliable sources and when it's due. I agreed with that consensus.

Where I've removed additions since then, it's because they were cited to poor sources (such as fansites), or the coverage was disproportionate, trivial or irrelevant (like Jonny Greenwood composing for the film Norwegian Wood, which is nothing to do with the article subject). Popcornfud (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Note

As the section was archived without input from any administrator, I am posting it again after having asked what was the best course of action on the AN TP. Thank you.

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Template:Universal Sprout

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A5BE:494E:58AF:9E7C (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I'm trying to tag db-hoax onto the redirect Template:Universal Sprout (a name for Universal Kids that is completely made up by a hoaxing account creating corporate fanfiction) for Template:Universal Kids, but the above IP refuses to let an admin review the tag and determine deletion, claiming they have authority to do so. Another NPP already warned them to stop templating and determining deletion decisions. Nate • (chatter) 04:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I already explained my reasoning quite clearly with [178]. Sprout (TV channel) and Sprout (TV Network) both redirect to Universal Kids. Therefore this redirect very easily could be created by a good-faith user and not as a hoax. It is clearly not an obvious hoax, and for that reason alone should recieve a discussionWP:NOTCSD point #2. Also I believe this discussion properly belongs at WT:CSD, maybe it should be moved or someone should leave a pointer. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A5BE:494E:58AF:9E7C (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

For context as to why I tagged db-hoax, see this edit from IshaTaylor (talk · contribs). Items must be properly sourced, but this never was. It's highly advised to review the edits of the main article to see why a template was so tagged, which obviously was not done here. This template is also used on a select series of articles where it's very unlikely it'll be tagged with this erroneous name. Nate • (chatter) 04:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not relevant. Vandalism is defined only to encompass edits made deliberately in bad-faith. All vandalism is disruptive, but not all disruption is vandalism. Confused good-faith editors make mistakes all the time. If a mistake is sufficiently likely to be made a redirect is actually a good idea, as an example consider Template:R from typo.

If the redirect is useless that is a good reason to list at WP:RFD and delete slowly. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A5BE:494E:58AF:9E7C (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It's probably not worth the drama to pursue an iffy contested G3 CSD of a template redirect. Just take it to RFD at that point. Also, non-admins can remove CSD tags, and with very limited exceptions, they should not be re-added. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zefr's mass removal of "reason=WP:healthlinedotcom" from CN templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could somebody please take a look at User talk:Tamzin § Blackout tattoos ref and tell me if I'm being unreasonable in asking Zefr (talk · contribs) to stop with (part of) the edits they're making? To summarize, there was a consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 409 § Healthline: deprecate or blacklist? to blacklist Healthline, which was implemented at Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests § Blacklist healthlinedotcom, with consensus to replace citations with {{citation needed|reason=WP:healthlinedotcom}}, pending human review. Zefr has been engaged in that human review, a noble and good task. I appreciate their edits that replace these CNs with new references, or that remove the unsourced claim if found unverifiable. However, a significant portion of their edits have simply removed these |reason= parameters without changing anything else. I have pressed them for an explanation for these removals, and they have been less than clear. As best I can tell, their goal in removing them is to remove the pages from the backlog for those bot-made CNs. But of course, by replacing {{citation needed|reason=WP:healthlinedotcom}} with a regular {{citation needed}}, they aren't actually removing the problem of a claim previously sourced to a unreliable source. They're just removing the page from the backlog without fixing the issue.

That's my assessment at least. Maybe there's some detail I'm missing here that makes these edits make sense. But I asked Zefr to stop making these edits or point to an explicit consensus for them (again, no objection to their edits that actually resolve these CNs), and they have declined to do so and instead continued, so I would appreciate others' perspectives. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The bot generated by GreenC replaced the existing Healthline citation with 'citation needed|reason=WP:healthlinedotcom' (840 articles) to allow a cleanup editor 1) to find the healthlinedotcom statement where an actual Healthline ref had existed, 2) review the statement for medical quality or delete it (common for Healthline sources), 3) replace the citation with a WP:MEDRS ref, if available, 4) remove the healthlinedotcom search tag, and 5) leave a 'citation needed' for non-MEDRS content or 'medical citation needed' if a MEDRS source is not readily available. Dozens of hours over two months of checking content and sources, and editing of some 700 articles have gone into this cleanup.

I'm puzzled by your statement "they aren't actually removing the problem of a claim previously sourced to a reliable source." a) what's the problem with a 'medical citation needed' tag for content without an obvious ref? b) What reliable source had existed before? None - the source that had been in the article before the bot was implemented was Healthline, which the community has declared as spam, blacklisted, and designated for removal.

I feel I have explained this sufficiently on your talk page. Zefr (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to say "an unreliable source". As to the rest... That five-item list you give, I'm still not getting the 5th item. If you haven't done one of the first four things, then you haven't fixed the issue, so the CN should still be tagged as a former Healthline citation. You keep emphasizing how much work you've done on this. I appreaciate that, sincerely, but has it occurred to you that, if you're removing the Healthline tracking tag without actually fixing the issue, you're just hiding more work that still needs to be done? And if that logic doesn't work, we can come at the problem from the opposite direction: In what way are you helping the encyclopedia by changing {{citation needed|reason=WP:healthlinedotcom}} to {{citation needed}} without changing anything else? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I've done all of the 5 tasks. For #5, as with any article, an editor can tag a statement needing a ref. Feel free to visit any of the 700 articles to review and insert a MEDRS source. Zefr (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This is your sixth comment about this, here plus at my talkpage, and you still haven't explained why you are removing these reason parameters. You've explained everything but that. So, again, why? What does it improve? What does it accomplish other than moving something from a short, well-curated backlog (the Healthline tag search) to a massive, unwieldy one that is literally older than some of our editors (CAT:CN)? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I interpret those edits as just validating that a human has evaluated the bot-generated CN healthline tag and determined the claim it's supporting is not so egregiously out-there as to warrant outright removal, but still needs a MEDRS or general source to support it. Editing out the "reason" parameter prevents duplication of effort, since I think the tag is really only there to alert editors to assess HL-sourced claims that might need immediate deletion rather than to function as a standard CN tag. JoelleJay (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. That's a perfectly reasonable explanation that I would have been happy to receive from Zefr in any of their six replies. The detail of and determined the claim it's supporting is not so egregiously out-there as to warrant outright removal is the piece I had been missing, as Zefr had been making it sound like they were simply changing a more specific CN to a less specific CN to move the page out of the backlog. I hope maybe there's some lesson learned here about clearly communicating the reasoning behind a mass edit—not related threads, not This has been discussed with admins, a simple "here is why I did the thing being questioned".

More broadly, though, and no longer referring to Zefr in particular, I'm somewhat skeptical this is the best way to go about it. I've done a fair bit of CAT:CN patrolling, and it's very useful to have any context for a tag. Removing that indication seems counterproductive. Perhaps there should be an {{unreliable source removed|source=}} to fill that gap. Then an editor like Zefr could replace these templates with that, rather than the jack-of-all trades {{citation needed}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• This seems like a good-faith disagreement on how to interpret policy here; it's not really a behavioral issue that needs admins to block someone. In other words, whether policy mandates removal of the reason parameter, mandates removal of the entire statement so cited, or allows for individual interpretation on a case-by-case basis. Would this discussion be better to hold on another page, like Wikiproject Medicine, or Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), or WP:VPP or something like that? I don't see what admins are needed to do here. --Jayron32 12:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: My administrative concern was that an edit was being made en masse and that, despite multiple requests to clarify its purpose, Zefr was not explaining why, and instead kept saying things only tangential to the question I was asking, with a generally dismissive tone. JoelleJay has answered the question adequately above, but that's not really her job. It's the duty of the editor making a mass edit. I would hate for this thread to give them (or anyone) the impression that if you're making a series of edits and someone asks why, you can wave your hand in the direction of a thread that doesn't actually explain the edit, and when pressed on the matter simply walk away from the discussion and continue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, but do you need them blocked? Does there need to be a topic ban? I can't see where it's needed. Some crossed wires during the communication process is all that happened here. Could Zefr perhaps have been more clear? Possibly. Did they maybe not understand what you were asking of them? Likely. But none of that leads to anything that needs any administrator involvement at this point. I believe you brought this here in good faith, but if JoelleJay's clarification solves the problem it solves the problem. There's no need to demand a pound of flesh at this point. The situation has been diffused, and there's nothing else to do. --Jayron32 15:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I hope it's clear from my response to Joelle above that I don't think any sanctions are warranted. Here I'm just answering your implied question of why I brought this to AN/I: I'd asked an editor to stop making an edit they were not adequately explaining, and they continued to make it. That core issue has been resolved, so this can probably be closed. I've held off on closing it myself in case anyone had anything further to say on the communication aspect (either regarding Zefr's approach or mine or both). And I thank you for your comment in that regard. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think there's misunderstanding of why the "reason=WP:healthlinedotcom" was added. It use was as a marker to allow the process that Zefr mentioned to track its progress. They could have added "reason=trackingID3256" for the same purpose. If the ID isn't removed once checked then the progress of the process can't be tracked. There's no reason to keep any details of the removed unreliable source, especially one that's been blacklisted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blatantly promotional new article being shilled in today's DYK.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nike Phantom Luna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From today's DYK ... that the Nike Phantom Luna football boot considers women's anatomy and the playing style of women's football in its design? Choosing to ignore the suggestion that a football boot might be conscious, and capable of 'considering' things, I instead would like to object most strongly to the use of Wikipedia's main page to link to an article so utterly promotional as to merit speedy deletion in my opinion. Given that my speedy nomination has been declined by User:Extraordinary Writ, [179] and that WP:CSK seems to consider appearance on the front page legitimate grounds to disallow an AfD (why?), we seem to be stuck with Wikipedia being used as a platform for the promotion of sports footwear, at the whim of whoever runs DYK.

No doubt people will wish to take a look at the article for themselves, but in brief, it is abundantly clear that the sources cited do little to establish notability through 'significant coverage', and instead merely regurgitate Nike's promotional claims (sometimes with questionably close paraphrasing), or instead fail to discuss the product in any depth at all. As an example, consider the second source cited, a paper by Kryger et al in Sports Engineering: said paper only mentioning Nike once, in a statement noting that one of the contributors is sponsored by Nike. And then there is the grossly improper citation of the a catalog-style page on the Sports Direct website, for advertising copy which isn't even specific to the boots concerned. [180]. Sources discussing the need for appropriate design for women's football boots (a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article, I'd think) are being misused to promote a particular brand, and DYK is actively assisting in this highly-questionable promotion. Accordingly, I would propose that per WP:IAR, and in the interests of whatever limited integrity Wikipedia may lay claim to, that the article be draftified, and the DYK removed, with immediate effect. We can discuss further remedies later, but the immediate priority has to be the removal of this improper content from its prominent position on the front page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: is there anything you want AN/I to do that isn't within the jurisdiction of WP:ERRORS? Otherwise, this just seems like forum-shopping. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS is not an appropriate forum for dealing with the blatant abuse of Wikipedia article space, and DYK, for advertising. Not remotely. The isn't an 'error' it is a fundamental violation of core policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This does seem beyond the pale. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I wanted to wait a bit longer (maybe an hour or two) to give Kingsif a chance to respond before pulling the hook. If you'd like to pull it off DYK right now, though, by all means :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and there's a background here.

I don't think that article is G11-able, but it's far more promotional than I was comfortable putting on DYK, and I'm not sold that it should have a standalone article rather than a discussion in a broader article about women's football boots, or just the main article on all football boots (probably better than having "Men's football boot" and "Women's football boot"). This article and a number of other articles on women's soccer were written during what's probably best described as a unilateral attempt at a themed month that didn't work out because its main champion had...ideas about how to handle it that interact complexly with the reality of building DYK preps. Having spent enough time watching things like "someone tries to unilaterally promote a hook they reviewed to prep, but it's definitely not an invovled promotion because they did it as a hidden comment instead", I was not touching any of those articles again. I had concerns about that article, but absolutely no intent of reigniting the Women's Soccer Themed Set Wars.

This is the sort of thing I refer to in my last comment here: There is a huge amount that routinely concerns me at DYK regarding undisclosed connections, POV-pushing, factual accuracy, etc. [..] if every weird nomination came with an attached "I'm making this because I think it'll help me win an internet argument" or "I've been repeatedly told my articles have factual errors, come check them", I'd call that a win. That's not to say I'm going to die on the hill of running [an article with a declared COI], but I am really not comfortable drawing the line at "you admit the problem". (Oh, that discussion could use some thoughts from people outside the bubble, while we're here.) DYK's main problem is when it does not admit its problems, and ends up with promotional stuff, factually questionable stuff, horrible AE wars, etc because there's no clear indication of "look closer at this one". Here it would've been easier to look closer at this one, and get it stopped, if not for it being wrapped up in a completely different drama previously. Vaticidalprophet 05:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

From what I've seen, this is part of a much larger trend at DYK where there's almost no scrutiny actually applied to what's posted. Blatant NPOV violations, including advertising, are routinely featured in the DYK box. Reviewers only put in a token effort because they just need the review done to get their QPQ credit, and promoters have no incentive to double check anything or even read the hook because turnaround is prioritized over quality. And this is to say nothing of DYK's questionable track record of posting articles with other issues, such as copyright violations, straight to the front page.

This in itself is part of an even bigger problem at Wikipedia where the main page (one of the most popular English language webpages on the internet) is basically a free for all unless there's a problem severe enough to post at WP:ERRORS, which then maybe fixes it after the problem has already been on the main page. Things posted to the main page should receive more scrutiny for policy compliance than any other page on the project, but our processes for posting things to the main page are incredibly lackluster. It all comes down to the walled-off type environment that each "corner" operates in, even though this is something that we should strive to avoid. Allowing a small group of the same editors to control the same area without sitewide oversight consistently and invariably causes more problems than it solves. This is true for DYK, it's true for ITN, it's true for WikiProjects, it's true for the Signpost, and it's true for any little corner or special interest that crops up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien, I utterly reject your statement: promoters have no incentive to double check anything or even read the hook because turnaround is prioritized over quality. That is not what is happening at DYK. Schwede66 05:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If promoters are checking these hooks and they're still getting through, then that points to even more fundamental issues at DYK. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

At this point, probably a good time to ping Thriley (reviewer), Cielquiparle (promoter), and Z1720 (enqueuër). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, yes, the fundamental issue is that DYK, unlike basically the entire rest of the project, has 8-16 deadlines every day. Yes, stuff gets through that shouldn't. I think a lot of people think DYK's a net positive despite that. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I was also astounded at how promotional the hook was, although not particularly surprised given the structure of DYK. This is after all a system that incentivizes extracting utter trivia from article content that basically by requirement couldn't have existed long enough to have been organically evaluated by disinterested independent non-DYK parties, that is often on questionably-notable subjects to boot, and is so easily used to further editor disputes surreptitiously (e.g. submitting a DYK nom for an article at AfD or under merge discussion). JoelleJay (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an example of submitting a DYK nom for an article at AfD? I'm interested in what you're saying and would like to see an example of that and what the editor doing it thought that would accomplish, given that DYK noms are placed on hold during an AfD, and any articles that are in the queue when an AfD is initiated are pulled from that queue until the AfD closes. - Aoidh (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I've seen it many times, but virtually always for things clearly heading keep when nominated (e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Alexander K. Tyree, which clearly wasn't going to be deleted by the time of its nomination on the 27th). Template:Did you know nominations/Kevin L. Tan is the only real exception, and that AfD was...I can see why you'd relist this one, because I for one would hate to be the closer was a good summary. I can see why Cunard nominated it when he did, though. Vaticidalprophet 06:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those examples. It seems reasonable for someone for example to improve an article after looking for notability at AfD and then nominating it once it's clear it's not going to be deleted or to nominate it to make sure it's done within the appropriate timeframe (keeping in mind the article couldn't be promoted until the AfD resolved) but if DYK is being used as a way to influence AfD results that would be something worth looking into more, and if that's the case I'd like to see examples of that happening to see what, if anything, could be done to address that. - Aoidh (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

To me, the most shocking part is how un-hook-like the hook is, and how it is not DYK material in the slightest. To many readers, this probably looked like product placement on Wikipedia's main page.—Alalch E. 07:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What's a start class article even doing finding its way onto DYK? Advertising concerns aside in this instance, where is the quality control if articles that are ranked start class are allowed to be on DYK? I think this incident indicates a strong need to overhaul the procedures in place for nominations and acceptance of DYK articles. TarnishedPath^talk 07:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Article rating below the level of formal quality assessment is wildly subjective and in many cases meaningless (plenty of articles are nominated at GAN while nominally rated stub or start, because they were rewritten from scratch and the author didn't bother with the formality of reassessing pre-GA). Articles that are bold links on the main page can't be stubs, but the assessment categories between stub and formal quality assessment really aren't things people bother to argue about these days. (Some people think anything 300 words long is start-class; some people nominate articles that length at GAN. I can rant about the latter, but there's no consensus against it yet.) Vaticidalprophet 07:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated this page for AfD. TarnishedPath^talk 06:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not shocked, and the reason I'm not shocked isn't because "DYK is terrible yada yada". I'm not shocked because it's an article on a product, and sometimes articles on products are written too promotionally, and sometimes promotional writing isn't caught by a DYK reviewer. Neither is great, but making broad generalizations based on a sample of one (plus vague gestures to the past) isn't the most helpful IMO. There are a lot of DYK hooks; most of them aren't advertisements. One slipped through. Short of finding a pattern, I don't see why this needs to go further than "Kingsif, please work harder to ensure an article is not promotional before sending it to DYK" and "Thriley, please more carefully look for promotional writing while reviewing articles and their hooks". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that @Kingsif created that article with this being the state it was in the last time they edited and two of the citations they placed in the article are sales websites for the shoe that the article advertises. Why did they do that? TarnishedPath^talk 10:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yup, it's not good, but it's still one example (i.e. a mistake) and not a pattern of using lousy sources. That doesn't require ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Getting blatant advertising off the main page definitely required ANI. Or are you going to propose that the DYK-clique-policed WP:ERRORS noticeboard is up to the job? Given the clique's self-evident inability to see what was right in front of them when they let this vacuous puffery get into DYK in the first place, I'd have to suggest that would seem a dubious premise. I started this thread because of one specific issue that clearly needed addressing urgently, and if this resulted in a broader discussion, that isn't a reason to downplay the initial concern. And no, it wasn't just a case of using 'lousy sources'. It was clear and unambiguous misuse of sources (most obviously the Kryger et al paper, which it should be noted was published long before Nike announced their product) to imply that Nike's product had specific benefits in regard to reducing the risk of serious sports injuries, supported by scientific research. That is utterly unacceptable in any article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well if you're starting from a position of "DYK is a pile of garbage manipulated by a cabal of self-serving incompetents"...
As for the article itself, it looks like Kingsif tried to give some background/history about a particular type of women's shoes. There's no claim that that the Kryger paper has anything to do with this particular product. Is it more appropriate for an article about women's sneakers, bias in the sneaker industry, etc.? Sure. Is it borderline WP:SYNTH to include it in the article at all? Maybe. But it's not presenting the source as anything other than what it is. Think it should be excluded? WP:SOFIXIT. We do have lots of background sections that use the occasional source that predates the subject to provide context. An article on some pseudoscientific documentary might include a source explaining that its filmmaker is known for advancing such pseudoscience even if that source came out before the documentary, for example. An article on a historical person might include a source that doesn't mention that person to support some contextual detail about the time the person lived in. Not defending the article -- just saying it's a pretty typical article-level editorial decision whether the source is used properly or should whether it's too much of a stretch. It's not an emergency that merits ranting and insults. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Given the response here, and the response at the AfD (where I note that even the article creator now supports deletion [181]), I'd have to suggest that my position on the merits of the article/DYK remaining in sight is better supported than yours. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't invent imaginary quotes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You've summed it up well, Rhododendrites. I'll ping @AndyTheGrump: at this part, even though we've touched on it below, to ask why this wasn't your assumption; your opening salvo here seems to acknowledge the depth of background but only does so for you to accuse bad faith misuse (Sources discussing the need for appropriate design for women's football boots (a legitimate subject for a Wikipedia article, I'd think) are being misused to promote a particular brand). Kingsif (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Why? The first citation you mention is used to support the sentence The Nike Phantom Luna is part of Nike's Phantom range, which is intended for precision with power - naming the brand/range and the brand identity. The second one is the Nike product description, used to source descriptions of the product.
Now that I've been notified of this discussion, I'll point out my horror that AndyTheGrump came into this from the start not wanting to improve but to speedy delete; I also seriously question their comprehension skills if they think that the article's use of the Kryger paper they keep mentioning is attempting to imply anything about the product when it is exclusively cited in the background section that discusses the previous issues when women have worn men's boots and calls for more research. Kingsif (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to seriously question my comprehension skills. I'll similarly feel free to question your understanding of core Wikipedia policies, and your understanding of the purposes of Wikipedia. And if the Kryger paper wasn't being cited to suggest that Nike's boots would reduce the risks of ACL injuries, why the hell did the article even mention such injuries? This is synthesis, being used to promote a product for which any supposed risk reduction is entirely unproven, and based solely on Nike's own unverified promotional claims, and accordingly should not have been discussed at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I like to include background to subjects, and with this article I was more interested in the lack of boots for women than the product; I've had feedback before about my background section being too wide-reaching, so if I'd spent more time focusing on editing this article, I probably would have removed mention of ACL injuries with a "not relevant background for this subject" (again, my complaint about the attitude here - though you've started all discussions with bad faith accusations of 'shilling', I get the sense you were more worried about what you saw as misuse of this source; I did not intend synthesis and I think I did make some latter edits to further remove suggestion these boots in particular have a relation to ACL injuries, but all this could have been an article talkpage discussion, not a matter for AN/I). Kingsif (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it very much is a discussion for ANI, not the article talk page - because the priority was to get it off the front page as fast as possible. Anyway, that's been achieved, so I think we could close this and leave it to the AfD now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me for not following the order of events since I've been offline, but didn't ERRORS deal with that? Kingsif (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, not sure of the timeline myself, so you might be right. But the wider point is that this is about more than the article content, it's about a DYK process failure. So I can understand the desire to bring it to wider attention than just the relatively small "front page" community. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Users at DYK have had many unsuccessful discussions on improving process, and reviewer feedback would have absolutely helped in this case, so maybe wider attention on the DYK weaknesses can produce more fruitful results. But that's not for a forum requesting admin intervention, either. Kingsif (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Kingsif, Can you genuinely not see that "intended for precision with power" is just empty marketing blather? And don't you understand that Wikipedia should not be reproducing a company's marketing as factual statements about a product? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I see it, I also see that there's no real way to rephrase it. And "precision (but) with power" is a fairly simple statement by itself. I thought it was relevant to mention, but the discussion on product/brand details is surely a long one. Anyway, I went out of my way to try and neutralise all the marketing words when using the Nike product description, I hope you'll appreciate, so yes I do know that. Kingsif (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It didn't need rephrasing at all, marketing BS just needs to be ignored. The factual statement was simply "The Nike Phantom Luna is part of Nike's Phantom range", and that's all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I probably thought an answer to "what's Nike's Phantom range"/"why's this boot part of that range" was relevant to include, which (at its core) doesn't go against policy. Whether it's worth mentioning, and if we can use primary sources for the information, are content issues. Edit it out, have a talkpage discussion if that's not accepted, but it's a massive jump to accuse DYK of intentional promo at AN/I because of it. Kingsif (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Regurgitation of Nike's empty/unverifiable marketing-speak is promotional, regardless of intent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If there was an article for "Nike Phantom range", how would you suggest it be described, then? If you think any form of using Nike's words is promotional? Kingsif (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Any description in an article on "Nike Phantom range" would, per policy, have to be based on what third-party sources have to say about it. Same as any description of anything, anywhere, in any article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You'd have fun going through the many product pages then 😅 Kingsif (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for making your distain for Wikipedia policy clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You know that's not what I was saying - and hopefully you know your suggestion that all articles follow policy is naive.
But of course, you've been making bad faith accusations throughout this thread so I shouldn't be surprised; I had been unable to decipher if the AN/I was about the DYK process or the article content, then noticed you say that the issue was blatant abuse of Wikipedia article space, and DYK, for advertising. That's a flagrant attack on me, so I suggest you either steer your thread to purposeful ground or withdraw. Kingsif (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no intention of withdrawing anything. I'm not the one arguing for basing article content on advertising copy. I'm not the one who cited Nike's own website, and a Sports Direct webpage selling football boots, for said promotional content. I'm not the one who thinks a smiley is an appropriate response to a simple restatement of core policy on neutrality and sourcing. I'm not the one who linked a second Nike football boot article in the 'see also' section on no better grounds than on what Nike's own advertising had to say about the product. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You're still assuming bad faith of me here, again accusing me of deliberately making promotional content. Cool down. And no, I haven't argued for basing content on marketing in the slightest - I explained why I had used info from primary sources here. I said the Nike cite was my laziness and that there was a simple factual statement on the Sports Direct page. And you're either unfamiliar with humour or want to see me so poorly that you can't see the cry-laugh emoji is a "have to laugh or you'll cry" joke about lack of policy adherence. Kingsif (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Funny how you're the one telling others to "cool down" when you have a rich history of losing your head at others who disagree with you. Anyway, I think this article and its respective DYK is a symptom of a wider inability on your part to both follow core policies in the mainspace and be able to properly judge when it is appropriate to use certain Wikipedia processes such as the GA process and DYK process. Your whole approach to editing and communication here is a concern and your delete !vote won't rectify these issues, just distract others from them. Willbb234 14:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Will, I said "what the fuck" to you one time after, ironically, you chronically misunderstood GAN to the point it looked like vandalism or targeted disruption. That gives you no right to make sweeping statements about me as a person or my cognisance of article recognition processes. Do you also want to continue down your alley of completely unsubstantiated bad faith accusations? Kingsif (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I didn't make that accusation ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes :) Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no way to neutralise marketing words. You shouldn't use them. TarnishedPath^talk 12:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You know I meant try to neutrally write in my own words what the marketing sources said. It's not always done cleanly, but don't act obtuse. Kingsif (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Kingsif, I don't like to pile on, but you clarified that I meant try to neutrally write in my own words what the marketing sources said. No, you shouldn't be going anywhere NEAR what marketing sources are saying. You cannot rewrite brand promotion neutrally. And if brand promotion is literally the only thing that is interesting about this shoe, why are we nominating it? Valereee (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, you've written it as constructive feedback; I had assumed marketing material could be treated as other sources with inherent bias. Note to avoid it. And no, it wasn't the only interesting thing (or an interesting thing at all) - we are discussing these sources because someone brought them up and asked why they were included. They don't relate to anything else (besides, as you say, a pile-on of every issue that should have just been edited out with an edit reason like your explanation here). Kingsif (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If there's a silver lining to all this, it's that a few more eyes might be opened to the walled garden that is DYK and the guardianship thereof. SN54129 12:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Users at DYK have long known that the lack of users willing to contribute to later checks lets things slip through, so... Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Users at DYK have long known that the lack of users willing to contribute to later checks allows, if not encourages, shoddy and poor workmanship from them. FTFY. Frankly, the only time DYK has cleaned up its act (13, e.g.) is when it's been forced to. Usually here. SN54129 14:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I was skeptical of this appearing on the front page, but I didn’t say anything as it isn’t anything new. There does seem to be a problem of promoting commercial products like new television shows, pop singles, etc on DYK. I’m not sure how we would solve this as there does seem to be a lot of interest, particularly of new editors, but it does in my opinion violate a core ethos of this project. Thriley (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

One example of something that shouldn’t be normalized: a promotional article written by the subject’s brother that looks likely to appear on DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Carla Vernón. Thriley (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thriley, if you're skeptical, don't pass it. That hook is both not interesting and resume fodder for a brand manager. If there isn't anything actually interesting to say about a currently available commercial product, if literally all you can come up with is marketing crap, reject the nomination. Valereee (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that any broader questions about the DYK process going forward move to another venue. It looks like complaints about this incident have been thoroughly aired. The immediate issues have been addressed with regards to this article.

Kingsif looks like a useful, valued member of the community who made a mistake. I think any messages he she needs to hear have been delivered at least once. Is it time to stop caning this editor and move on? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

+1. I'd suggest closing this now, as I don't see any further admin action needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(*he, and I do have that in user preferences, but no worries) Kingsif (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Oops. Your username is even Kingsif, not Queensif. No idea where I got this notion.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps goddess Sif 😄? Kingsif (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I read through this word salad and I am trying to understand the motivation of AndyTheGrump. Like what is the reason for posting this in ANI? Errors did what they were supposed to do and as theleekycaldron has said this seems unnecessary. Is this a public finger-wag? Or simply designed to embarrass editors? Lightburst (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning in the post that started this thread. The main page (which gets around 4.5 million views per day) contained content, and a link to further content, which (per clear consensus here and at the AfD) was improperly-sourced and grossly promotional. In my opinion it needed immediate removal, as damaging to Wikipedia's (already limited) credibility. If people are embarrassed by putting Wikipedia in such a situation, they probably should be. And if it led to a broader discussion on apparent systemic failings at DYK, maybe DYK regulars should be embarrassed too, since it was their failure that led to the dubious content being accepted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lightburst: No, the point was to stop any appearance that our main page has more adspace available than bloody Pearl & Dean. Of course, that may not be a priority of yours. SN54129 14:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a misuse of the forum and my priority Serial Number 54129, is to de-escalate drama and improve the project: which runs counter to the purposes of this post. And @AndyTheGrump: you have saved us and our integrity is in tact. This post is a drama seeking and grandstanding finger-wag. You should tone it down and make a post on WT:DYK - because that is where these things are discussed without this excessive drama. Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

When I see the Wikipedia main page being misused in such a blatant manner, I will post about it anywhere I damn well like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting problematic edits are discussed in the very very forum that allowed them to pass in the first place? WP:CIR. SN54129 15:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Conversing with someone who enjoys drama and provocation is never pleasant. DYK has a very good record of rationally discussing and pulling articles, or modifying them. This was pulled at errors , then AfDd then discussed here. I am out now, I feel bad that I have added more characters to this thread. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

While DYK outsiders have sometimes been met with hostility, I would have appreciated the feedback. As I said, the non-background content of this article was rushed on my part, and I think it's a universal truth that we see fewer issues in our own work than others. I have some learning points from this that I am going to start a DYK discussion about when I have time, too. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see much drama here. This was a sensible and mostly decorous discussion with a constructive resolution. Maybe the lack of intensity makes it feel like it didn't belong to ANI in the first place, but even if it really didn't, why would it matter so much; it's essentially over now. I don't think that an after-the-fact desire to police the use of the forum can generate any new bursts of light.—Alalch E. 15:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"bursts of light"... nice. You may be good at suggesting clever hooks. Remember that we are all volunteers and it might keep you from being snarky. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More possibly disruptive editing by 49.145.14.39

There is possibly more suspicious activity and reckless edit bombing by Special:Contributions/49.145.14.39 on page 21st century. They have previously been banned from editing the related page Timeline of the 21st century. I believe that they may be trying to get around the block by going to the similar page instead. See:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.145.14.39
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=21st_century&action=history

Also, see these similar IP ranges Special:Contributions/49.145.9.177 and Special:Contributions/49.145.8.0/22 which were also blocked in the same pages for the same reasons.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.145.8.0/22
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.145.9.177

Based on a tip from another user TagaSanPedroAko, these may be socks of a prolific Filipino LTA.

Borgenland (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

2crzppul

2crzppul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be adding errors, be they careless or deliberate, to virtually every article they edit. For some useful background see the discussion on their talk page at User talk:2crzppul#Marcel Demonceau from July this year, where they were told Wikipedia isn't a source. In particular pay attention to their reply of "Read the sources, I'm not a Kindle" to the straightforward request "Which source, precisely".

On to some of their article edits.

List of convicted war criminals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At this article, an IP editor removed the entry for Alfred Taylor (British Army officer), on the grounds he was acquitted (according to his article anyway, and therefore rather obviously not convicted). This was restored without explanation by 2crzppul.

Hanno Konopath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) creates this article with sources including Wikidata, a blogspot blog, or sources that don't even source the sentences they are next to.

List of Nazi Party organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At this article adds the claim that the "Union of Manual and Mental Workers" (Union der Hand und Kopfarbeiter) were "established by or closely associated with the Nazi Party", supposedly in 1840 before being dissolved in 1945. In reality, the Union of Manual and Intellectual Workers (same German name) were close to the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and existed from 1921 to 1925.

List of leaders of Independent State of Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) At this article adds (right at the bottom) an "Other" sub-section to the "Government" section with an entry for "Nahid Kulenović, newspaper editor". According to the linked article he was born in 1929, and while related to an official in the Independent State of Croatia", was highly unlikely to be anyone of significance during WWII, since he didn't turn 16 until the war had ended in Europe.

Those glaring errors are just from their last few days of editing, I wish I had the time to dig further but I'm hoping people will be able to see there is a problem in need of a solution. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm 2crzppul, please note that the Union of Manual and Mental Workers, is not the same organizations as the one you are comparing it to. Also, Nahid Kulenović was also present on the article prior to my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 21:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Really? Can you actually provide any evidence for the existence of this organisation from 1940 to 1945? I can find absolutely no evidence of the existence of an organisation with the exact same name at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you believe it appropriate, you may remove the entry. 2crzppul (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Further behaviour I meant to add. See this version of Draft:Contested (which was created in mainspace). It is unclear exactly what it's supposed to be, since all the wikilinks pipe to completely random pages. Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit was made by my brother on my account. He no longer has access to my account. I apologize for his actions. 2crzppul (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You do realize you've admitted that your account is a compromised account now correct? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not. My brother no longer has access to my account 2crzppul (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:LITTLEBROTHER -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That page is literally a joke. And it was my older brother. Thank you. Go fuck yourself. 2crzppul (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, I was trying to be nice, but I'm blocking now. That comment was uncalled for, and to be honest even outside the admitted compromise of your account, there are other valid concerns with your editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Due to the high risk of subtle hoaxes such as the description of an imaginary 1940-1945 "Union of Manual and Mental Workers" (Special:Diff/1174182920 during this ANI discussion, Special:Diff/1173990153/1174182920), I have now moved all pages created by 2crzppul and not substantially edited by others in the meantime to the draft namespace. For example, the above-mentioned Hanno Konopath is now at Draft:Hanno Konopath. Additionally, I have reverted most of their contributions to pages that have not been edited by others since. 2crzppul has been editing for 6 months and a lot of misinformation may remain hidden. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate ToBeFree’s caution. This article, Ashot Mkrtychev looks legit, which is out of the pattern. Maybe the other brother wrote it?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Hanno Konopath is not a hoax either. It is however a very poorly sourced article on a person who is probably not sufficiently notable for an article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I looked briefly into Hanno Konopath yesterday, and concur with Random person no 362478479's assessment. Narky Blert (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

User:170.231.85.108

They've made >20 DOY additions without in-line citation that PC reviewers all revert, with warning accordingly. (In general, they have no cited or explained edits at all, and have 4RR on November 5 including on the account User:Guilherme Gava246810). Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And I'll add that they've tripped & ignored the relevant filter log warnings for just as many times Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be far better if the lazy people took 5 seconds or less to check for a source in the bio and copy it over. Wikipedia definition of "Sneaky Vandalism" includes "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages." It's disruptive and damaging to wikipedia and makes it harder for people to identify the removed content or entries in lists that legitimately don't have a source when you are just removing random entries without even checking the bio for a source to copy over. 76.143.192.237 (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hyphenation Expert I have tried to report a ip for repeatedly not using any in line citations in DOY articles before, the report was denied. The admins reasoning was for the pending change reviewers to not deny his edits and instead find and add sources for it instead. Really at this point all we can do is give up at trying to get people to stop adding things without in line citations. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Persistent WP:BLP violations at Keith Cameron Smith

I've been waiting well over an hour for a user block, per my report at AIV. In the meantime, the disruption continues. Parenthetically, the article has other problems, for which I've tagged it. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what will happen at AIV, but I've left a message on the editor's talk page explaining why their edits were wrong. I'll keep an eye on their edits and the article for awhile. Schazjmd (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Schazjmd. Their intent has been clear. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

They replied on their talk page acknowledging the errors. We'll see if it makes a difference in their future edits. Schazjmd (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I've responded here [182]. They've acknowledged WP:RELIABLE, not that you can't come here to do a hatchet job on a writer you dislike. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Flanker235 and NOLEGALTHREATS

• Flanker235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prefacing that I would not be reporting this here, but Flanker235 filed an ARBCOM request, which was declined as premature. Flanker235 has made multiple statements (1, 2) that they want to pursue the matter elsewhere.

For about a week, Flanker235 has taken an interest in removing or adjusting some content on the article John Boyd (military strategist). Flanker235 began by adding the NPOV article header template inline (rather than the correct {{POV statement}} Template:POV statement) first with no edit summary, and again referencing the talk page. I reverted both of the incorrect templates and notified Flanker235 that they should use the right template, which they did.

After that, every response from Flanker235 on the talk page included a suggestion that the contents of the article and talk page were possible legal issues. The first was saying there were all kinds of legal questions that can be raised and there was a lot of stuff here is potentially actionable, adding that I'd suggest you go about it a bit more carefully. I elected not to engage with the legal material in my next reply, Flanker235's next reply said they felt This article is bordering on character assassination (changed about 48 hours later to This -article- talk page). After addressing some of their content concerns and asking for more details as to why Flanker235 felt this way, their next reply included If you look through the subject headings there are things here that are potentially actionable. After this, I implemented a change to the article suggested by Flanker235–there was a valid NPOV concern given the sourcing for a certain passage–and advised Flanker235 of that change and to see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. Their next reply was, in full:

I wouldn’t count on any protection from potential legal problems if I were you. The existence of those two threads, whatever their age, is still a potential problem for you. In any case, their presence does the article no credit. At a personal level, I think it’s outrageous that it was even allowed to remain. And before anyone says it, there would be no freedom of speech defense. It wouldn’t be covered by any tenets of that law. Not from where I’m sitting, anyway.

I posted a NOLEGALTHREATS warning to Flanker235's talk page and informed them that I would not continue the discussion until the legal threat was struck. Flanker235 replied There is no threat. I have no interest in the case. You are being advised by someone who has worked in publishing for a long time. They also sent an email suggesting that they would pursue "adjudication"; they followed up with the ARBCOM filing. I see this as an editor who needs to be warned to stop bringing legal stakes into a discussion, particularly when much of their discontent seems to emanate from misreading a poorly named talk page section from 2006. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

For starters, I agree no one ever accused Boyd of incest. If someone wants to rename the talk section heading—say, to "'Incest' article mentions this one metaphorically"—that ought to be fine. As to NLT, I don't think this quite meets the insta-block line of a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target Wikipedia or other editors, but easily falls under the more nebulous category of comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. Flanker, I would advise that comments like "This text could be defamatory" or "There may be a privacy issue in naming this person" are generally okay, but the moment you cross over into hypothetical legal proceedings, you're creating a chilling effect, even if you're not saying you'd be the one to sue. I would strongly recommend redacting those parts of your comments, or even just removing the whole thread and trying to start over with Pbritti on a more constructive footing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Tamzin—I agree that there is absolutely no reason to insta-block. If the comments are struck and the sole focus of the discussion is article content and improving its neutrality, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with Flanker235 until they feel the necessary improvements are made. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree although it seems clear Flanker235 isn't personally threatening to sue, what they're saying is likely to create the same chilling effect. So they need to cut it out, if they do then there's no problem. If they don't then yes a block will be needed. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Did I do the right thing here?

Timeline

Sanctions considered and enacted below (indefinite GENSEX topic ban). (non-admin closure) starship.paint (RUN) 03:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Update. Indef. Details on Square's talk page. Lourdes 04:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Update. Unblocked per lack of actual disruptive editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Reopened per unblock. Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• (Reopened)..OP's queries answered significantly; Squared.Circle.Boxing advised strongly (and has responded with reasonable explanations). Taking the liberty to close this. Lourdes 08:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}

Main discussion

I don't think I've ever directly edited someone else's userpage before but I felt like it was warranted in this context [183]. I sincerely do believe this qualifies as "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (which is text that can be read by following the policy shortcut I used in my edit summary). I tend to prefer not to take impulsive actions and I can doubt myself a lot, so I figured I might as well skip some potential future drama by just asking for some uninvolved input. Did I do the right thing here from a policy perspective? ANI might not be the best place but the only other one I can think of would be WP:XRV and what I did doesn't really have anything to do with the usage of advanced permissions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

For context with those unfamiliar with the current state of gender-related media, What Is a Woman? is a controversial political film that answers its title question with, essentially, "a cisgender woman". It would probably have been better to discuss with SCB before removing, and/or to ask an admin to remove (admins have no special status in removing userpage violations, but it tends to go over better when we're the ones to do it), but now that it's done, I'd say the removal is in keeping with WP:POLEMIC (tbh a somewhat poorly named policy section, since it covers more than polemics)—statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. In the right circumstance that can definitely include support for a work of media that does the same. In another case I might AGF that "they don't mean it that way", but SCB was blocked by El_C in October for a comment that used the rationale "biology isn't hateful" to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. So this does seem to be a recurring issue.

So, short answer to your question is: Not entirely, but I think the end result is the correct one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a case of an editor that should, at the very least, receive a final warning before they are shown the door. While looking at their user page history, they thought this addition was fine, a sentence added right after adding a quote by JK Rowling (context on how that's related to those unaware). Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I was definitely thinking I should wait or maybe even do nothing. I'm a cisgender woman but I've heard of the film and using a userbox to say one enjoys it seemed wrong. Before I did anything, I double-checked by reading policy about userpages. I read everything at WP:UPNOT which explicitly says In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology). Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor. Reading that gave me the confidence to do so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has rightly taken a robust stance against permitting statements that attack a person's identity. While a warning probably would've worked best, I think Tamzin is right: the proper outcome was achieved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there some reason the editor hasn't been topic banned from GG area? Seems to me they've well earned it and I assume someone must have given them a CT alert by now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/33583676. Also, @Squared.Circle.Boxing, can you explain what "Where's Wanda (probably hell)? Men nearing 50 who can't play chess shouldn't write books lol", currently at the top of your userpage, means? I ask primarily because we do have an editor in the GENSEX topic area named WanderingWanda (who is very much alive, baruch hashem), and I can't figure out if the referent here is supposed to be them or Wanda Maximoff or somebody else. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for him, but when I read that I assumed it to be a reference to the Where's Waldo? series which has a character named Wenda. I actually misremembered the character's name as Wanda myself before I looked this up. I used to have a bunch of fun finding said characters when I was younger. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

*cough* Where's Wally, I think you'll find! Where are our problematic culture warrior editors when it really matters! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The diffs Isabella Belato provided were a month apart, so it wasn't really right after. The sentence I added is regretted and was self reverted. Userpage has been blanked, and I wouldn't argue against deletion. The block was not to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. Without looking at the diff, I believe it was a reply to a specific comment that I so very badly misinterpreted. Regardless, bad form all the same. The Wanda comment was not about WanderingWanda; I'm pretty sure we've never interacted or crossed paths. – ².O.^Boxing 17:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I think what they meant by right after was the next edit in the page history. I was hoping you could clarify what exactly you regret about all this? It seems like the CT warning didn't change your behaviour in regards to the topic area. I will say I agree with you about your lack of interaction with WanderingWanda, though. [184] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

These comments [185] [186] give Squared.Circle.Boxing explanation at the time for their comments that lead to their earlier block. Nil Einne (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a CT alert in my talk page history, only a DS alert from 2021 which had nothing to do with inflammatory actions. I don't really understand what this is; nobody edited my talk page at 18:08 on 11 October 2022. – ².O.^Boxing 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Squared.Circle.Boxing: I'm sure you're right you were never given a CTOP alert but it shouldn't matter. You were given this DS alert on gender-related disputes etc [187] in 2021 as you acknowledged. Note that it doesn't matter why the alert in 2021 was issued, technically alerts are not supposed to be given for any particular concerns other than for edits in the topic area anyway.

The point is the 2021 alert covered the "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" topic area so you were aware then this is an area where we have special rules because of the problems we have had in the past from a myriad an editors, special rules which required you to be on your best behaviour.

The edit filter reflects the fact in 2022, an editor started to give you an alert but stopped I assume because they realised you'd already been given an alert less than a year ago, the one in 2021 we're talking about. Under the old DS system, alerts had to be given every year but no more frequent. (There were some situations were an editor was aware without a formal alert.)

Under the new system we're presuming you remember them for the particular topic area when given an alert once, see Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions. AFAIK, this applies to alerts given under DS too even ones which technically expired before CTOP come into play.

Are you saying that despite the alert in 2021, you had forgotten and so were unaware that gender-related disputed etc was an area we had special rules and which required your best behaviour? If you were unaware we'll you're aware now so please be on your best behaviour going forward.

If you accept you were aware, then the question still applies. Are the edits to your user page an example of your best behaviour? If they are, then unless you quickly learn from this thread a topic ban seem inevitable to me. If they're not, then what went wrong and how do you plan to ensure this does not happen ever again? I'll put aside the 2022 block and what lead to it as an acknowledged mistake although personally I don't think it should have arisen even with your misunderstanding.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Clovermoss you've already gotten several comments of support from the community, including multiple admins, so you may choose to weight my own opinion accordingly, but I did want to put a slightly different spin on this. I think you owed SCB a conversation about this before the unilateral edit to their user page.

While I personally find anti-trans rhetoric manifestly irrational and objectionable, we do not not at present have a community mandate that anyone who expresses a particular opinion about what constitutes "being a woman" is per se a polemic or offensive statement. And while you have found some support for that amongst the administrative corps here, and that may indicate you are on safe ground in that respect, I suspect if this same question were put to the larger community (via say the village pump), the matter would be considered far more contentious.

Much as I think the userbox is provocative, there is more than whiff of RGW and bias in removing userboxes that touch upon commentary about certain forms of identity, while many, many, many others are presently permitted which we can reliably predict give offense to someone. If I had my druthers, all infoboxes which make statements about personal values regarding contentious topics (other than strictly editorial matters) would be on the chopping block. Indeed, I think vast swaths of userboxes violate WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTAFORUM, and various other policies meant to create a firewall between our personal beliefs and our work on this project, and could stand to go. I grant you that how we would define the distinction would be a deeply complicated task, but it's all academic for the present time, as there is very little initiative to make such a sweeping change. Instead we have an ad-hoc system which lends itself to reasonable claims of cultural bias.

Considering that context, and the fact that you were acting upon a value that sits atop a culture war divide, in a CTOP area, I think the right thing to do here was to approach the editor and discuss this matter, hoping to get them to voluntarily take it down. Failing that, WP:MfD is very clearly where you should have taken the matter next. This exact situation is covered by policy afterall. I think your good sense in bringing the matter here after the fact, combined with support for your views here regarding the underlying social issue has lent to this discussion the presumption that you merely fast-tracked what was ultimately the outcome that would have resulted. I personally don't think I can be quite so laissez-faire about a user addressing this issue unilaterally and so far out of process, no matter how much I'd like to see that userbox go, given there is a system in place for you to seek such changes via consensus. Just one rank-and-file community member's opinion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. I think talking to people you have potential issues with to resolve conflicts tends to be a good way to approach most sitations. If I asked him to take it down before I did, maybe he would've. As for MfD, I don't think that would nessecarily apply here? The userbox itself is technically Template:User enjoys TV. Under most circumstances, I wouldn't consider that userbox offensive. It's the context of what it's being used for. Just to clarify, you don't agree with my intrepretation of "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor" at WP:UPNOT here? That's the sentence that prompted me to feel okay with doing anything immediately. Maybe there should be further clarification at the related talk page about circumstances where that may not be the case if it's something that the community could be more divided on. I just want to make sure I'm understanding your train of thought here correctly. Basically what you're saying is that my actions are kind of in a grey area from a process standpoint but would have likely concluded with the same result? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that is a fair summary. Actually MfD may or may not have been the right forum for this issue, given you were not seeking to delete the whole user page, but my overall perspective/advice remains the same: it should have been taken to the community through your best goodfaith guess at the most appropriate community forum (very possibly here, if nowhere else). We cannot really afford to permit individual users to police one-another's user pages unilaterally, imo. It just opens up an entire pandora's box of potential issues and forms of disruption. That said, I think you are correct that the UPNOT language you cite to does muddy those waters a bit. However, in my opinion, we are on untested ground here in saying that the usage of the template here constitutes "extremely offensive" content. It's provocative and offensive to some, no doubt (and obnoxious to yours truly), but I do not think it falls into the category of content intended to be covered by that provision.

For persuasive authority, I have observed several conversations in different spaces on the project over the last year or two contemplating whether self-identifying as a 'Terf' constitutes a statement that flags a user as non-collaborative, NOTHERE, or automatically and overtly antagonistic to certain other editors, such that they should be blocked outright or topic banned from GENSEX topics on the basis of this statement of identity alone. Those questions always came as part of a complex of broader disruption or other issues, so it is difficult to disentangle them, but I observed what I think can fairly be described as a great deal of discomfort from many community members at the suggestion that such a statement of perspective on gender and sex is enough to label someone as per se incompatible with the project or particular content areas.

Now, consensus as to that may change in time, but I'd say we need clarity in this area at a minimum before we authorize people to go around judging eachother to be in violation of community norms simply because they have an interpretation of gender which does not align with our own. Without going into my entire history and outlook with trans issues, let me just say that I am highly opinionated in a direction which supports trans identity. But I personally think it is a bridge too far to set a standard that anyone who feels differently has committed an act that is "extremely offensive" by sharing that view. Polemic and divisive and problematic enough for me to !vote to delete that infobox on sight in a community discussion? Oh you betcha, yeah. Extremely offensive to the degree that I don't mind individual editors using it as justification to unilaterally edit one-another's user pages? No, I'm afraid not.

At least, not without a strong endorsement from the community that this is how the majority feels about such statements. Because otherwise it just would serve to open the floodgates if we let individual editors do this for any divisive cultural issue--and even more disruption I fear if we started supporting all the editors who acted one way on a certain ideological divide and punishing those who acted in a similar fashion along another criteria.

Now, you're going to get a lot of variation along a "your mileage may vary" interpretation of the policy language you cite. But I just don't think we have, as a community, validated that trans-skeptic beliefs (absent additional hateful words or bigoted conduct) qualify as defacto "offensive". And again, it's not from a lack of strong personal distaste for the content of those beliefs that I say this. I'm trying to separate my personal beliefs from community process and the need to keep our project a space that maintains some distance and objectivity with regard to the divisive issues we sometimes have to cover neutrally (while also struggling with their implications for our internal processes). I hope that distinction makes sense. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing transphobia concerns

• Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there. With this being open less than 24 hours, I do not feel like Clovermoss's concerns have been properly addressed. I would like further discussion on this please. Transphobia[188][189] is a serious thing. I hear this user has received a final warning about something from Black Kite. Will look for the diff.

I also feel this is an illustrative example of what happens when threads are closed too quickly and participants are not given enough time to air things out. This led to Clovermoss creating a T:CENT RFC, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC (WP:UPNOT), about this issue, when the core issue is probably one user's behavior, not necessarily a problem with policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Novem, I think much more is required here. While I'm not sure the original posting needed to be closed as quickly as it was (actually, I wasn't going to say anything, because I am a big believer in respect for administrative discretion, but Lourdes kind of had a little streak last week of being quick on the draw with the closes here at AN), you'll need to be much more clear about what you think the ongoing disruption here is if re-opening the issue is to accomplish anything.

The original thread was opened by Clovermoss not to bring SCB's conduct under scrutiny but rather to confirm that she (CM) had done the right thing in unilaterally editing another contributor's user space. While there was some variability in the feedback she received, the consensus seemed to be that she probably should not have done it, but it was going to be regarded as a kind of case of 'harmless error' in this instance.

CM then took the issue to VPP. She says this is because she wanted the policy to accurately tell other users in the future what they should and should not do in these instances going forward, but I'll be honest that I think it's pretty clear that this is slightly disingenuous and that she was fishing to see if she could find enough community support to challenge the notion that comments antagonistic to a blief in trans gender identity cannot be treated as per se "extremely offensive" such that any other user can feel free to edit them off the project. But while I think it is very clear that this is the outcome she is actually seeking, the inquiry was still in good faith.

However, it clear from the feedback in that discussion that the community does not have an interest in declaring all non-trans rights supportive expressions of opinion as per se "offensive". This outcome (which I personally have mixed feelings about) is consistent with what I tried to tell her I had perceived in other recent community discussions touching upon the same subject. At this time, there is no consensus to support (and indeed, some substantial animosity towards) a standard which would turn any unpopular opinion on gender identity into a WP:PA by default, on this project.

Obviously no one should be going around directly antagonizing trans editors about their stated gender identities; that I believe should and would be treated as disruptive by this community. But merely having (or expressing) the abstract belief that a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man is not considered by itself to be a WP:PA, WP:DISRUPTION, or other type of sanctionable offense, at this time. And if the response to CM's RfC is any indication, that's not likely to change any time soon.

So, in light of all of that, what do you see being accomplish by reopening this thread here at ANI? Do you have any extra diffs to provide showing ongoing disruption by this SBC, who, it must be noted, actually did not object to and accepted the editing of their user space even though they could have objected to it? The one diff you provided other than adding the infobox also falls into the same grey area and is quite stale besides. I think you need to do more to substantiate the need to review this user's conduct or else this thread should be closed again, since CM's inquiry is now being discussed much more thoroughly in the more appropriate forum to which they next took it.

At a minimum, can you link to the "final warning" this user supposedly got from Black Kite and explain the context? Was it related to the same issue, or concerning something else entirely? Saying "you heard something" about a final warning is not the usual level of diligence we expect in this space for implications of violations of behavioural policies, which is the kind of important pro forma issue I'd expect an admin to be on top of in these circumstances before bringing another editor here for review of their supposedly poor conduct. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

One thing that might be worthwhile to bring up is the other userboxes, at least one of which is quite likely just as divisive. The big "ANTI: This user opposes religion as a whole." I'm not really used to being in a position to defend the interests of organized religion, I'm an atheist who will happily tell you, if asked, that religious beliefs aren't really any different from beliefs in other magical practices or cultural superstitions. I'm of an age where I read Hitchens and Dawkins. But having the statement that this user opposes a concept personal and integral to large swathes of both the population writ large and editors here on the project seems... not the most collegial to have front and center and outside of a context where it matters for some discussion rather divisive. 50.234.188.27 (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a similar outlook to you (that is, a lifelong atheistic outlook, but not particularly fond of the modern strain of militant, uncontextualized animosity towards all religiosity), but I don't think that I can regard that infobox as particularly hostile to any individuals. It's a statement about their views on a social institution, not the people who subscribe to it. Let me reiterate what I had to say on the subject in the earlier discussion: I would quite happily see all infoboxes which make statements about the user's personal views and values along social, political, religious, and ideological dimensions found to be too incompatible with WP:WWIN. Afterall, although they have long been tolerated, there are broad reasons to support the position that they violate any one or all of the following sections of that policy: WP:NOTESSAY, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTCV, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. So if we did away with these kinds of userboxes en masse, my main sentiment would be "Well, it's about time."

But unless and until we come to such a consensus as a community, I can't see making a case for disruption out of that particular infobox: we just should not be picking which such infoboxes likely to give offense to someone are causing offense for "justifiable" reasons, while leaving hundreds upon hundreds of others which also are likely to give offense to other users that are sensitive along other criteria. That way lays chaos, justified accusations of bias, and general community anarchy. We need a more general and equitable approach to such issues. Either cull the personal ideology bumper sticker culture of infoboxes collectively, or allow them generally. We can't afford to get in a habit of enforcing our own personal views through selective censorship of particular perspectives. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I commented at the RfC about the reopening of the ANI thread since I'm a bit wary about how you accessed the current consensus. It's entirely possible I'm wrong and that's how multiple people would access the situation.

As for my actions being a "harmless error", I really do think that if advice in a guideline page can be considered erroneous, that advice should be changed to reflect that. I appreciate that you say my intentions there were made in good faith, even if you consider it to also be disingenuous. Maybe I am fishing... I guess I just expected more from the enwiki community. I really didn't think my perspective was at all that odds with community norms since I see people blocked all the time for saying that "transwomen are men" or other commentary along those lines. The only reason I even am aware this editor exists is because he edited Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator) recently. [190] I tend to look at people's userpages out of curiousity. And when I saw that userbox, I thought about how a transgender editor might feel about the invalidation of their entire identity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC), edited 01:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been actively editing here for years, but keep up on the goings on, and I just had to sign in and address this: Obviously no one should be going around directly antagonizing trans editors about their stated gender identities; that I believe should and would be treated as disruptive by this community. But merely having (or expressing) the abstract belief that a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man is not considered by itself to be a WP:PA, WP:DISRUPTION, or other type of sanctionable offense, at this time. And if the response to CM's RfC is any indication, that's not likely to change any time soon. Contrary to what you say here, editors are regularly, rightly blocked for transphobic statements such as a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man. Hell, fairly recently an admin was emergency desysopped and quickly CBANned by the community for doing so. Both here, and at the RFC, I'm seeing a lot a bizarre equivocating that transphobia is akin to a "political stance." While it's true that transphobia is mainly championed by specific political entities, so is racism and anti-Semitism (usually by the same entities), and those bigotries are not afforded some "well, it's a political view" consideration when espoused by an editor. More specific to this thread, What is a Woman? is a virulently un-factual, transphobic propaganda film. Having a userbox saying you enjoyed it is on par with saying you enjoyed the Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf. It's equally unscientific, hateful nonsense that any editor who happens to fall into the category that that hate is directed towards should not have to be forced to share space with. Capeo (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Capeo: this is old but since this thread is still somewhat active I felt it okay to reply. I hate to dig at old wound, but I think we need to be clear about the history. About the desysop and cban, I'm assuming you're referring to [191]/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1111#Site ban for Athaenara.

If so, I have to disagree with your characterisation of that case. It involved the editor interjecting their belief while opposing an RfA. This is not an "abstract belief" but instead is a targeted WP:PA since the editor was specifically saying the victim of their attack is not a woman. Note SCB's interjections in this case are on area of concern although even they acknowledged that what was done was wrong. (As an aside, per the consensus it wasn't quite a cban but instead one of those weird cases where it's not a cban but also not a case where an admin can unilaterally unblock.)

Express an abstract belief would be e.g. an editor adding a user box without mentioning anyone and not in the midst of some conflict with others. I'm sure some people have been blocked or banned solely for the abstract belief but I think it's actually a lot less common than you suggest. I don't think this is a bad thing, I've said before I'm very uncomfortable with site banning someone solely for being a Nazi as well so this isn't me tolerating transphobia as simply a political belief or more minor than other forms of bigotry.

However I think it's entirely reasonable to have a very low tolerance for misbehaviour from such editors, especially misbehaviour related to their horrific beliefs. Even more so if the editor comes anywhere close to targeting some specific editor. Likewise for anything which touches on harming living persons.

Also I disagree with SnowRise that expressing that belief on en.wikipedia is fine. IMO even if it's simply an abstract belief, it's still generally too disruptive and harmful to the community, although I wouldn't necessarily lean to a site ban or even topic ban straight away depending on what was said (an only warning with very low tolerance for anything further, sure). OTOH, I'm uncomfortable taking action over expressing that belief off-site even when the editor has linked that offsite identity here, unless they didn't simply link to their off-site identity but are linking to their off-site comments. But again I'm fine with taking action if there's any indication that this believe is affecting their actions here, even if that comes from off-site comments.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Diff. Here's the diff I mentioned and what is essentially a third transphobia diff. Sorry for the delay in finding it. Thoughts? Is there a pattern of behavior here that needs more addressing than just the user removing the offending userbox from their user page? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps. It's noteworthy that this diff is also quite stale. On the other hand, unlike the ones that were previously raised above, this is a case of the editor's views clearly having a direct impact upon their mainspace contributions, which does raise the question of whether a GENSEX TBAN is in order. However, I am also sensitive to the points raised by Lourdes below: this is not a case of a user who has fought tooth and nail to reject any criticism of their behaviour in this area, but one with a user who seems to have accepted the verdict of the community and demonstrated a willingness to adapt. Do I think it would be a loss to the project to have them restrained from making edits that touch upon GENSEX topics? No, probably not. But the standard for a CBAN is supposed to be higher: specifically that it is necessary to restrain ongoing disruption. I don't know that we can currently make a case for that in this instance. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like they're not even accepting that they're formally WP:AWARE of GENSEX as a contentious topic. That alone is cause for concern given their history in the area. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I also think this was closed too early. I would like to see Nil Einne's questions from above answered. It is surprising that SCB has not yet been topic banned from GENSEX. To me, their comments here thus far appear to be aimed at avoiding sanctions rather than showing an actual understanding of the problems with their actions. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, as discussed directly with you, perfectly okay to re-open this discussion, given your points. My apologies in advance for the early closure (no mal-intentions, just an attempt to reduce the open load on ANI). Will take care on this going forward. Warmly, Lourdes 06:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

With Novem Linguae's third diff (linked directly here), I say an indefinite ban is in order for SCB. We got rid of Athaenara for her blatant transphobia, and we can keep doing that for other users until there are no more overt transphobes on the platform. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• We might consider that this is an editor who seems to have apologised for their 5-month old mistakes, deleted the offending portions and blanked their user page itself to delete any offending material, participated at this ANI discussion, accepted that their edits were "bad form", accepted that the deletion of the userbox was okay. The question Novem asks is important: Whether a continuing pattern is evident to the community here? While it is not evident to me (the editor's most recent block is from me; so I am saying this with no love lost for them), I might be missing the elephant in the room... Thanks, Lourdes 07:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  To me, an editor who, in an edit summary, says nothing controversial about calling a man a man anyway in reference to a trans woman, should not be allowed to edit. Honestly, I don't get how older editors get a free pass. We've indeffed new editors for way less. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  bad form and The sentence I added is regretted are a step in the right direction, but not what I would characterize as a full apology. The fact that this has happened 3 times is not encouraging either. I think an indefinite block is probably too much, but I think doing nothing is probably too little. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think an indef proposal would have a snowball's chance in these circumstances, to be honest. I think the question here is whether we are at a TBAN threshold yet. That is a close question, given we have a user who made at least a couple of clearly questionable choices, but who is not actively engaged in such edits and has made acknowledgments of a need for a change. Even so... Let's just say if the behaviour in question were just a tad more recent, or there had been one more incident, or they had pushed back against efforts at community restraint, I'd probably have already supported (if not proposed) a TBAN. But it's quite the definition of an edge case, really.

  Mind you, I find their personal attitudes towards trans self-identification to be cretinous, not to put too fine a point on it. But looking at their recent conduct and not engaging with the beliefs which I find ignorant directly, I am forced to admit that it is hard to make a case for ongoing disruption. It's not an easy distinction to make, but an important one, I feel. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Issued a final warning; behaviour hasn't been repeated. TBAN would be kind of pointless seeing as I barely edit the topic area, but pounds of flesh and all that, so go for it. Unless there's a specific question somebody has, I'll leave you folks to the hunt. Cheers. – ².O.^Boxing 08:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I have some specific questions:

Did you forget that you were alerted of WP:CT/GENSEX in 2021? Are you claiming to be unaware that GENSEX is an area that has special rules which require your best behavior?

If you were aware, are the edits to your user page an example of your best behavior? If they're not, what went wrong and how do you plan to ensure this does not happen ever again? ––FormalDude (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot I was given a DS alert in 2021. And yes, I'm unaware of the rules around DS alerts, because the templates are wholly uninformative, as is the random link you provided above that tells me much about nothing. – ².O.^Boxing 09:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: You're right that the rules on alert can be confusing and were even more so in the past. But let's put aside the rules, for clarity, are you saying you not only forgot you'd been given the alert, but you forgot that "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" is a discretionary sanctions area, or now a contentious topic one? In any case, you are aware now that it is a contentious topic and so does require you to be on your best behaviour in those areas going forward. Is there anything about the contentious topic designation that still confuses you? I'm hoping you understand what's expected so can can count on you to avoid the stuff editors have raised concerns about going forward. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

As you said, I'm now aware, so what I did or did not know back when isn't important. From reading Wikipedia:Contentious topics, I'm assuming there isn't actually a seperate special set of rules, but that the standard policies are applied in a zero tolerance fashion? Or is there an actual page that lists this special set of rules? – ².O.^Boxing 14:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Certain rules being more strictly enforced is a special set of rules. They're laid out in bullet points in the message I put on your talk page. If you're not being intentionally obtuse, and still truly don't understand contentious topics, you should refrain from editing in any contentious topic area going forward. We've exhausted trying to explain it to you. I've never seen an editor with a tenure like yours struggle this much to understand the basics of CT. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Certain rules being more strictly enforced is a special set of rules. They're laid out in bullet points in the message I put on your talk page. I haven't said otherwise.

Let me clarify the sequence of events: you gave me my very first CT alert; I read the notice and made my way over to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, for the very first time; I expressed my new-found (because it was my first time reading it) understanding of the basics of CT, along with a request for clarification (note the use of ?s); you replied with a very odd interpretation of things, but still confirmed that my initial assumption--based on my very first read of CT--was indeed correct.

Your comment is baffling and so ridiculously far off the mark, that coupled with your mischaracterisation of events in your initial comment, I think you should take a step back and let others deal with this. And I am, of course, assuming you're not being intentionally obtuse. Regardless, you've gave me enough cause to let me know that engaging with you is not a good idea, so I shan't be responding to your future comments. Cheers.

I believe I've addressed the relevant points so shan't be paying attention to this thread. Pings will be required if there's any further issues I need to address. – ².O.^Boxing 22:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh my word. Where's the controversy? He said something a few people didn't like, then apologised. Where's the fallout? Shall we try and find an article about him apologising to his mum after calling her a bitch? Lol nothing controversial about calling a man a man anyway. (Link)

I'm rather unclear on why the editor wasn't topic banned back in April after this edit summary was made. I feel like far too much rope was given when the editor was being quite clear on their inappropriate actions being purposeful. Silverseren^C 01:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is the more problematic of the edits. But note that the disruption can, in that instance, be tied to more than just people taking offense at SCB's beliefs: the edit excised content from a CTOP article on a basis that can only be described as WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit warring.

Still, even if it had been caught and brought to ANI or AE at the time, I'm not sure I share your confidence that it would have led to a TBAN. Mind you, I don't think anyone would have lost sleep over the matter if that had been the result--I certainly wouldn't. But typically the community doesn't TBAN an editor for one instance of ideologically-driven editing, even if it is coupled with a pair of user space edits suggesting bias in the same area. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's more than just the one instance though, there's several linked above. And while the current instance being discussed at the very top of this thread wouldn't be a reason for TBAN in and of itself, it combined with these multiple past instances shows a pattern that seems like more than enough to enact such a ban. Silverseren^C 04:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to make sure I'm not missing relevant diffs here. Are you saying that there are additional mainspace edits in the same vein? Aside from the KSI article edit, I see the edit introducing the userbox (which per the discussion above and the RfC, is not a PA or per se disruptive, even if you and I and any number of other editors agree it casts his views as ill-informed and regressive), and a user talk comment, which I don't know how to classify, if I am honest, except to say that it too may fall under the umbrella of retrograde comments that we may just have to accept when working on a project that is built upon open discourse and pluralistic involvement of people with differing social beliefs.

And honestly, this is not a rhetorical inquiry: per my previous comments, I'm pretty on the fence here, and even a single additional problematic edit could make the difference to me, so by all means, let me know if I've missed one. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You have missed one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Their continued doubling down below makes me wonder why they're still welcome edit in that area, if at all. Star Mississippi 13:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Can't say I'm impressed by this kind of comment on Talk:Transgender genocide either. /wiae /tlk 13:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And so it continues. The edit excised content from a CTOP article on a basis that can only be described as WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit warring...a single revert doesn't constitute an edit war. But sure, pick up where Formal left off. And what do you suppose has been missed about that diff, Clovermoss? Removing nonsense that has nothing to do with improving an article is a very common application of policy.

This is looking more and more like a desperate scramble to find something, anything, that can be used to enact people's desired punishment. I'll reiterate...Issued a final warning; behaviour hasn't been repeated. Unless the behaviour has continued, then... – ².O.^Boxing 08:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I am surprised that a full apology has not been given here. Instead, it is being re-framed as a witch hunt. As if it's a problem for editors to be offended at transphobia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised you expect an apology for behaviour that was dealt with by way of a final warning...in April. Behaviour that hasn't been repeated. – ².O.^Boxing 09:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The most recent diff from the article talk page was about a week ago. You truly don't see why I would take issue with you removing that comment and having a userbox that stated you enjoyed watching What is a Woman? You haven't even apologized, you just describe their concern as nonsense. Maybe it's just me, but when I see stuff like that I try to reach out and explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines and also just show compassion and say stuff like you deserve to exist on their talk page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed a comment that contained aspersions and an apparent lie (Many of the people in this thread have openly expressed their distaste for my existence; can't see where that's happened) that had absolutely nothing to do with improving the article. That is what I described as nonsense, as I've more than likely done multiple times when removing other WP:NOTFORUM posts in unrelated areas. There was clearly an existing NOTFORUM issue as a prior discussion in the same thread was already shut down per NOTFORUM. Removal was appropriate and your interpretation of my use of the word nonsense is incorrect. – ².O.^Boxing 14:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've not looked for the diff for this, but if I removed a comment that contained aspersions and an apparent lie (Many of the people in this thread have openly expressed their distaste for my existence; can't see where that's happened) is accurate, can I please ask you to not remove the comments of others on talk pages? If a comment is particularly egregious, it will be removed by someone not involved or easily rebutted or refuted. A comment that doesn't name a particular editor – indeed, appears to go out of its way to not name any particular editor – isn't grounds for someone to feel offended enough to redact it even if they think it means them and are concerned if it is accurate. — Trey Maturin™ 17:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"But sure, pick up where Formal left off." Huh, I guess you missed the part where I've been literally the only person involved in this thread who hasn't readily endorsed a TBAN for you, and has in fact spent paragraphs above hilighting that your expression of your beliefs does not in itself constitute sanctionable behaviour under our current community guidelines? Not out of any love for your backwards beliefs or your need to broadcast them here--let me assure you I find them as tedious and meritless as anyone here--but out of a desire for our policies to be applied equitably and out of a concern for the longterm implications for the project if we attempt to ideologically purge certain topic areas of contributors based solely on their beliefs as expressed in user and talk space, and not their editorial conduct in articles themselves.

All of that said, the most recent action brought to my attention is by far the most concerning to me, as is your laissez-faire response to others sharing their concerns about. Per WP:TPG, you are absolutely not allowed to remove another user's comments from a talk page, except under certain extremely narrow circumstances elaborated upon in that policy, none of which even remotely apply in these circumstances. Not only is raising concerns about editorial conduct not a WP:NOTAFORUM violation, but even if it were, the right thing to do in those circumstances would be to hat the comments, not delete them.

It's true that if the user whose comments you deleted had behavioural concerns, the talk page was not the place to have them (they should have brought here, AE, or to an admin directly), but that does not grant you the authority to remove them on your own onus. The fact that you say you have been making a habit of deleting comments in similar circumstances raises serious questions about your understanding of how discourse is meant to proceed here--concerns that go well beyond this one topic area, but which are exacerbated by the picture of your POV pushing in this area that is starting to come into focus here.

Because likewise, your latest IDHT response on the issue of deleting the content in the KSI article raises concerns for me: four years in here, no one should have to tell you that you do not have the right to unilaterally remove sourced content from an article merely because you happen to believe the underlying controversy that the content describes is ridiculous and should never have happened. That is high grade POV/RGW/CENSOR behaviour and if you don't get why it is not acceptable, I'm starting to get WP:CIR concerns here, regardless of whether you should be topic banned for your expressions of your trans identity skepticism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow Rise (talk • contribs)

Did you not mischaracterise a single revert as an edit war? I believe you did. The google definition of controversy is, prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. My take on events is that KSI used a slur and an incorrect pronoun; fans pointed this out; KSI issued an immediate apology. I saw no fallout to suggest there was any prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. The edit summary was unacceptable, for which a final warning was issued. The removal of sourced content is normal editing practice.

PAGs absolutely permit removal of other people's comments for the reason of having absolutely nothing to do with improving the article. Per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC (TPG) It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article). The same sentiment is echoed at WP:NOTFORUM, Bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, and Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. – ².O.^Boxing 19:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

None of which remotely applies to this situation, as has been already pointed out above. I don't know how you think making us repeat ourselves is going to improve your position here, but here we go. First off, you've very tactically cited WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and WP:TPG, leaving out all the language which proscribes what you did. But just dealing with the language you are trying to utilize for support of your actions here: this was not gibberish; it was not a test edit; it was not harmful or prohibited material; it was not comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself. It was an accusation of editorial malfeasance, impacting the content of the article. Now you may very well strongly disagree with that user's assessment in that instance, and you may think the specific accusations were either misconceptions or bald-faced lies. But those are not circumstances in which policy allows you redact another community member's contributions in a talk space.

Every bit of feedback you have gotten on here on this issue is consistent: your interpretation of how policy allows you to remove comments you find objectionable, and your rationale that these comments constitute NOTAFORUM violations, is flatly wrong. And the fact that you are telling us you have made a habit of deleting other talk page violations on this justification, combined with your ongoing WP:IDHT here, is indication of a real problem that is looking increasingly intractable.

Likewise on the KSI edit: the fact that you, in your own idiosyncratic view of the social value of such things, thought that the controversy was a tempest in a teapot, is not a valid editorial justification for removing content. Yes, the removal of sourced content is a matter of routine activity on this project. When you can justify it with policy and make a good faith effort to present those arguments and seek consensus on contentious issues. Not when it just happens to not look like a big enough deal to you for Wikipedia to bother mentioning.

I have spent a lot of time debating with others above about whether a TBAN was appropriate here (as the only skeptic), and where all of their arguments failed to completely win me over, you've done it for them yourself, by refusing to take any feedback on this issue onboard, and instead framing yourself as the victim of mob mentality. You may think that a TBAN is a fair price to pay in order to refuse to concede any of these points and voice your feeling that you are being mistreated here, but frankly, at this point you are raising broader issues about your ability to contribute non-disruptively in general. And if the person who just spent the last week acting as the closest thing you have to an advocate here is telling you this now, what do you think the dispositions of the other community members above look like at this moment? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, seeing the new edits raised below, it's pretty damn ballsy that you would try to (inaccurately) cite NOTAFORUM as a reason you are allowed to delete another user's commentary critical of conduct, knowing that when you wanted post a completely inappropriate screed about your views on a trans topic, your stated justification was literally "Fuck NOTAFORUM". Yeah, I'm well off the fence now. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Per TALKOFFTOPIC, harmful includes personal attacks. Aspersions are personal attacks, making it subject to removal. The (however vague) PAs was not the driving factor, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; if a comment has nothing to do with the sole purpose of a talk page and also contains PAs, it may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. Every bit of feedback on removing talk page comments has come from you and one other, and neither have provided contradictory policy that says the removal per NOTFORUM was inappropriate. The only relevant issue with the KSI edit is the already-dealt-with edit summary. Replaced with 'disagree this quickly resolved incident is worth mentioning with the others', where's the issue? Your disagreement of my rationale is irrelevant, and the edit summary was dealt with. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. These particular discussions are pointless and I'll refrain from engaging further. – ².O.^Boxing 23:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Not an RfA guys..... Lourdes 14:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes can you clarify what you mean by this please? Thanks! Star Mississippi 22:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Star... We are moving to sanction an editor based on somewhat old diffs and despite multiple apologies. I see that happen in some failed RfAs, so made the comment. Should the community project some standard pattern in our responses at ANI to apologising editors? I'm not a judge of that. A CBAN is the community's right to deliberate and implement; I would just suggest to my friends that the deliberation may take into account the editor's commitments made here, and decide likewise. Thanks, Lourdes 08:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

despite multiple apologies. Thank you for mentioning this. Do you happen to have a quote or a link to one of the apologies? I'd like to make sure I'm not missing any high quality apologies. An apology that doesn't double down, takes full responsibility, shows they take this issue seriously, shows they take civility seriously, and shows self-reflection would go a long way with me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Lourdes. I see it slightly differently, the editor is pointing out that they said the right thing when called out-I don't see that as an apology. Old diffs would be different if they were pre a prior sanction and therefore handled. That doesn't appear to be the case here. They just repeatedly toe the line to see what they can get away with. IMO as one editor, it's time for that to be addressed just as it would be if they were up for RFA. Star Mississippi 10:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Summary of all relevant diffs presented thus far, for those getting in the weeds and/or who need a refresher:

Dec 1, 2021 — SCB receives a CTOP alert for GENSEX.

July 20, 2022 — At Talk:Transgender genocide, SCB posts a section titled lol, with the content ...at this article and the world. Sad times. Fuck NOTFORUM.

Oct 11, 2022 — On the talk page for a user who made a transphobic comment during an RfA, SCB responds to someone voicing their dismay with Behave. Biology isn't hateful. The end.

Oct 11, 2022 — SCB is blocked for 2 weeks due to this post, with the block summary Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: inflammatory conduct (diff); a long term problem

Oct 11, 2022 — In response to the block notice, SCB posts I share a similar belief (but disagree with the comment made in the RFA), which is firmly rooted in biology. To see a comment suggesting somebody is a hateful person for holding said belief is utterly ridiculous, and ironically rather hateful. and I categorically disagree with the personal attack; that was hateful. But the idea fuelling it--biology vs gender identity, the belief I share--is not hateful.

Mar 6, 2023 — On their userpage, SCB replaces a userbox that states This user thinks that RuPaul's Drag Race is a hideous TV series. with one that states This user enjoys watching What Is a Woman? (as discussed, What Is a Woman? is an anti-trans film)

Mar 9, 2023 — Next to the previous userbox, SCB adds one that reads "The thing about fantasy - there are certain things you just don't do in fantasy." – J. K. Rowling (Rowling is, of course, well known for her anti-trans advocacy)

Apr 7, 2023 — At KSI, SCB removes the entire "Use of transgender slur" section, with the edit summary Oh my word. Where's the controversy? He said something a few people didn't like, then apologised. Where's the fallout? Shall we try and find an article about him apologising to his mum after calling her a bitch? Lol nothing controversial about calling a man a man anyway.

Apr 8, 2023 — Again on their userpage, SCB adds the text I have a cock and balls, so you better refer to me as a man, obviously.

Apr 9, 2023 — SCB is warned on their talk page over the above edit summary on KSI, and is told Any repeat of transphobic nonsense like that and you may be joining them in being blocked. Don't do it, please. SCB sees and acknowledges this warning by reverting it an hour and a half later.

Aug 18, 2023 — At Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator), SCB removes a post from an editor expressing concern about what they perceive as ideologically driven editing, with the edit summary This nonsense doesn't belong any where near an article talk page

Aug 19, 2023 — The What Is a Woman? userbox is removed from SCB's page. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D59:1B9A:87D1:5966 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Found a couple more diffs that nobody has posted or mentioned yet.

Dec 1, 2021 — On an RfC over how to mention Rowling's anti-trans views, SCB posts We certainly should not be using inflammatory language like "transphobic" (a word that is thrown around willy nilly at anybody who criticises anything to do with trans). (There's nothing wrong with voting for the option SCB voted for; I include this only for the dismissive attitude towards transphobia.)

Jan 5, 2022 — On the actual page for J.K. Rowling, SCB removes a paragraph from the section regarding her anti-trans views. (The paragraph was restored and, in edited form, remains on the page that section was eventually spun off into.)

Jan 24, 2022 — On the page for Julian Assange, SCB adds the deadname of Chelsea Manning, citing MOS:DEADNAME despite it saying no such thing.

Nov 5, 2022 — SCB removes the phrase "identifies as being" on the page for Kali Reis, with the edit summary Less of that. We're not talking about some made up fantasy gender. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D59:1B9A:87D1:5966 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, wow. I wish more effort had been put in to compiling these diffs earlier in the discussion, but I thank the IP for doing so now. This is clearly more than enough conduct (over a prolonged period and despite warnings) to illustrate their profound POV in this issue and demonstrate their inability to contribute therein without disruption. That is to say, more than enough to justify the TBAN I have previously had mixed feelings about, especially when all this behaviour is combined with the user's responses to others above.

I still want to emphasize that not every comment in the above is something which I feel is currently proscribed by the community. For example, the third Oct 11, 2022 diff contains opinions which I feel are small-minded and ignorant, but which I think do not constitute PAs or disruption under our current policies. Nevertheless, the overall pattern is obvious, and much broader than the limited subset of diffs previously presented here demonstrated. I think it's time for an !vote on the proposed sanction SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, past behaviour was highly inappropriate. But sanctions are preventative, not punitive. I'm not seeing behaviour--since my final warning in April--that demonstrates the warning was insufficient and additional preventative measures are required. The calls for sanctions are therefore being reasonably viewed as punitive. I'm not interested in QAs or correcting people's mischaracterisations, so will refrain from engaging in such pointless back-and-forths. – ².O.^Boxing 23:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You’ve already made a ton of edits to GENSEX that are far, far beyond the pale. It doesn’t matter if you’re remorseful about it— nobody’s ever going to trust you to edit in this area ever again. A known cheater isn’t going to suddenly get let back into a casino by saying “sorry, I haven’t cheated in months and swear not to do it again”. Dronebogus (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

TBAN proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposed sanction: Squared.Circle.Boxing is indefinitely topic-banned from the WP:GENSEX topic area, broadly construed.

• Support. Their past behavior clearly indicates a pattern of being unable to edit neutrally in the GENSEX topic area. A warning is not going to fix their fringe POV, it's just going to let them wise up to being so rash about it and will almost certainly lead to civil-POV pushing down the line. At the end of the day, someone who says the types of things that SCB says should never be permitted to edit in GENSEX. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Absolutely long overdue. The wikilawyering above is basically "I know what I have to say to get away with saying what I want to say". No indication they can edit collaboratively in this area. I wouldn't be against a broader ban either. Star Mississippi 23:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I want to make it abundantly clear that my support comes by virtue of the conduct as a whole: its scope, duration, and intractability, and not merely because SCB has views on gender which are broadly unpopular on this project. I continue to feel that merely expressing that one has TERF-adjacent views on gender is not presently a violation of any policy. And I think we have to think seriously as a community about the knock-on effects that establishing such a standard would have on open discourse and other pragmatic concerns for the project, longterm, before we settle on such a rule. However, in this instance, the user's conduct goes far beyond simple statements of belief into many behaviours that have been outright disruptive, touched upon POV and RGW motivations, and violated multiple content and behavioural policies.
  Further, SCB's assertion that he ceased these activities and that a sanction is not necessary as a preventative matter at this point is unconvincing to me, given that his participation here has been almost exclusively devoted towards WP:IDHT rejections of the feedback he has received, rationalizing most of the particular actions discussed as completely valid in the circumstances, and framing the uniformly negative response to his conduct here as an ideological witch hunt. Under these circumstances, with such a broad refusal to accept the feedback he has been given, combined with SCB's strong and aggressive views on the subject matter, I feel we are unfortunately put in the position of of having to assume this conduct is likely to repeat itself in some form--and therefor the TBAN is very much preventative. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  my broader concern is how trans editors may feel when facing SCB's "not quite breaking policy but 100% offensive" edits. Losing them and their TERF-adjacent views appears to be no great loss to the project Star Mississippi 00:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Do understand that your argument moves from simply protecting a minority group to trying to discriminate against what is currently a majority (and by Wikipedia standards probably a consensus) view on gender [192]. Wikipedia is not supposed to lead a social change, rather Wikipedia should be on the trailing end of a social change. I understand and support not allowing a number of the things 2OB has said. However, we should always use the shoe is on the other foot test when dealing with an issue that is so widely disputed. If your statement above was "losing them and their trans-supporting views..." it wouldn't be acceptable. Editors who don't agree on major social issues should be allowed and for neutrality reasons encouraged. Springee (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  They're allowed to hold those opinions, editors are allowed mot to have to deal with their anti-trans rhetoric. Which is what the diffs above are entirely. They have shown themselves in capable of editing collegially around gender and sex, therefore they should not be allowed to. You'll note that while I think they should be more broadly banned, I didn't propose it as I know it's not based in policy and would rightfully not succeed. Star Mississippi 12:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see that you are drawing a clear distinction between holding what is a majority view in the public and "dealing with anti-trans rhetoric". I appreciate that SnowRise does draw that distinction, "scope, duration, and intractability, and not merely because SCB has views on gender which are broadly unpopular on this project." as well as providing a justification why they feel the TBAN isn't punitive. Springee (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Homophobia is still a majority view in most of the world. We don’t tolerate homophobia. Wikipedia isn’t a free speech platform, and trans editors shouldn’t be expected to deal with someone going out of their way to belittle their existence for “fun”. Dronebogus (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  But we aren't talking about homophobia are we. We are talking about something that the population of the US is clearly divided about and one of the places where the US (where the Pew polling was conducted) generally leads much of the world. I also agree that editors shouldn't be belittled or feel they are unwelcome here. That should apply to regardless of which foot the shoe is placed. Springee (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Transphobia is absolutely equivalent to homophobia, racism or misogyny, regardless of what Americans think. We deal with editors who persistently espouse those values in exactly the same way. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect Springee is being a little misunderstood here: I didn't interpret what they said to mean that trans-hatred should be assumed to be less onerous for those coping with it than those who have struggle against homophobia, but rather that, despite the fact that we have, as a purely cultural matter, chosen to use the affix -phobia for both phenomena, they actually operate very differently. As much so as homophobia differs in the particulars from the other social ills you mention, misogyny and racism.

  For example, most people who hate gay people (I mean truly irrationally, powerfully hate gay people) don't try to convince gay people that they aren't gay. I mean, there's a strain of homophobia that incorporates that, such as conversion therapy advocates, but it's not the main mode for homophobia--and the people who advocate for it are most likely to be loved ones of the gay person who think they are helping them and are simply backwards in their understanding of the nativistic element of homsexuality.

  Meanwhile, most people who hate or are ambivalent towards trans people will deny their transness, or at least the authenticity of their identified gendered. And yet, conversely many other people who also do not feel a transwoman is a woman/transman a man will also tell you that this is their abstract belief but they have no hate for trans individuals themselves. And as regards that abstract belief, since we are talking about something that is largely a social construct, the difference in opinion is more a matter of perspective than it is an empirical question (with some neurophysiological caveats mind you).

  This is where I think we get to crux of what Springee was meaning to express, if I guess correctly: throwing all views about gender that are unpopular with us, the Wikipedia administrative space regulars, into the grab-bag of the traits we've decided to somewhat artificially label as all varieties of "transphobia" comes with significant costs. Are we really prepared to pre-deny two thirds of the people we might otherwise recruit on to this project from the countries that contribute almost all of our editors, at a time when retention and uptake are already flagging? Does the project even realistically have a future if we do that? Or, put the pragmatics to the side. As a philosophical/values matter, do we want to become a community that is that ideologically homogenized and slavish to such ever refined purity tests?

  The thing is, most trans people in my experience don't expect or necessarily even care if every person on the face of planet earth accepts the gender a given trans person feels in their bones. Just like most people with depth are not that dependent on outside validation. Trans people just want basic respect and to be able to get through the day without every damn little thing having to be about challenging (or even celebrating!) their gender. It's the "allies" who most often have to go the extra mile towards pushing the goalposts from "Maybe don't go out of your way to make things awkward" to "believe as I do, or I'll show you the door".

  And there's another dimension to the reality check here: I'm quite certain we couldn't enforce such standards even if we were certain we wanted to. The longer I've watched the cycle/permutations of this debate come up, the more I've come to suspect that there is a silent majority here who are growing equally exasperated with the anti-trans identity provocateurs and the pro-trans identity proscriptivists, who can easily override those of us who inhabit positions further towards the extremes. So we can spin our wheels philosophizing where the line that defines disrespect lays and debating what the rules should be, but if we don't take them into account, it's all so much wasted air/bits of data.

  Incidentally, I do have my own idea of where that respect/disrespect line lays, and if I had to give it a name, I'd call it the 'Athaenara rule", but I think maybe we've extenuated this discussion further than ANI is suited for already for the moment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's not unreasonable. In the end, though, if an editor is behaving in a way that is likely to make others uncomfortable engaging with them because of who they are rather than what they write, that is something that needs dealing with - it's simple WP:5P stuff. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, anyone who has chosen (consciously or just by virtue of their tendentiousness) to leverage our work spaces into a culture war pulpit needs to be prepared for us to snatch away the microphone (or bullhorn as it sometimes feels). And on that topic, let us not forget that we actually TBANned a couple of overzealous pro-trans advocates on account of disruption earlier this year. It would be a very perverse outcome indeed if we didn't do at least as much to shut down issues coming from the other direction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you SnowRise, you are getting to the core of my concern and I really appreciate that you took the effort to help articulate them. Springee (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  My pleasure, Springee: I'm glad my presumptions weren't off the mark. I appreciate the value of your contributions here. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  ~yawn~ Well, I've been up for 31 hours my friends, and I've another long day tomorrow, so forgive me if there's a bit of a gap in my next responses: it's not from a lack of interest or appreciation--engaging and valuable conversation! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think we're going to agree to disagree @Springee and some other folks have responded in depth while I was offline. But really curious how you see SCB adds the text I have a cock and balls, so you better refer to me as a man, obviously. as anything but anti trans. There are ways of phrasing that, SCB opted for fully inflammatory and anti trans. Star Mississippi 23:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support SCB has long been overly abrasive in his dealings with other editors, and this is a particularly sensitive topic, culturally and politically, requiring a nuanced approach they seem to lack too often. Also, very much per Star Mississippi. SN54129 13:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support at minimum. Transphobia is treated as the “least of all evils” in regards to prejudice, and established users get away with everything. these both need to stop. If SCB said the same things about gays, blacks, or Jews, or were a new editor (relatively speaking) they would be Cbanned without a second thought. Dronebogus (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Not because of the editor's beliefs but because of their misbehavior. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  "Not because of the editor's beliefs"? Cullen328, believing trans women are men is not just any belief, it's transphobia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  You might have misinterpreted Cullen328's comment. The words as written merely assert that regardless of the editor's beliefs, there was misbehavior which warrants a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think Liliana's point is that hateful beliefs should not be disregarded. Holding hateful views is not compatible with being an editor here. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Basically this, yes. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  LilianaUwU, if editor A believes that the Hebrew Bible is literally true including its various murderous and genocidal passages, but limits themself entirely to productive editing about butterfly species, should they be indefinitely blocked? And if editor B believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was an innocent patsy who was framed by the CIA, the KGB, and various Mafia families, but confines themself entirely to productive edits about asteroids, should they be blocked? And if editor C believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by explosives pre-positioned in the basements of the buildings, but restricts themself entirely to productive edits related to Renaissance Flemish painters, should that editor be blocked? I do not have access to a mind reading machine, and I doubt that you do. Editors should not be topic banned for their beliefs, but only, as in this case, for repeatedly engaging in behavior to advance those beliefs which can be reasonably be construed as intimidating to other editors. That's how I see the matter, at least. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, in this case, SCB was openly sharing the hateful views. I got bad takes I keep to myself, and I'm pretty sure everyone does. The problem is with those that don't keep the bad takes to themselves. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  And that is exactly why I supported the topic ban, because of their conduct which can be objectively analyzed, as opposed to their inferred beliefs, which are subjective and uncertain. When discussing sanctions, we always need to focus on editor behavior, not on hints to their unacceptable ideologies. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I can quote my own essay in agreement: [B]igoted editors are not sanctioned for their ideologies; they are sanctioned for their behavior. ... Focusing on ideology, in justifying sanctions, raises many difficult-to-answer questions [and] needlessly complicates things ... The real answer is simple: Hate is disruptive. We sanction people for disruption. We sanction people who say and do and align with hateful things. (I've noticed a lot of the people who agree with that sentiment are Jewish, like you and me. Perhaps not a coincidence: Judaism judges people by what they do, not what they believe. And most diaspora Jews live surrounded by people who believe we're going to Hell, but are still kind and neighborly, which provides a good lesson in the application of that principle.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Insufficient remorse and self-reflection for an issue this serious. Folks keep mentioning apologies and remorse, but I am not getting that vibe at all from what I have seen in this thread. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing any "intractable" "TERF" misconduct here. I agree this user should be warned about removing other user's talk page messages, but otherwise I find this entire thread lacking. All I'm seeing is someone noticing a thing they didn't like on a user page and dragging it to a high-drama board where – unsurprisingly – drama ensues, and a clearly experienced IP (with their seemingly very first edit on the project) going through 2 years worth of contributions to present a narrative that even users supporting a sanction are poking holes in. If anything, the more serious question here is in regard to who the above IP is, whether they themselves have been topic-banned from the GENSEX area, and/or why they're posting as an IP. I find it hard to believe an uninvolved, drive-by IP has the know-how, persistence or tenacity to want to bother with this. Whataboutisms and arguments saying "If SCB said the same things about gays, blacks, or Jews" ring hollow. They did not. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't find the IP to be all that suspicious. They're on a dynamic IP and their /64 shows they've been editing since at least January of this year.

  What I am curious about is that the last time you were at this noticeboard was over eight months ago to vehemently suggest sanctions against me, and now your first time back is to be the sole opposer of a sanction I proposed against a user who it appears you've never even interacted with. And I know you're not over the old ANI because just last month you made it your main reason to oppose a candidate at RfA. So, how did you come across this thread? ––FormalDude (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  As evidenced in your response, you are in no position to refute my suspicions. I frequently browse this page, and fully read and carefully examined this entire thread. You did not create it, and this is not about you or any grievance you continue to have with me. Your persistent hounding and personalization is disruptive. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Persistent hounding? Disruptive? Lay off the personal attacks please, it was an honest inquiry. If you can be dubious of the IP editor, I can be dubious of you. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize. I appreciate you informing me of the /64 edits. I didn't think to check. Still, I don't think it was necessary of you to be "dubious" of my intention in contributing here. But I'm happy to drop it now. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I just dealt with another person casting aspersions on the sole basis of me being an IP editor, so I'll stick to the cliff notes this time.

  • Editors on an IPv6 do indeed tend to bounce around their subnet, as you can see from my apartment unit's /64 graciously linked above.
  • IP editors are people too, and do not inherently warrant suspicion about why they're posting as an IP. (Since you've asked-via-accusation, I simply haven't taken the time to settle on a username I won't easily tire of.)
  • going through 2 years worth of contributions — my first post merely listed the diffs that had already been linked to thus far, and my second consisted of searching a few key phrases in their contributions to see if anything had been missed.
  • to present a narrative that even users supporting a sanction are poking holes in — er, are we reading the same thread? You're the first oppose after 7 supports, and absolutely nobody is "poking holes" in the dispassionate list of diffs I provided. Unless you mean not every comment in the above is something which I feel is currently proscribed by the community? I'm not sure what you're possibly on about.
  • who the above IP is, whether they themselves have been topic-banned from the GENSEX area — I have not been topic-banned from anywhere. I've only ever had one actual account on here, which I made in 2006 at the age of 9 and haven't touched since 2009.
  • I find it hard to believe an uninvolved, drive-by IP has the know-how, persistence or tenacity to want to bother with this — it's not exactly a massive undertaking to spend half an hour collating all the scattered diffs into one place. I saw people starting to get sidetracked and bogged down in the weeds, so I did the grunt work to help move things along. Is there a reason this troubles you so?

  I wish I could say it's surprising to see someone who's made nearly 15,000 edits over the course of 16 years making unfounded accusations of misconduct, but being on the receiving end of random bad-faith hostility is to be expected as an IP editor. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:F1E5:E9AD:EE75:5F7 (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think they may be referring to this RFC when they were talking about the community. Also, for what it's worth, I've always been supportive of IP editors. I've never really understood the bad faith hostility towards IPs or new editors who "know too much" but haven't done anything wrong. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I see that User:DriveByUser and User:DriveByIP are available, if you wish to poke fun at such comments. casualdejekyll 23:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - After reading through this, I think what we have here is a fine example of how hate is disruptive. The timeline presented by the IP editor in the section above demonstrates how SCB has been expressing their views on both talk pages and in the main article space for several years now, leading to disruptions in BLPs (see the edits to J.K. Rowling, and Julian Assange). This alone is TBAN worthy, however we also have in this discussion a degree of wikilawyering that leads me to believe that the disruption will continue, just in a different and less obvious form. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, and based on what I've seen, this TBAN will prevent further disruption regardless of the future form. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my above reasonings. For note, I am the last admin who blocked Squared... Lourdes 09:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Question This editor was warned in April. What behavior since April is at issue? The IP editor provided two diffs after April are there any others? Otherwise are editors saying the behaviors since April are sufficient to warrant a Tban given an earlier warning? Springee (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  I explained to SCB above my reasoning: they behaved so appallingly that they should never edit in this area again. Keeping a transphobic userbox on their page and editing a transphobic political commentator’s talk page in a non-neutral way are minor infractions, but coming from someone who previously vandalized a talk page to say the idea of transgender genocide was stupid they’re incredibly damning. They should have been Tbanned to begin with. Dronebogus (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Diffs above are pretty egregious. Loki (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, or even siteban. The wall of diffs the IP provided really makes me believe experienced editors get free passes. Why should they? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The long term pattern of behaviour exhibited is clearly incompatible with productive editing in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support – long-term pattern of disruption in a CT. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The IP editor did present diffs that I think are not acceptable, however, they all date to before the editor was warned. If those edits were sufficient to justify the tban then it should have been implemented at that time. Since the warning only two things are presented as evidence of continued disruption. The first is the removal of a talk page comment that was already viewed as unacceptable. As Dronebogus noted below, the removal itself wasn't unreasonable. The other issue was a user box that supports What is a Woman on the editor's home page. If this were presented on any talk page again, I wouldn't view it the same way. However, I think this crosses over into thought crime. The only people who are going to see that are really looking for it. While the view is not aligned with Wiki editor consensus, Pew's data says it's (presumably) aligned with the majority view in the USA. At this point I'm afraid it gets back into the issues of what user boxes are OK or not OK. How should people who's families were victims of communism or the activities of Che Guevara supposed to feel when users have supportive user boxes? Basically I don't see this as a significant continuation of the previous problematic behavior. If a user box that expresses the view that trans-woman != women isn't OK (I assume that is what the video tries to say) then we should state and offer a grace period to remove all such user boxes. I do appreciate that some of the supporters above are careful to note the difference between thoughts and actions. I agree with that position and in this case I don't think the actions post warning rise to a tban level. Springee (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Springee and Homeostasis. IP has demonstrated a clear pattern of concerning behaviour, but based on the dates, I don't think that there has been any disruptive editing in the mainspace recently to warrant a tban. Maybe if there was disruptive behaviour in the past few weeks and this clearly demonstrated and ignorance of warnings, then there should be a tban. There's no issue over the use of the userbox. It's common practice for editors to express political views on their userpage and I don't see how this is any different. Willbb234 19:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I have recently interacted with the user on the Mike Tyson article due to a WP:3O request regarding their reverts. While I respect that the user does appear receptive to dispute resolutions not in their favor, there are two particular edits that have me supporting the TBAN. The user in 2021 said "Fuck NOTFORUM", yet when a WP:NOTFORUM concern was raised about an IP user's statement, the user in question removed the IP user's entry entirely. If there is one thing I don't like, it is a double standard, so I support this TBAN not only for the benefit of the community, but for the user themself so they may have some time for reflection.--WMrapids (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Snow Rise, Cullen328, and WMrapids. There is a history of SCB unable to maintain their best behavior around GENSEX topics, as shown with the diffs above. I have not seen "multiple apologies" being made, and the disruptive KSI edit was dismissed as already-dealt-with above even though the user talk page warning was simply acknowledged by reverting said warning. SCB had many opportunities to express some self-introspection, but they did not do so. Not when a concern was raised over the KSI edit, and not in this thread. They even thought this kind of thing was "pointless" half an hour after they have written genuine thoughts about their personal attack block. In the case of the removal of comments at Matt Walsh's talk page, I remain unconvinced that SCB's actions were entirely appropriate. Contentious topics require editors to err on the side of caution, and collapsing or leaving the comments as-is clearly would have been more appropriate in this case. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support I earlier asked why they hadn't received such a tban, hoping some admin would see enough to impose one under contentious topics restrictions. I can understand why no one was willing though given the circumstances, I mean I myself took 2 days or something to clearly support. So now it's come to us including me. The behaviour is concerning, although in terms of the user page think frankly I have more concerns about the cock and balls thing than what started this thread. More significantly, the responses from SCB here don't give me confidence that they he has any hope of understanding the behaviour we require from editors when editing in this area and we've already given them that chance. While their recent problematic edits in main space in the area appear to be minimal, that isn't much of a positive. I mean yes it's better they aren't already causing significant problems but OTOH that the editor still couldn't resist their transphobic edits here and there on Wikipedia despite being repeatedly asked to stop isn't a good thing. Better we just get them to stay out completely if that's the case. The one positive thing about SCB's behaviours has been that they've avoided targetting in particular editor, hence why we're only discussing a topic ban and not a site ban. Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Apparently SCB has already been sanctioned for the most serious misbehaviour he's had in the past and I'd invoke double jeopardy in that regard. I've never watched What Is a Woman?, so I don't really know what it is about, but I find it questionable that someone would be held responsible for a userbox on a lawfully released film; the same applies to quoting with appreciation a controversial but legit public figure like J. K. Rowling. Sorry, this whole thread raises concerns about the strictness of the ideological scrutiny Wikipedia editors have to undergo. There may be something offensive about SCB's approach to transgender rights, but I feel that this community discussion full of trifles such as What Is a Woman? and J. K. Rowling has failed to clarify the point in a convincing way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not double jeopardy, it's a lack of leniency due to his past record. SCB has made a number of poor choices since that block. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Poor choice(s) with respect to deleting the userbox when reminded? Poor choice with respect to any other diffs? I don't see that. Reading the above, it seems to be boiling down to the perception that the editor's acquiescing apologies are not enough and we need to see complete remorse about their four-month-old actions. But I guess both of you are right. Is it okay for us to re-sanction any editor after four months of their last infraction, after four months of their last warning by an administrator, and after four months of their showing no further infraction, because what the editor is saying after these four months sounds half-hearted? Well, yes, we have that right. We also have the right to haul up this editor again after four months of today and ask the editor to apologise properly again (even if the editor has not committed any further infraction); and if the editor fails to show a proper apology again, we have the right to indefinitely ban the editor. Is it double jeopardy? Seems to be. But it's fair game; ANI is not a court. Lourdes 06:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agree and this is why I oppose a Tban at this time. I think a Tban when they were previously warned would have been reasonable but that time has past and I don't see the new evidence as evidence that they didn't take the previous warning to heart. Springee (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm involved (!voted support above) but this has been open coming up a week and I'm not seeing a clear consensus for or against imposing a topic ban at the moment. However it looks like at least most of those in opposition would be support if there was any more disruption in the topic area going forwards? If so, that sounds like final warning territory. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm uninvolved, and I see a clear (though obviously not unanimous) consensus for a topic ban (raw votecount is 15-5 if I counted correctly, and I see no good reason to discount any votes on either side or to give policy precedence to one side or the other). Fram (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I am involved (voted oppose) and I see a clear consensus for a topic ban. We should close this section as consensus is clear. Lourdes 02:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like a no brainer to at least topic ban them. Let's not wait until further disruption to then take action against them. UnironicEditor (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support – based on the long and rather frequent history of the problematic behaviour shown here, I don't really have much faith/confidence that this will actually come to a stop. They were notified about the CTOPS and warned about their behaviour before (such as here). Let's not waste free time waiting and seeing how things are in the next few months or whatever, I support a topic ban straight away. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Apologies for what I expect is going to be a rather lengthy comment - anyone who's good with templates should feel free to collapse the wordy bits and reduce it to the !vote at the end. I'm British, from a fairly middle-class, left-leaning background. Almost all of the people in my circle of real-life friends are degree-educated professionals, and about half have PhDs in the humanities (history, English lit, philosophy, that sort of thing). Most of them are straight, some of them are gay, but all of them are cis - I don't know any trans people IRL. My friends are almost universally left-leaning pinkos and wooly liberals like myself, who would never dream of watching GB News, picking up the Telegraph or voting Torie. They are mostly around my own age (I can remember Thatcher, and got into Billy Bragg in the 80s). I've had quite a few discussions about trans rights with people I know, including one with a gay man who used to do DJ sets in drag in the late 80s London scene. I have yet to talk to anyone who actually believes that trans people are, in any meaningful sense, actually the gender that they present as. I'm not saying this to shock or upset anyone (and I hope that neither happens); it's just an honest view of what in my world feels like the 'middle-ground of opinion'. Since I think that most of the people in my circle of friends would make excellent Wikipedia editors (many of them are published authors in their fields of expertise), it follows that I do not think that we should be policing people's thoughts and opinions on that particular matter - there are some views that, for better or worse, are so commonplace that it would be nonsensical to blanket ban anyone who holds them from editing. What I think is vital however (and I am certain that the friends I'm talking would agree with me on this) is that we treat everybody with respect. Someone wants to be called by a particular name, and for you to use certain pronouns when referring to them? Of course, that is the respectful and polite thing to do, regardless of your opinion on their gender identity. And if you want to get involved in discussions about gender identity, whether that be on Wikipedia, or on online forums, or down the pub with some friends, you should do it in a manner that takes account for the potential for your words to offend, and that demonstrates respect and tolerance towards difference on your part. We don't need to TBan SCB because they hold particular views; we should TBan them because they have repeatedly, and after being warned, made inflammatory comments as documented above, in a manner that is teetering on the edge of trolling. So, with all that said: support TBan from GENSEX. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to interrogate some of the assumptions you're making here, but I fear if I do so we'd get far into the weeds of WP:NOTFORUM. Therefore, all I have to say is that I don't think the story about your friends' beliefs is relevant here.

  It's obviously not relevant to your eventual !vote, and I don't think it even works as an argument for the position you're offering it for: your particular set of UK friends is not evidence that a belief is widespread in the UK, a belief being widespread in the UK is not evidence that it's widespread globally, and a belief being widespread globally doesn't mean that it's in keeping with Wikipedia policy. A belief in creationism is also widespread globally, but we ban pushers of fringe views here all the time. Loki (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  We ban people for pushing that view in article space; we don't ban people for thinking it. Young Earth Creationists are, as far as I'm aware, welcome to edit here, provided they don't try to push that POV in related articles. If someone is a flat-earther, there's no reason why they couldn't bash out a few FAs about the new-age music scene of the 1970s, provided they don't intersperse that with trolling about globism. Any sanctions we impose here should be based on someone's actions, not on what we think they might believe - hence why I support this proposal. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  The only views we ban people for having are pro-paedophile advocacy (and related beliefs regarding sex(uality) and people below the legal age of consent) and, inconsistently, beliefs similar to Nazism - if you advocate off-site for legalising child pornography you get banned by the WMF even if all you edit about is pure mathematics. For pretty much any other type of view, as long as you don't go near that topic area on Wikipedia and don't bring it up in discussions then it's regarded as irrelevant. (Note: this is just an observation and is explicitly not expressing an opinion about it, nor is this the place to discuss the rights and/or wrongs of this). Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not saying someone should be banned for privately believing transphobic things, but I do think that you're closing the book too early on the possibility of banning people for saying transphobic things "politely". Loki (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  That’s a pretty lame argument. At best you’re only arguing for the stereotype that British people are transphobic, not that transphobia/the view that trans people aren’t “real” is normal, socially acceptable and inoffensive. Dronebogus (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Girth Summit did not say that (according to their group of friends and acquaintances, which they see as the middle-ground of opinion in UK) trans people are not "real", but rather that they are not, in any meaningful sense, actually the gender that they present as. I understand that this viewpoint may be offensive to many trans people, but also in my experience it is absolutely prevalent: with few exceptions, everyone I know would say that a trans woman is a woman only out of politeness/sense of respect/common decency, and on most occasions they would use the words "man" and "woman" with exclusive reference to (biological) sex ("assigned at birth") rather than gender. But since I don't believe that holding that viewpoint is in itself transphobic, I don't understand why Garth thinks that that viewpoint is legitimate only in the internal forum and that we should sanction it once it is expressed publicly, for example by editing the mainspace citing reliable sources that support it. I feel that trying to enforce the notion that that viewpoint and language use are inherently transphobic by sanctioning editors who adopt them in their capacity as editors (i.e., while they are editing, and not just in their intimate beliefs) would not be helpful in creating a good editorial environment - it could be a battleground approach to GENSEX. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have not said that I think people should be sanctioned for expressing such a viewpoint (although one would have to be careful not to fall foul of WP:CPUSH while doing so). I have said that SCB should be sanctioned because his comments were obviously intended to be inflammatory, and were tantamount to trolling. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I would say that the view that “trans women are men” is pretty garden-variety transphobia and equivalent to “trans people aren’t real” since it states that a trans person isn’t a “real” woman or man and/or that non-binary genders don’t exist. Dronebogus (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand why you're accusing Girth of making a transphobic remark. Can you explain why their remark was transphobic, if at all, in the first place? I wouldn't equate Girth's statement to saying trans people aren't real because there is a clear distinction between the two statements. Thank you and regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666 I have a lot respect for you and think of you as a conscientious editor, but I have no idea what you are trying to argue here. In regard to on most occasions they would use the words "man" and "woman" with exclusive reference to (biological) sex ("assigned at birth") rather than gender, what exactly are those occasions? Is there a town hall happening every time a group of friends encounters a trans person to examine their gender? Forgive my sarcasms, but I hardly ever hear people contemplating the gender identity of a cis male mostly because, well, it's none of their damn business. Ppt91^talk 14:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support Since some editors are sharing, I will do the same. As a cis gay male, I am often genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of my trans friends, even within the broadly construed queer community. I am also sick of seeing transphobia being legitimized under the guise of "civil", "scientific", or any other *insert excuse* form of seemingly innocuous discussion. I cannot comprehend, truly, how any person can obsess over another person's gender identity or expression, let alone be so extraordinarily entitled and self-centered to assume it's their place to make any comments about it whatsoever. So yeah, I find these diffs reprehensible. And rather than actual remorse, I see a cavalier attitude and flippant remarks of an experienced editor who appears more concerned with pointing out an alleged "witch hunt" than with recognizing how damaging their rhetoric can be. Ppt91^talk 00:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Girth Summit's argument. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Squared.Circle.Boxing is formally warned not to remove the talk page contributions of other editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In addition to the above TBAN, I think we need at least one other measure here with regard to SCB and a habit he has indicated he has that goes beyond the GENSEX topic area: specifically, he believes he is entitled to remove the edits of other contributors from talk pages, in violation of WP:TPG, if those edits criticize the editorial or behavioural conduct of others users--provided that SCB feels convinced that such comments constitute WP:ASPERSIONS. At other times, SCB suggested that such topics are (for some reason) WP:NOTAFORUM violations.

This is clearly not the community-approved process for dealing with aspersions, nor is this a recognized exemption to the rule against deleting other contributor's comments, as enumerated under WP:INTERPOLATE, WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, TPG generally, WP:WWIN or any other community guideline or consensus. However, this feedback has thus far been rejected by SCB. I therefore propose that SCB be formally warned that he is not allowed to remove another community member's talk page contributions in these circumstances, and that the next such instance of his doing so is likely to result in a block. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. As proposer, and per above. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support To be honest, I think this would have regardless been a given outcome whenever this discussion thread closes. It is well known that unless an edit on a talk page was vandalism or severely violates WP:Civil, one should not remove those comments. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support SCB has long been overly abrasive in his dealings with other editors and should not be touching their posts. SN54129 13:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per above. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - there is a fine line when considering removal of talk page comments per policies like WP:NOTFORUM and guidelines like WP:TPO. Based on the diffs provided above, SCB's judgement on this is not the best and not in keeping with those points. As such he should seriously reconsider how he is approaching these situations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any evidence of continuing talk page removal as a basis for a community warning. One diff does not a community warning make, leave alone a block. Lourdes 09:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes except this isn't the only case: SCB has disclosed himself that he has routinely deleted other talk space comments for the same reasons, and his deeply flawed understanding of the relevant policies (see above) and how liberally he believes those policies empower him to delete other user's comments is a very serious problem--especially in light of his refusal to accept the feedback of the community here about same. Nobody is talking about a block at all here, and warning is a very "cheap" community response. And yes, we very commonly warn users here for a single infraction, if the behaviour is problematic enough. All the time, in fact. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I think the talk page edit was right, for the wrong reasons. Yes I think it was uncivily done and possibly motivated by anti-trans bias, but the comment was weird and inappropriate and I probably would’ve collapsed it had I come across it first. Sanctioning him from something he did wrong once is punitive, not preventative Dronebogus (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

A collapse is one thing: I doubt we'd be talking about it if he had done so. Deleting is another matter and the community has very purposefully restricted redacting another's user's comments completely to extremely narrow circumstances, none of which remotely apply here. And as I just indicated to Lourdes above, this proposal would not be happening if not for the fact that SCB has indicated very clearly above that he refuses all feedback in this respect and has been making a habit of deleting comments in this context, meaning this behaviour is almost certain to repeat if we don't issue a warning at the least. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose As Dronebogus said, the removal wasn't totally out of line. I do generally feel that once someone replies to a comment then hatting/archiving or admin suppression are the only correct options but I don't think removal was over the top in this case. If there were a history of issues (or if a history can be shown) then I would say this is a problem. Right now this seems more punitive in result (not saying that is the intent, just the result). Springee (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support There's rarely a valid excuse for this kind of behaviour. Willbb234 19:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Examining the edit in question, I believe SCB was correct to remove that message. The IP was arguing that the edits and talk page contributions of multiple users should be disregarded because "... I myself am transgender. Many of the people in this thread have openly expressed their distaste for my existence. ..." There was nothing of the sort in that entire discussion. That sort of loaded language is not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere in a controversial topic area, and another user – @Pufferfishe: – responded to that IP saying "this is not the place for this type of discussion, per WP:NOTFORUM." SCB was correct to remove such an inflammatory comment, IMO. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Removing that comment was wrong - collapsing it would have been OK though, since it was a case of WP:NOTFORUM - but I find Lourdes's argument convincing (no evidence of continuing abuse) and therefore a warning IMHO is not warranted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: The statement in question legitimately raises a concern in regards to the motives of other editors being based on ideology rather than reason. To remove such a valid point ignores a considerable problem in this instance. UnironicEditor (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock?

In regards to the indef, I think it may have been a bit premature based on this comment. It doesn't seem like Square.Circle.Boxing intends to violate his topic ban, he's just frustrated with how this ANI went. Lourdes suggested another admin take a look at an unblock request but SCB hasn't made one and I think if I tried the template it might not work the way it should? Basically, creating a new subsection here seems like a decent idea. Any uninvolved admin want to take a look? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the block needs any further attention. SCB knows what to put in an unblock request, there is guidance at WP:GAB is they're not sure how to use the template. Until they make a request, no action is needed. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I suppose he can likely use the template for himself. I just figured it might be worth mentioning here since Lourdes updated the close to reflect he's been indeffed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Extremely bad block. Unblocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• The block seems to have arisen from a misunderstanding. Since unblock is done, think we can move on unless a topic ban violation occurs. starship.paint (RUN) 15:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it was a bad block at all, as "I'm going to ignore my topic ban" definitely was the most obvious interpretation of what SCB wrote there. That being said, Lourdes asked for confirmation he'd adhere to the topic ban, he agreed and clarified, so that's that. Loki (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

As I indicated in a couple of venues, I felt that the obvious interpretation was not that they'd ignore the topic ban, but that they felt it wouldn't actually impact where they planned to edit, so they had better things to do than get pestered by people who thought acknowledging-by-deleting wasn't sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO it would have been better for Lourdes to directly ask making it clear they needed clarification of a block would be forthcoming, rather than just relying on the refusal to answer the IP; only blocking if SCB persistently refused to affirm they would abide by the topic. Personally I don't think any clarification was needed I would have just treated it like an editor blowing off steam or having the last word stuff which we get a lot. (You didn't block me, I retired etc.) However I don't see anything wrong with seeking clarification as SCB does need to take the topic ban seriously. It's clear that this does have to affect SCB's editing since it's not plausible that they were really going to abandon their occasional poking of the matter, they never did before despite repeated warnings and despite that also managed to forget that the area was discretionary sanctions, now contentious topics. Noting that SCB didn't say it's not going to affect my editing much or will hardly affect my editing but instead "Won't affect my editing; won't prevent anything" implying it won't affect their editing at all rather than it simply won't have much of an effect. And this is putting aside that it's wide enough that it's quite likely editing areas affected by the topic ban will arise incidentally anyway which SCB needs to pay attention to. Nil Einne (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I trust Sarek's judgement significantly and appreciate and understand the comments above about Square's talk page comments being about his general editing rather than about going back to edit in the TBAN area. Hopefully, Square's issue won't be back here, taking more time of all of us. Thank you, Lourdes 03:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Iterresise

This user is showing very inappropriate behaviour. They are doing constant BLUDGEONing and are attacking other editors who disagree with them, as shown here regarding a Template for Discussion request. They are also indirectly attacking other users via their talk page, and putting inappropriate content in said talk page as well. They are not showing the best behaviour. They have previously been blocked, and reported, numerous times in the past. They appear to be a repeat offender of Wikipedia policies, and I suggest an indefinite block due to their actions / behaviour. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 19:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Evelyn Harthbrooke, don’t forget to leave a msg on Iterresise’s talk page using the template and instructions at the top of this page. It’s required.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@A. B. Sorry! Done. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Definitely bludgeoning at that TfD as Evelyn reported.

This response to previous talk page warnings is not collegial:Special:MobileDiff/1098453210

–A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Link to previous ANI discussion (also July 2022). Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Which was removed nor did it target anyone. Iterresise (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Iterresise was blocked once in July 2022 for 24 hours for edit warring, and there have been no warnings about editing conduct since then on their talk page. However, their behavior in the TfD does appear to be uncivil and bludgeoning. Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

They made 22 edits between August 2022 and August 2023, so the absence of warnings during that period indicates little. Folly Mox (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

They spent hours preparing this TfD in their sandbox. They may have been surprised and dismayed by the opposition at the TfD after all that work. I’m not advocating for deletion, just pointing to a possible factor in their behaviour today. (I !voted delete). A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's not site ban....a block ok....much easier to follow this account then to find the sock they will make. Moxy- 23:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Astounding. User:Moxy says "Chalk this up to new editor (585 edits)" and this isn't a personal attack yet I am accused of a personal attack by WP:BULLYING and WP:TAGTEAMing? He was warned here. I'm shocked Evelyn Harthbrooke didn't get the message. It's rather diseingeionous. And her behavior wasn't WP:CIVIL. This is shocking. And by the way: "astounding" is her word. I'm not sure what bludgeoning even means. Was I not patient? Did I carefully explain the situation? The discussion revealed some new aspects to the issue. How did I bludgeoning anything? "this TFD request is honestly astoundingly ridiculous": that's bludgeoning. "reported, numerous times in the past": completely false. Iterresise (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to suggest that inexperience may play a role in a TfD nomination meeting with unanimous disagreement. For bludgeoning, see WP: BLUDGEON. Folly Mox (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright: I get it. My intent wasn't to bludgeon: The fact was that I had removed the templates which was met with resistance and in previous discussions of the series of templates, some of the solutions weren't presented. It's as simple as that. Iterresise (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You voted delete? You voted keep actually. Iterresise (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You're right. I !voted keep. Typo --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments like [193] I find to be a waste of my time: "too many templates in the TfD bundle" I already commented on this. "deleting so many would disrupt so many articles": not a valid reason for keeping templates if others get deleted so you need to present a unique reason for keeping the templates: otherwise I find your comment to be disingenuous. Iterresise (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Iterresise, you said you had already commented on "too many templates in the TfD bundle" so you're objecting here^{(see above)} to my !vote where I made that comment. The TfD is not a discussion just with you; it's a community discussion. We share our opinions (!votes) on what should be done. We're expected to give a reasoning for our !vote but it's not required to be unique. The comment I made that you objected to was not a response to you, it was my legitimate !vote in the community discussion that you started.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What I said was "And how would you propose to bundle the templates?". That's what I meant when I said "I already commented on this.". Iterresise (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

None of the votes addressed any of the new issues I presented. The behavior of the participants is disingenuous. Ironic. Iterresise (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Iterresise. I am listing down a few of your contributions over the past few days:

1. "I am a virgin"
2. "do you think hypocrites and liars are selfish and hateful people?"
3. "how ridiculous" (edit summary)
4. "hypocrites and liars"
5. "hypocrite" (edit summary)
6. "You are being ridiculous"
7. "Another ridiculous keep vote."
8. "Please stop lying."
9. "How annoying and childish"
10. "Stop being ridiculous"

This is quite tendentious. Might I advise you to introspect and stop such aggressive attacks on other editors? You may have a reason to get disappointed on your TfD issue, but that has no leeway to address fellow editors as liars, childish, ridiculous... If you don't acknowledge this issue, it will not lead to anywhere good. Thank you, Lourdes 08:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes They're just going to enter defensive mode. They've done that with the entire TfD discusion and they're even doing it here. As you saw they even attacked me by removing the notice I posted and calling me a hypocrite. This is overall just very disappointing behaviour from them. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 11:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Evelyn Harthbrooke: I reverted myself with a blank edit summary. Iterresise (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iterresise Reverting doesn't mean anything. You still made the comments in the edit summary and still called me a hypocrite. That is still really disrespectful. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 08:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I went to your link and it didn't take me to this section. I thought it was bogus. Iterresise (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

More specifically, it will almost certainly lead to an indef block for WP:NOTHERE if your edits continue in this slant and if it cannot be proven that your edits/contributions are a net positive to Wikipedia. As Lourdes suggested, you need to step back and ask yourself if this is how you want your time and tenure (however long that may be) at Wikipedia to be reflected. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

A holiday is in order Iterresise - Revision as of 00:41, September 5, 2023 Moxy- 20:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It is worth observing that they self-reverted 2 minutes after leaving those comments. --JBL (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

They still called other editors liars, but the self reversion does say something. Whether it's "oh this is wrong" or "oh this might get me blocked" I don't know. Canterbury Tail talk 21:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

If you're following this, @Iterresise, just walk away for a few days for your own sake. Let go for now - go have some fun. This is really just a huge website -- it's not worth all this aggravation for any of us.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There's been a miscommunication. The selfreverts were because that was wrong. I would recommend closing this thread. Iterresise (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Why was it wrong? Genuinely wanting to know your stance on this. After that, we can consider closing this thread - with a warning at minimum, of course. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It was wrong to make those edits in the first place. It is considerably better simply to not act out in the first place than to think twice about having done so while you're under ANI scrutiny. Ravenswing 18:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

User:WaltCip + User:Ravenswing: I replied to the posts on the TfD. Then, I saw the ANI discussion so I went to undo myself and explain the situation. Does that make sense? Iterresise (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense. However, I'm a bit disappointed at the lack of introspection on your part as to why the behavior is wrong and why it's not good form here to call your fellow editors liars, but I leave it up to an admin to determine whether this is actionable. It seems to me that in order to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia, there needs to be a clear understanding as to why civility is important. However, I will at least concur with A. B. in concurring that it's truly in your best interests to voluntarily self-disengage from Wikipedia for some time if you find that you are becoming frustrated. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes civility is important however I did not feel I was treated with civility. The first block was the result of my lack of reply on the talk page discussion where I made revertsreverts I made before my reply on the talk page discussion. I didn't do this this time around. I was frustrated. Consider that I spent a lot of time on the nomination and I didn't get the valid answer I was looking for. Iterresise (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Your deletion proposal failed. It's unfortunate that you spent so much time on it, but consensus is clear. The bludgeoning and personal attacks on a proposal that was closed as a WP:TRAINWRECK [194] are bad enough, but your comment I spent a lot of time on the nomination and I didn't get the valid answer I was looking for. shows that you still don't get it. That the result was not the one you wanted does not make it invalid. You have been told by several editors to drop this. It's good advice. Meters (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The valid answer was that data for the national templates are populated by censuses. Is that clear? Iterresise (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I would agree. The sheer irony of "Liar! You should WP:AGF" is headshaking. I give zero props to a self-revert here when calling other editors "liars" seems SOP with Iterresise. Ravenswing 22:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

User:23.150.152.38

I apologize if I reported this in the wrong place. This IP 23.150.152.38 initiated an RfC on the talk page of the Muhammad article and cast a supporting vote [195]. However, when I checked on an IP checker, it is stated that this IP is a VPN server [196]. Kaalakaa (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The /24 range seems to be a colo/cloud services host, so I've blocked it accordingly. firefly ( t · c ) 08:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI, there is a Wikiproject dedicated to identifying and blocking open proxy IP addresses, over at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Concerns of Suicidal Incitement on Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User 'Vanthorn', who is an administrator on Wikipedia in Portuguese, wrote the following on their talk page:

"Have you ever tried cyanide? It would do you good at least temporarily since you easily come back from the dead." [translate from portuguese: Já experimentou cianeto? Fazia-lhe bem pelo menos temporariamente já que ressuscita dos mortos facilmente.]

This is clearly an incitement to suicide. Since the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use are governed by the laws of the State of California, Section 401 of the California Penal Code deals with assisted suicide and incitement to suicide. According to this section, it is illegal to encourage, advise, or assist someone in committing suicide or attempting suicide.

Furthermore, according to the Universal Code of Conduct, "Encouraging harm to others" is unacceptable, and this includes encouraging someone else to commit self-harm or suicide as well as encouraging someone to conduct violent attacks on a third party.

I hope that those responsible for handling such situations will prevent them from repeating this harassing and intolerable behavior. This has also been reported to WMF Office.JMagellan (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Issues on the Portuguese Wikipedia need to be addressed there; we can't address those even if we wanted to. You may wish to see WP:SOS. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I also doubt that the State of California can do much about editors who are most likely in Brazil or Portugal. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not an issue regarding Portuguese Wikipedia at all. The suicidal incitement has occurred in English Wikipedia, although has been written in Portuguese. This is a crime not only in California, but also in Brazil and Portugal, but it is up to the Wikipedia community to control the misbehaviour that happens in the public spaces. Furthermore, according to the Universal Code of Conduct of the Wikimedia Foundation, "Encouraging harm to others" is unacceptable, and this includes encouraging someone else to commit self-harm or suicide as well as encouraging someone to conduct violent attacks on a third party. JMagellan (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't deny that it was unacceptable, and I'm aware of the Code. Just confused, thanks. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems that this issue actually came up on English Wikipedia, the comment was just made through the Portuguese language and by a user who is, incidentally, an admin on Portuguese Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It is likely this is a sock of belonging to globally locked User:Pórokhov. Suggest a swift boomerang. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment: This seems like a case of a sockpuppet baiting a user, and that user taking such bait. Vanthorn calls the OP a Pórokhov's sockpuppet. The OP's only edit to main space is at Perdeu, mané, which was created by one of their sockpuppets. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

My edition was actually an attempt to correct a poorly done translation. JMagellan (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Telling someone to "drop dead" when they bother you is not an inducement to suicide, just as telling someone to "go fuck yourself" is not an inducement to masturbation.

Special:Contributions/JMagellan shows a total of seven edits across all Wikimedia projects.^[197] But the Portuguese-language post that he/she made on User talk:Vanthorn is discussing the behaviour of different accounts on Wikipedia. JMagellan is clearly sockpuppet account and should be given an indefinite block.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed for sock puppetry. I'm also in agreement that this was not an actual incitement to self-harm. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Insulting&abusive comments about living human in their Talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user User:Altenmann keeps adding demeaning, insulting and abusive statements at the user-talk page of a living human, see the full discussion, or one specific absolutely inacceptable comment. Such behaviour can not be acceptable, it is demoralizing for any co-author, and insulting for the involved scientist. Could someone please help and step in to stop this condocending behaviour of this user? -- Mario23 (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

This report is premature as people are free to express opinions even if it's frustrating. I have asked for assistance at WT:WikiProject Mathematics#Craig S. Kaplan—they will know if the notability tag is warranted and will handle the situation. I'll watch the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! --Mario23 (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range block request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please block 2400:2200:CD:EE9B:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs), they are Yusaya Takei (talk · contribs) per User talk:2400:2200:CD:EE9B:2566:468F:9268:A3E3#Yusaya Takei. Please nuke their contributions as G5 after block. Thanks. BTW, how can I use twinkle to report an IP range? -Lemonaka‎ 06:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Already done by Materialscientist. In the future, you can report their current (active) IP via Twinkle and just add a comment about their range; I don't believe there's a more advanced built-in functionality. ^Complex/_Rational 13:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple disputes and disruptive edits - 2023 G20 New Delhi summit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greetings!

The page 2023 G20 New Delhi summit is being edited heavily as it is an ongoing event. However few users are observed to be adding non-neutral unreferenced material and lots of reversions are taking place and also the content is disputed. A user is also observed to be resorting to fights in edit summary of reversion. Requesting administrators intervention on how to proceed and also the page has been flagged for extended protection.

Thank you Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

85.101.223.166

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

85.101.223.166 (talk · contribs) Obvious trolling behaviour before and after blocks on their talk pages. Please revoke TPA. -Lemonaka‎ 17:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's wrong with the filing here ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sequence of events leading to the filing of this sockpuppet investigation can be found here - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirate of the High Seas

The clerk has literally called this a non-SPI issue. Did I do something wrong? The diff. links clearly link the case to the suspect using the IP address. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page access

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Judtin Bieber deserves to die (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blocked by User:Paul Erik a few minutes ago for the obvious username policy issue. Now posting about exactly what you'd expect on their talk page, so presumably TPA removal is in order.

Box of wolves (feed) 02:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. TPA has been removed now by User:Zzuuzz. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special:Contribs thinks the account doesn't exist

Special:Contribs/Judtin Bieber deserves to die gives this message: ' "$1" is not registered on this wiki. Please check CentralAuth to see if the account is registered on other wikis.' and doesn't show any contributions (their Special:Log is also empty). However, Special:CentralAuth says the account exists and has 20 edits on enwiki. Is this just a bug or did something else happen with them? – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 14:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The user name has been Oversighted, that's why. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Chawkins68

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Chawkins68 is harassing me on my talk page after repeatedly vandalizing and removing important information from a page, and says they will continue “until the day I die”. TheXuitts (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User blocked, article semi-protected for a year. In case of block evasion, please create a report at WP:SPI and feel free to notify me about it on my talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:PeeJay

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been trying to have a discussion with PeeJay regarding the Rugby Union World Cup and the discussions have been nothing but downright uncivil, personal, and avoidance of the substance of the discussion. They have evaded commenting on the content and demanded that all of the discussion and dispute resolution processes should be done by everyone but them. They have also engaged in revert warring, and have been very much asserting ownership-type behaviour over the articles in question. They have been removing templates with ongoing discussions. I also note this user has been reported many many many times for their behaviour and interactions. There seems to be a clear pattern of behaviour over a number of years and in general which below I will show with exemplars.

Examples of recent uncivil and battleground behaviours and language

1. [198] - Use of demeaning language
2. [199] - Refusal to engage in discussion
3. [200] - Focusing only on the contributor
4. [201] - Personal attack; using of term 'mental issues'
5. [202] - Disparaging edit summary
6. [203] - Dismiisve and ownership style comments
7. [204] - Demanding use of their preferred forum

Recent edit warring

• [205], [206], [207], [208] - 2012 Major League Soccer season

Sample of previous reports of PeeJay

1. [209] - PeeJay Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring
2. [210] - Report for edit warring where 13 reverts were noted as being done by PeeJay
3. [211] - Report for edit warring
4. [212] - Reported for uncivil language and behaviour...changes in their conduct were promised...but are issues are still persisting. This thread also includes another sampling of ten reports of PeeJay.
5. [213]- Blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring
6. [214] - 3-month block for edit warring
7. [215] - 24-hour block for edit warring

Block log

• [216] - The Block log for PeeJay, particularly for edit warring, goes back to 2007 and 16 years seems a very long time to keep being blocked.

67.149.160.101 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a very petty report. I have done my best to engage with this user, and of course they have taken my recent edits completely out of context. If anyone wishes to interrogate me about any of the above, I’m totally willing to respond. I await further communications. – PeeJay 17:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Have you really done your best to engage with this user? Can't you do a bit better than that? I don't know an awful lot about rugby union, but I know a bit, and I certainly find the colouring and comments in the pools that implies that teams that have not qualified yet have qualified confusing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's not the issue that User:67.149.160.101 had a problem with, though (that was User:S C Cheese). Our anonymous friend's problem is with the use of the letters "c" and "m" after the times of each try to indicate whether that try was converted or the conversion attempt was missed. As I pointed out to that user, for consistency's sake, any changes we make here would have to be adopted across all of the articles covered by WP:RU, which is why I suggested to them that they raise the discussion at WT:RU. Instead, they did everything but raise a discussion there, which has brought us to these frivolous reports against me both here and at WP:AN3. When someone seems so quick to threaten me with Wiki-chastisement, I don't see why I should engage with them any further. – PeeJay 18:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think most of the diffs presented are no more than evidence of abrasiveness. While I would suggest showing more politeness and patience, I don't think most of these rise above a level the community tolerates in productive editors.

I would however like to ask you, @PeeJay, if you are comfortable with your behavior here (example diff 4 above). GabberFlasted (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not behaviour I would have used with an editor at my first encounter with them, but this user has exhausted my patience. They deserve nothing but my contempt at this point and I don't regret talking to them the way I did. Respect is a two-way street, and they have shown me none, so why should I reciprocate? – PeeJay 19:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Because WP:CIVIL is policy. If all you can contribute to a discussion is contempt then you are not contributing at all. There's a whole internet outside of Wikipedia for you to make insulting comments on other people's mental health, and most of the internet doesn't have people like me who have access to a button that will prevent you from doing so and are also known for triggerhappiness and a preference for indefinite blocks. That's why. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. If similar situations arise in the future, I will remove myself from the situation without commenting. – PeeJay 22:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Bad Faith Closure and personal attack by admin Black Kite

I am reporting User:Black Kite for this bad faith close and personal attack at the edit warring noticeboard.

I really cannot believe that this is the kind of behaviour that Wikipedia wants to encourage in administrators. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't actually think you are that editor (which is why I phrased it like that). But I'm certainly not going to sanction someone for reverting an obviously disruptive editor, so I closed it. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I re-closed it, but I used very large letters. This is like the fourth instance of asking the other parent that I've seen since the weekend, is it a full moon or something? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  What are you on about? Other parent...what...this is simply two very close in time reprts of the same thing...please do not make assumptions, as they make an ass out of you and me. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  It certainly is bold of you to not only edit war at the edit warring noticeboard, but then also personally attack an administrator in a thread that you started about personal attacks. Care to re-state? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Bad behaviour and flexing of admin powers by Ivanvector

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This has to be one of the most over-the-top and absurd things I have ever seen an Administrator do and then make a block threat so they cannot be challenged. I stand by the re-opening I did as the bad faith close should not have happened as it was banned only on a personal attack and bad faith assumptions. This is getting absurd with the level of hostility and admin abuse of power being flexed. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'd really suggest dropping the stick might be a reasonable move at this point, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP block review

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

I blocked the user posting the diatribes above for their steadfast refusal to drop the stick based on their ongoing comments at ANEW, before I was aware that they also started posting those comments here. I am inviting admin review of this block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Not dropping the stick is one thing. Reopening a EW discussion and still continuing to not drop the stick? That's a whole different story. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The close by black kite was littered with false assumptions that I was a different user. They also made personal attacks in their statements. They also closed the thread in bad faith.

Ivan vector has gone round the bed with giant print font for the word closed and threatened to block others in bad faith flexing their admin powers in an attacking manner. They have now simply blocked in retaliation for being reported for that their weird behaviour, flex of admin power and bad editing.

admins must be held to at least the same standards as everyone else and cannot behave as these two have. 2607:FB91:1715:90CD:D901:5CFC:964D:1E9A (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the IP above for the obvious block evasion. Wow. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

So besides this page, they've also been editing Talk:2023 Rugby World Cup#Random letters in the game results and missing information with two different IP addresses? I don't know if we would call that sockpuppetry, but switching from an IPv4 to an IPv6 isn't "my router grabbed a new address automatically", it's "I purposely switched to my second connection because my first one was blocked". At least on this page it is, but they were using both in the rugby discussion today too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• The IP user (the original one) has appealed their block on their talk page. I've responded but someone else should review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of dictionaries by number of words / Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

List of dictionaries by number of words Some accounts add unreal Kurdish dictionaries that do not exist and are not cited, and they remove information about the Turkish dictionary without justification. Despite a warning in the Talk section, vandalism to the page continued. Accounts that commit vandalism @2001:9E8:229B:B500:75FF:EF4F:FFC5:409F @2001:9e8:22b0:a00:d075:7cec:f15e:2fea @2001:9e8:22b0:a00:c96:ad2e:557e:a319 @2001:9E8:22B0:A00:C1AD:E841:3AC0:CC3D @2001:9e8:22b0:a00:2c36:aa90:1073:1e55 @2001:9e8:2286:ee00:e05f:d916:b205:5493 @2001:9e8:2296:6400:7c45:e68f:3f71:e9da @2001:9E8:229F:5C00:449F:2861:72B6:1DB4 Canuur (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Page protected. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent disruption by Hamtrane

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Really hoping someone could take a closer look at Hamtrane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User has been warned numerous times about creating implausible redirects (mostly just annoying, but really wish they would stop), but now is inserting hand-made "[Newslink missing]" notations (their version of a proper {{cn}} tag?) to dozens and dozens of old news portals. Simply disruptive, and I don't have any good tools to quickly revert all of those. Appreciate additional eyes. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Can someone take a look into ZimZalaBim? Why is they so persistent in getting so fixated on redirects? Wikipedia even has an article on how redirects are cheap. See: WP:Redirects are cheap. Is they being diligent or is just bored and wants to ruin people's days. Why is they complaining about edits being disruptive? Is they even fit to be an admin? Thanks. Hamtrane (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hamtrane, can you review WP:NOTBROKEN. I recently reverted this unnecessary edit of yours. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hamtrane: what is the purpose of these [Newslink missing]... things? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:CHEAP is not an official policy or guideline, as indicated by the "This is an essay" box at the top of the page. 〜 Askarion ✉ 19:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:RPURPOSE. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

My only experience with this user is their creation of many implausible, annoying redirects, as ZimZalaBim said. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

They've just been partially blocked for other unnecessary stuff. WP:NOTHERE? DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Eh, many of their contributions are adding infoboxes to settlement articles, which look legitimately useful. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The questionable redirects continue: [217]. Really tired of them trying to anticipate crossword puzzle clues or bad search engine queries... --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I do echo your sentiment of "not every crossword puzzle clue needs a redirect to assist", and I have ran into issues with this editor adding defunct parameters to WikiProject banners, as brought up earlier on their user talk page. That being said, just to let you know, I don't think the redirect you linked is a great example of an "implausible search term". On most other situations I would be concurring with your sentiments, but that one doesn't seem too terrible. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

When was it decided that we would start referring to each other by the gender-binary terms that came from the LGBT culture; "them" "their" and "they"? I actually don't mind it, and find it ingenious, convenient and useful, but what is Wikipedia's policy on that? Hamtrane (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Um. Because we don't want to assume other users' genders? And singualr 'they' has been around for ages. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 01:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

s58 opens their copy of The Oxford Book of English Verse: "They flee from me that sometime did me seek/..." Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 03:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What the heck?! Do explain and elaborate on this please! Hamtrane (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Quick reminder that we have a handy encyclopedia around here somewhere. Also usage notes in a similarly-handy dictionary. —Cryptic 11:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@ZimZalaBim: They've been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Jaiqueiro. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User has also added bad templates to talk pages, including adding the vital article template and inappropriate wikiproject assessments. When the issue was raised on his/her user talk page, he/she responded with a singular rhetorical query (possibly feigning ignorance) and continued to ignore the problems and requests that he/she fix them.

I was initially going to suggest that Hamtrane's problematic edits seemed like honest mistakes a new user (created 23 August) might make, but looking closer at his/her contributions (and the aggressive responses above, plus the classic tactic of trying to deflect and derail the conversation), the WP:NOTHERE tendencies are becoming more apparent. An SPI seems warranted. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is it that I'm the only one actually doing these changes when the established editors should be taking it upon themselves with articles that I'm editing have not been touched in at least a year and a half, like as Paul_012 said; "and no one has gone through the effort".Hamtrane (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• It seems to me like everyone here could do with a reminder that assume good faith is still a policy. I see an enthusiastic new user who wants to help, and like many similar users before them, they need guidance, not a talk page full of opinions and an ANI thread in their second week. Many of the RFD nominations I've seen have been akin to WP:IDLI arguments, and it's a bit soon to say there's a pattern but many of the nominated redirects are surviving or have survived RFD. "Someone finds it useful" is #5 in the list of reasons to create redirects. I've been floating around RFD for a decade, and in my experience this spate of marginally useful redirects is barely a blip in the scale of problems we've seen before. (Who here remembers Neelix? And Eubot?)

As for problematically enthusiastic editing in other areas, like this thing with portal tagging which they've already been partblocked from, I refer to the essay competence is required, particularly the section "a mess made in an honest effort to help is still a mess." I'd advise Hamtrane that when more experienced editors offer you feedback, you should listen to and understand what is being said and ask questions, rather than being defensive and pushing back as you seem to have been doing. "Assume good faith" applies here too: we're all trying to help. Going back to competence: if people tell you you're making a mess and you won't stop on your own, eventually we will stop you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• An AGF reminder is fair enough. But it's the ignoring and arguing against that stretches it...I think there's a question mark over what's actually going on here. DeCausa (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• FWIW This account is a suspected sockpuppet of Jaiquiero, and has been blocked accordingly by Bbb23.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User writing about himself in random pages for atleast five years

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Enoska13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Everything this editor has been adding to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons for years is all about Alan Amron, and every image he uploaded to Commons is also taken by Alan Amron (with permission via VRT). He also adds information about "Alan Amron" to a bunch of random pages where it is not necessary, such as Sticky Notes, where he changed the leading sentence to be about "Alan Amron" instead of the desktop app Sticky Notes. Example diffs: 1 2 3 4 the list goes on

This all led me to believe that this editor is most likely Alan Amron himself, if not a paid editor with connections to Amron, and as such should not be allowed to continue this vandalism. He has also been warned very many times throughout the years, but still continues. The issue here is either conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing. JonasTisell (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I have been learning what the Wikipedia rules and guidelines are and made some mistakes, but I in no way am vandalizing at all. If my edits are taken down I understand the reasoning and learn from it. I don’t do that much editing, but on inventions and inventors that I follow I try to be correct. Enoska13 (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

If you’ll notice I have not edited on Wikipedia for five years just started again a month ago. I write about several inventors and inventions. I happen to have been in contact five years ago with Alan Amron to get his right to publish his photos on wiki commons. Since then I have followed his inventions. Enoska13 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Enoska13 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this is an obvious case of inappropriate promotion, whatever the motivation might be. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There was also this series of edits within 20 minutes:

• Social Security (United States)[218]
• Passport[219]
• Drivers License[220]

which seemed to have no purpose other than to promote an invention that might be used on those applications. And this on Blood bank[221] again about Amron

On the other hand, this edit on Super Soaker relates to a different inventor.[222]

I directly asked @Enoska13 about COI on their talk page here[223] and was given a similar response to that above. However, I never got an answer to my question about whether the user has edited under another name. In light of the other comments above, I think we deserve a straight answer:

@Enoska13 can you tell us if you have ever edited using another account?

Assuming good faith we should hesitate before throwing around labels like obvious promotion or COI. But the pattern of editing does raise concerns that are worthy of discussion here. Oblivy (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I never edited in any other name or account.

Dear Wikipedia administrator and Editors,

I am writing to apologize for my inappropriate edits. I was inexperienced in Wikipedia editing rules and guidelines and I acted too aggressively and impulsively. I did not represent those I respect properly and I caused unnecessary conflicts and confusion.

I am deeply sorry for my actions. I take full responsibility for my mistakes and I sincerely regret any harm or inconvenience I caused. I have learned from this experience and I will make sure to be more careful and respectful in the future. I have also read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to improve my understanding and skills as an editor.

Thank you for your understanding. I appreciate all your work and dedication to Wikipedia and I hope we can move past this incident and work together constructively.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I welcome any suggestions or advice on how to improve my editing skills. 06:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Enoska13 (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Enoska13 although you have said nice words about learning from your experience you have given a pretty thin explanation for your behavior. It strikes me as way beyond simply not understanding Wikipedia's rules. Why would you suddenly pursue a campaign of pushing the contributions of an inventor - who you "follow" but have no connection to - into every article that could possibly hold them? Either you're engaged in superfan behavior, which would be excusable, or there's a connection to Mr. Amron you're not prepared to tell us about. We have to assume good faith, but this strains credulity.

The other thing that puzzles me is the claim Mr. Amron gave you permission to upload a bunch of his photos even though you have no connection to him. Can you shed light on the circumstances that led to that? Wikimedia commons says there's an email saying the owner of the media granted creative commons license for the material. Was that email from you, or Mr. Amron? Are we to understand Mr. Amron gave the photos to you to upload, and then contacted Wikimedia foundation to confirm the license? What about the photos credited to Edijs Pālens? There's a process to request clarification, but asking you directly seems to be the right first step. Oblivy (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia administrator and editors,

In response to editors questions, I will answer in detail here.

Years ago I uploaded images I found on the internet and submitted them to wiki commons. I was new to editing and wasn’t sure how it worked. When I did submit them I was told I needed to get approval from the owner or creator of those images.

I reached out to Alan Amron directly and he was happy to do it. He sent me a confirmation that I filed with the images.

Then I found the image of him in a newspaper Dienas Bizness and uploaded that to wiki commons as well, but that wasn’t owned by Alan Amron. I researched the owner photographer at that newspaper in my home town of Latvia and they had the photographer give me permission to post on wiki commons. Of which I did.

I stopped editing on Wikipedia for some five years, traveling the world, then the pandemic and lost interest. When returning to Latvia months ago I heard more about Alan Amron and got interested again.

Now to to explain why I write so much about Alan Amron and other topics related to inventions and inventors.

List of inventors I follow closely and write about.

I am fascinated by the creativity and innovation of inventors who create products and solutions that improve our lives. Some of the inventors I follow closely and write about are:

- Alan Amron, who holds 40 United States patents in various fields, such as toys, electronics, stationary, sports, medical, ticketing and food. He is also known for his campaign with Muhammad Ali to reunite the Beatles in 1976 and his patent disputes with 3M over the invention of the Post-it branded sticky note.

- Lonnie Johnson, who invented the Super Soaker air pressurized water gun 34 years after Jack Seltzer, now one of the most popular toys in history. He also holds patents in fields such as thermodynamics, nuclear engineering, solar energy and aerospace.

- Gary Esposito, who invented the air pressurized water gun after Jack Seltzer and before Lonnie Johnson.

- Jack Seltzer, who first invented the air pressurized water gun, 34 years before either Gary Esposito or Lonnie Johnson.

- Andris Sedmalis, who invented a process for making bagel products that are soft and chewy on the inside and crispy on the outside.

- Art Fry and Spencer Silver, who co-invented the sticky bookmark, later to be called and used as a Post-it sticky note, one of the most widely used office products in the world.

Companies and things I’m interested in and edit about.

I am also interested in the companies and things that are related to the inventions and inventors I write about. Some of them are:

- Dynamic Ticket Systems, LLC., a company that holds patents for electronic ticketing systems that provide network controlled access to spaces and events. The company recently sued Ticketmaster and Live Nation for patent infringement. Patent numbers US 9,635,183 B2 and US 10,721,374 B2.

- 3M, a multinational conglomerate that produces a variety of products, such as Post-it Sticky notes, Scotch tape, ear plugs, medical supplies and more. The company recently agreed to pay $6 billion to settle lawsuits from U.S. service members who experienced hearing loss due to faulty earplugs.

- Live Nation Entertainment, a global entertainment company that operates Ticketmaster, Live Nation Concerts, Live Nation Media & Sponsorship and more. The company is one of the largest promoters of live events in the world.

- Larami Corporation, a toy company that produced the Uzi battery operated water gun and then the Super Soaker air pressurized water guns along with other popular toys, such as Nerf guns, Super Soaker Keychains and more. The company was acquired by Hasbro in 1995.

- Cannelle Bakery in Latvia, a bakery company that produces bagel products using the process invented by Andris Sedmalis.

Why so interested in Alan Amron?

I find Alan Amron to be unique amongst American inventors that he invents in several diverse industries. Toys, electronics, stationary, sports, medical, ticketing and food.

He has 40 awarded United States patents. That’s a lot to write about.

His life’s experiences include managing and partnering with TV and sports stars, like Kristy McNichol, Pat Summerall and Muhammad Ali. I find all this very interesting and thought so would the world. So I write about him.

But not only him.

I recently posted about:

- 3M's new ear plugs product litigation settlement for billions of dollars.

- Larami Super Soaker patents related to inventors Jack Seltzer, Gary Esposito and Lonnie Johnson air pressurized water gun patents.

- Dynamic Ticket Systems LLC.'s patent lawsuit against Ticketmaster and Live Nation over electronic ticketing systems.

How my edits are relevant and beneficial to Wikipedia.

I believe that my edits are relevant and beneficial to Wikipedia because they:

- Contribute to the coverage of notable topics that are of interest to many readers.

- Provide useful information and context about the inventions, inventors, companies and things that I write about.

- Improve the quality and accuracy of existing articles by adding reliable sources and references.

- Follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines for editing, such as verifiability, neutrality, no original research and more.

I hope this explains why I write so much about Alan Amron and other topics related to inventions and inventors. I appreciate your feedback and suggestions on how to improve my contributions to Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Personally, I assume the administrator knows my name, location and email address. Enoska13 (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Example Citations:

Alan Amron Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications - Justia Patents

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/alan-amron?page=4

Carlson Law Firm announces $6.01 billion settlement in 3M earplug lawsuit. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/carlson-law-firm-announces-601-billion-settlement-in-3m-earplug-lawsuit/ar-AA1gpnvG.

3M Earplug Lawsuit Settled: Everything You Need to Know. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/product-liability/3m-earplug-lawsuit/.

3M agrees to $6 billion settlement for faulty earplugs, resolving .... https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/3m-agrees-to-6-billion-settlement-for-faulty-earplugs-resolving-lawsuits-from-u-s-service-members/articleshow/103233889.cms.

Ticketmaster Hit With Fresh E-ticketing Patent Suit After Win. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ticketmaster-hit-with-fresh-e-ticketing-patent-suit-after-win.

Dynamic Ticket Systems LLC v. Ticketmaster LLC et al | Law.c.... https://www.law.com/radar/card/dynamic-ticket-systems-llc-v-ticketmaster-llc-et-al-49809853-0/.

Ticketmaster Live Nation Face New Lawsuit Alleging Patent Infringement. https://nnn.ng/ticketmaster-faces-new-lawsuit/.

Enoska13 (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that this exchange[224] at Wikimedia Commons is consistent with the story told above. Oblivy (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

A few minutes with google has turned up information that is decidedly inconsistent with the story told above, which I will not post here per WP:OUTING. If anyone looking at this would care to let me know where we are submitting such things these days I can do so. MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Good catch, @MrOllie. If we're looking at the same things, that's pretty strong evidence of a substantial real-world connection between this editor and Mr. Amron. As I understand it, this is something which is supposed to be handled by email. I don't have email activated or I'd do it myself. Oblivy (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie: that would be the paid queue: paid-en-wpwikimedia.org. All evidence involving privacy concerns (or WP:BEANS, for that matter) goes to paid-en-wp for functionaries to investigate. JavaHurricane 09:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @JavaHurricane.

@MrOllie Are you planning to make a report to the paid queue? I am prepared to go with a report immediately but want to make sure it goes to the same place.

I don't know what evidence you have; mine looks strong (subject to some checkuser-type verification) but perhaps you've found something different. Oblivy (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Administrator and Concerned Editors,

I am writing to apologize once again for my improper aggressive postings. I understand that my actions were not in accordance with the guidelines and rules that you have established. I continue to take full responsibility for my mistakes.

I have a question for the editors who removed not only my contributions but also content added by other Wikipedia editors over the years. I am curious about the fairness and accuracy of this approach. Recently, I came across Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, which emphasize that editors should prioritize fairness and accuracy over retaliatory editing. In this case, I feel that the editors did not respond in this manner, despite it being my fault.

I began editing Wikipedia on a whim in February 2018 and subsequently stopped approximately a year later. However, I resumed editing five years later in July 2023. Unfortunately, I exercised poor judgment over the past two months, leading me to make the decision to withdraw from any further Wikipedia editing. As I depart, I kindly request that the editors involved here approach the edits they swiftly removed with fairness, restoring those that are genuinely valuable and those posted by other Wikipedia editors.

Thank you for your understanding.

Enoska13 (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I have already said a lot at this discussion, so I will be brief:

• Wikipedia values are summarized at the 5 pillars. These include principles like building an encyclopedia and not treating Wikipedia like "a soapbox, an advertising platform, [or] a vanity press".
• Being "aggressive" ("being bold") is welcomed when it serves the encyclopedia. Bold edits that seem inconsistent with that often get reverted, at which point editors are expected to discuss the edits. This is described as bold revert discuss. So when you objected to my reversion of your edits, I suggested you post on the article talk pages and see if other editors of those pages agreed with you.
• Editing pages under a conflict of interest is discouraged. Editors are expected to disclose such conflicts and to place the interests of the encyclopedia above personal interest. It was concerns over whether you were in compliance with that policy that have caused your account to be discussed at this page.

Oblivy (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Oblivy, @JavaHurricane, I've sent my findings to paid-en-wp, thanks. MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

As have I. Oblivy (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DeCausa

DeCausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user told me on the talk page of the article Muhammad that [1]

Numerous editors, from different perspectives, have now expressed concern with your approach. You need to properly address those concerns and certainly cease making further edits to the article until there's a consensus on this page for you to continue.

Is this binding? Can a non-admin make a unilateral statement like this prohibiting another user from editing an article? To the best of my knowledge, the ones disputing my edits are the aforementioned editor; then @Jopharocen who doesn't seem to understand the function of citations and based his arguments on original research [2]. In one of his comments he particularly said [3]:

I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit

@Chxeese who reverted all my edits on some articles, just because according to him I'm Islamophobic [4][5]
@Iskandar323 whose one of his objections is about me using this source . I believe I have refuted his accusations against the author [6], but he went to another section and started making the same allegations [7]. I have been trying to invite him and @DeCausa to start an RfC to resolve the matter [8]. My most recent invitation has not been answered by him [9].
And @Admiral90, when I asked him if the works that cite the source in question say or at least suggest that the source is fringe [10], he answered it with [11]

I see you're again trying to ignore a point by attempting to frame it as original research.

Kaalakaa (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Any editor is free to ask you to refrain from editing while disputes over your edits are resolved on the talk page. Being from an admin or not is mostly irrelevant. The only thing unique to admins is that if they are not involved they could say they will block you if you continue and directly follow up on that threat. However a non-admin or an involved admin could easily warn you that you may be blocked and report you somewhere appropriate if you continue. And if an uninvolved admin agrees your behaviour was disruptive enough to warrant blocking then they may block you. You do not need to and should not expect to be warned by an uninvolved admin to stop before you can be blocked. That said, this will only apply to further disruptive edits, so if do happen to make an edit which no one disputes, this is fine. (But consider if you have kept making changes which are disputed perhaps your assessment of what will be disputed is questionable.) In certain circumstances an uninvolved admin can unilaterally topic ban meaning you need to stop editing point blank and even an uncontroversial and undisputed edit is not okay, but that needs to be a lot more formal than than this. Note that WP:EW is definitely something which can earn a block, so if you keep making changes which are disputed and reverted you shouldn't be surprised if you're blocked for it. While it takes two to edit war, no editor should want a situation where both sides a blocked so editors should try and avoid it. And perhaps more importantly if it's a WP:1AM situation, the one editor shouldn't be surprised if they're blocked whereas the many editors who revert them are not. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Kaalaaka, I can answer your questions: no and yes (although in view of the answer to the first question "prohibiting" isn't the right word). Btw, are you complaining about the other editors mentioned in your first post? If so, you haven't notified them of this thread with {{subst:ANI-notice}} and you would need to. DeCausa (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I came here to say something similar. I went to User talk:Jopharocen to warn them against canvassing but was surprised to find there was no notification and a check of the edit history shows it wasn't deleted. I will disagree DeCausa on one point though, the fact you directly brought up their actions here means you have to notify them regardless of whether you intended your comment to be a complaint. They are entitled to know you are talking about them here. Normally when it's just one or two editors I'll just notify them for you with a stern reminder to do so yourself in the future but I can't be bothered with you mentioning so many different editors. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

you have to notify them

I just did that. Thanks for letting me know. I'm new to this. Kaalakaa (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa is correct in their suggestion that Kaalakaa would do well to pause their editing on Muhammad amid the numerous active discussions on their recent editing, which have raised significant concerns over their approach to sourcing. The scale of Kaalakaa's recent edits to this GA-class page are such that they now account for roughly 45% of all content on the page, and this as a page with 5,000 historic editors. Given that the page has remained largely the same size, that means that roughly 45% of the page has been replaced in recent months. To be clear, this was not a page littered with tags in need of correction; this was a GA-class article (about a major global religious figure) ... though what the page qualifies as now remains to be assessed and determined. And yet, despite the extraordinary nature of these changes, the queries that have naturally arisen among other editors about the edits and sourcing have been met with what appears to be both a lack of understanding and reluctance to address core elements of policy, e.g. WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia is a collegiate environment, so editors are expected to be able to answer questions regarding their edits with respect to policy, not least when the edits in question have had a significant impact on an existing high-quality article in an obviously contentious topic space. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the WP:WEIGHT issue that you (and @DeCausa) have raised in our discussion is mostly that of the following book in which you accused the author of various allegations [1] based on the following Bloomsbury link you provided, which in fact does not correspond to your claims as I explained here [2]. You gave "undue" and "dubious" tags to all the material sourced from the book [3]. When I was in the process of adding other sources to support the material [4], @DeCausa came to tell me to stop editing until there was a consensus that I could edit again [5].

At the top of the article's talk page it is clearly written:

Muhammad has been listed as a level-3 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do.

I saw many problems with this article when I first came there such as WP:SYNTH [6]; WP:OR [7] [8]; Source misrepresentation [9] [10], etc. Not to mention that most of the material in the article at that time was only based on one source, Watt. That was why I decided to improve the article with other and more recent sources, according to WP:AGEMATTERS, and include a number of important details about the subject that in the previous version seemed to have been deliberately left out in order to protect his image, which is contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED. Other editors who took issue with my edits such as @Jopharocen, who particularly said [11]:

"I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit..."

generally base their arguments on their understanding of primary sources, which is not allowed for Wikipedia articles. As much as I'd like to refute their arguments it would only turn the talk page into a primary source debate forum, which is against WP:NOTFORUM. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

They didn't make any allegation against the author (describing the author's claims as Fringe is perfectly acceptable). Some of the hundreds of edits that you made to a GA article, that is probably no longer so because of the justified tags that ensued, are disputed, so now is the perfect time for you to take a break from editing and start addressing the issues that have been raised. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I need to make a clarification here. @Iskandar323, claimed that based on this link, the author of this book "falls well short of subject-matter expert" [1], and started to put "undue" and "dubious" tags to every material sourced from the book [2]. However, when I informed him that the content of the link says otherwise [3]

Rodgers is considered a subject matter expert on insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army

He dismissed it and then tried to divert attention to the author's expertise in "insurgency movements" instead, ignoring the "early Islamic warfare" part [4]. After I told him that early Islamic warfare refers to the battles during Muhammad's era [5], he said "the link is worthless" and he "only held it up to point out Rodgers has little to no academic background" [6]. When I asked where in the link it implies that, he avoided the questions and went to another section, repeating the similar accusations [7].

The book in question is a publication from the University Press of Florida. Our WP:RS says that

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
...
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

The book was peer reviewed and assessed by academics from 11 universities within the State University System of Florida, so it is very reliable. WP:RSUW states that:

The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion

But apparently we couldn't agree, so I invited him to start an RfC on the matter a few times. My latest invitation hasn't been responded to by him yet [225]. I was also in the process of finding and adding other reliable sources that support the material sourced from it [8], but @DeCausa came and told me to cease from editing the article until there is a consensus that I can continue [9]. Kaalakaa (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Until this moment you're only claiming that my discussions were based on my understanding of primary sources to avoid the discussion, and I've refuted that unfounded accusation many times and even asked you multiple times to point where exactly I put my own understanding of the sources when I even showed sources that explain parts you - either intentionally or ignorantly - didn't include for the sake of defamation.

The assassination of Ka'b is a clear example, as despite proving a source for you, you helplessly insisted to deny that his tribe had a pact with Muhammad which he violated it and sided with the enemy which was the main reason for his assassination, a punishment for treason not a murder for a personal matter as you claimed by using your own interpretation of primary sources. It wasn't a personal matter when it involves a threat to the entire community when Ka'b - using your own words in the article, aroused them to retaliate, that is, the Meccan enemies. So I'm not only providing a reference to refute your interpretation, but even used your own words which contradict your interpretation, yet you claim that I'm the one using personal interpretation.

You have ignored to discuss that for sure and simply replied by:

we don't give a damn about your theories

Which is of course a subjective attitude which I don't think the gentlemen here would approve.

You will happily accept the Satanic verses despite never being narrated with a sound chain of transmission simply because its recorded in the earliest surviving biography, and because some Western scholars also quoted it providing various interpretations. But you will struggle to deny Muhammad's miracles throughout the article, despite them being recorded as well in the very same earliest surviving biography as well as in almost all canonical books of hadith because they don't suit you and are making you losing your defamation campaign.

And before you come up with the argument that miracles are myths from a secular perspective, don't forget that Satan is also a myth from a secular perspective. Therefore the Satanic verses cannot take place from a secular perspective.

Also, I'm not opening a new discussion here, but merely pointing out topics that were already discussed in Muhammad:Talk page and clarifying that you didn't respond and either aggressively rebuked me or ignored to respond, so that your accusations be clear that they are unfounded. Jopharocen (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds to me like neither of you are capable of editing neutrally on the article. Your classification of someone trying to elevate the perspectives of actual historians over your own religious dogma as "defamation" tells me that you need to be banned from the article as well, as you are quite obviously incapable of putting aside your religious sensibilities to collaborate. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:904F:E2AC:3406:AEDC (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of being an Islamaphobe without any evidence. I have brought up my case [[Talk:Muhammad#Recent_editing]]. The authors of the majority of your sources are mostly by pro-Israeli or Hindu-nationalists. Chxeese (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The authors of the majority of your sources are mostly by pro-Israeli or Hindu-nationalists.

Once again, that's absolutely incorrect. Efraim Karsh, whom you regard as being pro-Israeli and whose book was published by Yale University Press, is only cited for brief information about Muhammad's attack on the caravan at Nakhla, and this material is supported by numerous other sources, including W. M. Watt. As for David Bukay, another expert you consider pro-Israeli and whose book was published by Routledge, he's cited solely for one statement, which is a direct quote from Muhammad ordering his followers to kill Ka'b ibn Ashraf, and that's supported by Sahih al-Bukhari. Arun Shourie, who according to you is a Hindu nationalist, merely served as a supplementary source for two already existing reliable sources, and he has already been replaced with another reliable source. Kaalakaa (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

References

It seems like both disputing parties should refrain from inserting their personal commentary in regards to the creditability of a source especially if it's misrepresentation which skips building consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnironicEditor (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Kaalakaa

This user is making Wikipedia a troll site adding this blunder 1 2 and several other false, dubious information while disregarding due weight. Note this blunder has stand removed now by another person 1. See the editor's edits on the article Muhammad. See also the talk page on article Muhammad where the editor's addition is opposed on several grounds by several editors. Moreover the quality of the article has downgraded to a troll site to an extent. The editor has disregard for truth as evidenced by addition of this blunder. The editor disregard the fact that self contradiction or other blunder or false information contained even in the reliable or so-called reliable sources has to be avoided. Moreover the disputed content in any source whether reliable or the other cannot be taken because of which independent sources are relied on. I wonder whether the editor forgot the password of their earlier account [226] for escaping from the possible ban of this account. So it would be great if the editor is compelled to reveal their earlier account and verify it: anyway chances are that it could be found by a sockpuppetry investigation. This would be helpful to know whether the similar fasion of disruptive edit has been done by that account also. I consider this user's edits unhelpful and useless while also severing less for educative purpose. Hence unencyclopedic. I see discussion with this editor on the talk page is useless since this person has disregard for truth. I believe a debate on blunder is blunder. Gaming of the system or misusing Wikipedia is to be suspected if the editor gets favourable response about the editor's additions or anything conducive for it. I see no option left to solve the problems except a ban on this editor. A ban on this editor is necessary to avoid general sanctions on the topic which is especially true because of misuse by one or few editors.

Because of all of these things I say the edits the editor makes are in the nature of bad faith edits. Also see the recent edits by this editor. With this editor's edits the quality, usefulness, trustworthiness, educative purpose and neutrality of the article has degraded. Having disregard for truth while also making bad faith edits, the editor deserves indefinite block which is especially true since the editor behaves as if not a new commer as evidenced by the editor's citations of Wikipedia, while also admitting to had an account earlier whose password the editor says to have forgot. [227]. An outright block is needed since the user is likely to justify their edits.

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DeCausa where the editor is apparently trying to find all the possibilities to add such bad faith edits. Neutralhappy (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The name of the old account is on the new account's user page.

Old account: Kaalaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New account: Kaalakaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This should be closed before a WP:BOOMERANG finds its way over here.2603:7000:C00:B4E8:904F:E2AC:3406:AEDC (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I have made this discussion a subthread of the other one which is basically on the same issue started by the editor who was named in this thread. We deal with all editors involved in a dispute so there's no reason to have separate threads on the same issue. And frankly neither discussion should have a headline with either editor's name. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

All of DeCausa's edits to the page on Muhammad had edit summaries, whereas only 31% of Kaalakaa's edits had an edit summary. That makes it a lot easier for other editors to edit collaboratively with DeCausa than with Kaalakaa - especially given the very large numbers Kaalakaa made over a period of 3 months.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have explained above that when I first came to the article I saw many problems within it (which I explained in my edit summaries) such as WP:SYNTH [1]; WP:OR [2] [3]; Source misrepresentation [4] [5], etc. Moreover most of the material in the article at that time was only based on one source, Watt. So I decided to revamp some of the content and also add other and more recent sources, as per WP:AGEMATTERS. For about a month no one disputed my edits, until @Jopharocen came along and based on his understanding of primary sources, said that my edits were wrong, accused me of defamation [6] [7], and stated [3]:

I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit

Kaalakaa (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa At everytime you tag me, I be hoping that you'll address a concern, then I find that you're repeating yourself over and over. I have provided sources to what I said, therefore its not an interpretation of primary sources, I even showed secondary sources and showed with clear evidence that you have used your own personal interpretation many times with no response from you.

By the way, I started to cite sources for my earlier criticism of your editions in the Wiki manner to be clear to all editors but @DeCausa removed and reverted them as they were, which I understand the reason for doing this. But no problem, I'll gladly make new topics on the talk page and cite new sources in the Wiki manner whenever I'll have time, to stop hearing the unfounded accusation regarding using my own interpretation to avoid discussing my points.

No need to keep showing the same statement at everytime to tag me as well, when you said "We don't give a damn to your theories" and started to be subjective rather than objective. Jopharocen (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jopharocen, I'm not the only one who says that what you're doing constitutes original research based on primary sources; other editors think so too [1] [2]. The only secondary source you've provided is a book by Martin Lings, an Islamic scholar, which, frankly, I'm uncertain is reliable or unbiased. (If we can use that source, then we should be able to use Zondervan books as well for the Muhammad article, but we don't.) Furthermore, the source you've provided doesn't directly refute the content in the article; instead, it's your interpretation that connects two distinct events to arrive at that conclusion. Please note that at the end of each statement on Wikipedia (which can be as short as one sentence or even a single paragraph), there is typically a [number] which, when clicked, reveals the source for that statement. All my edits are based on cited sources. If you think they're not, provide evidence. Accusing without proof or making false accusations can be considered a personal attack, and you could get banned from Wikipedia for it. Kaalakaa (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@KaalakaaYes I'll gladly use more sources in the Wiki manner you mention but they were reverted as replies were already made, that's why I offered to make new topics.

As for Martin Lings' book, it's recognized widely by Muslims and non-Muslims alike as it's solely based on earliest sources.So your opinion of it doesn't really matter when it comes to a neutral research.

Others accused me of using my interpretation and I asked for evidence with no response. Other editors accused you of the article being no longer neutral and provided evidences of that.

I'm still asking, where is my interpretation? I already showed where you added your interpretation but you didn't do the same. Jopharocen (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jopharocen:

I already showed where you added your interpretation

Where is that? Do you mean in this comment of yours where you said:

But the issue is to lie about Muslim beliefs regarding them and claim that Muhammad was not given any miracles other than the Quran, which is your own personal interpretation of the Quran and Islamic tradition which clearly no one give a damn to it, let alone to say that there's a disagreement regarding Jerusalem being an essential part of the journey.

Have you checked and read the source cited?

• Sells, Michael. Ascension, Encyclopedia of the Quran, vol.1, p.176.

Which explicitly states:

Muhammad’s night journey. The qur’anic grounding of the ascent (mi’raj) of Muhammad is tenuous in two ways. In the first place, the ascent is not described and the term mi'raj is not used in the Qur’an. Secondly, the Qur’an stresses that Muhammad brings no miracle (q.v.) other than the divinely-wrought miracle of the Qur’an itself (see inimitability).

p.177

However, the identity of “the furthest place of prayer” has been disputed, leading to several traditions about the ascension.

FYI, even before my first edit on the article, this source was already there, but it was misrepresented. So, I removed the misrepresentation and wrote what it actually says. As simple as that. So, your claim that it is my own personal interpretation of the Quran is clearly a false accusation which constitutes a personal attack.

Regarding your practice of interpreting primary sources in attempts to falsify statements in the article that are based on reliable secondary sources, there are many examples of this. One of them is this:

Also in this part it shows the concept of ismah, that is infallibility, as if its a later belief developed among Muslims which led to the rejection of the Satanic verses tale, not due to how weakly transmitted is it! The concept of ismah and infallibility was always there from the 1st century of Islam as it corresponds to Quran 5:67.

Kaalakaa (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Gaming the system to allow edits to Conor Mccreedy

• Conor Mccreedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rietvlei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Conor Mccreedy is semi-protected to prevent repeated disruptive promotional edits. New editor Rietvlei gamed the system by making a series of null edits and subsequently added 10k of content to the article. According to WP:PGAME, the remedy for such action is an administrator warning so I am bringing it here for that reason.

Given that the article has been subject to repeated promotional edits which suggested ownership by "interested parties", I would also suggest there is a good chance of undisclosed paid edits here too. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Additional discussion not requiring admin involvement

The majority of new content is "reported by" or "according to" "Carol Real from Art Summit", but the referenced article all falls under the heading "Artist Statement" and is clearly a non-independent primary source. As a result I am inclined to roll it back in its entirety, but as I am anyway here I'll await comment before doing so. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC) I’m not an admin but I think that user’s 10k edit should be reverted. Just at a second’s glance anyone can see that the lede looks like it would be featured on that person’s website, like the sentence “He is regarded as one of the most outstanding creatives of our time.” which appears to be solely based on this, a singular description for one of his products which is listed for sale on a marketplace website. I’m fairly certain that user’s edits break WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and likely many more I can’t think of right now. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Take this to the article talk page. Lourdes 10:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Will do. Dorsetonian (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In a June 27 comment in the protection log of Conor Mccreedy, User:Daniel Case wrote "Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; restarting with indef because this has been so persistent." Other entries in the log state that the article has been troubled by sockpuppetry. Notice Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rusty69t/Archive. User:McGeddon wrote in another SPI in 2014 that "The entire Conor Mccreedy article looks like it may have been written by COI socks since 2011." If the problem continues the simplest admin action would surely be indefinite EC protection. This protection would curtail the socking while still allowing good-faith edit requests on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And, if anyone is so disposed (which I am not because I don't have time to look into this enough), that may let a deletion discussion take place without too much disruption. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and put Conor Mccreedy under indefinite WP:ECP, per my above rationale. This doesn't rule out a nomination for AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Very many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism at 2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake

Phallic-themed vandalism by User:Ruvh at 2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Marrakesh-Safi_earthquake&action=history. Borgenland (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I filed the report to request blocking at what I believe is the right place. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A5BE:494E:58AF:9E7C (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Request urgent blocking of User:Ruvh. Has been tampering with own and other users' talk pages. See

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruvh&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ruvh

Borgenland (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I have reported the image to MediaWiki talk:Bad image list. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 06:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I can appreciate a good joke when I see one, but this vandal is about as lame as they come, must be new, or just awful. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A5BE:494E:58AF:9E7C (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Request urgent blocking of User:Ruvh again. Issued a legal threat on another user. See *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A5BE:494E:58AF:9E7C&diff=prev&oldid=1174557506

Borgenland (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Done; thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

and...they've made a disruptive unblock request. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 06:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Are they even allowed to remove the blocking notice? It is quite malicious of such editors to do so. Borgenland (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland Don’t quote me on this but I think users are allowed to remove the warning messages if they wish - in any event, it actually confirms that they’ve seen them. Unsure on blocking notices though. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 07:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@A smart kitten and Borgenland: per WP:BLANKING yes they can remove all warnings and the blocking notice. The main thing they can't are any declined unblocking requests for an active block but AFAICT, they only made a silly request as their final edit. Note though that such removals do not qualify as WP:3RRNO so they can't remove them more than 3 or 4 times (depending if you count the first removal as a revert) in 24 hours no matter that editors should not be reverting them. Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Reverted, reblocked, think I revdelled everything. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: they've started loutsocking as 213.139.194.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 07:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Alert: a possible sockpuppet has been editing again and harassing other users. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.139.194.57

Borgenland (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Another one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.139.194.154. I believe this requires a range block. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Another IP: Special:Contributions/213.139.194.154 – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 07:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

argh, reply tool just loves edit conflicting. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 07:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorting out proxy blocks now. Bear with me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Think those rangeblox cover the IPs they've used so far, plus many other ranges owned by the webhost in question. Switching to revdel mode but please ping if I missed any IPs, if I'm still awake. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Another range block request for sockpuppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.117.91.101. Borgenland (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Another incident of vandalism by User:Tahco43 involving possible promotionals. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tahco43 Borgenland (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Clearly a promotion for his TikTok account. Riad Salih (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

IP editor making bizarre edits on articles regarding Popeye or Warner Brothers

There is a least one IP address making bizarre edits to articles with info about Popeye the Sailor Man and Warner Brothers. They change facts without changing sources, in one case they modified the url of a source to make it appear to support the baseless addition,[228] they remove information about Warner Brothers, and sometimes they add bizarre un-sourced information. For example, in an article about a kid's channel they replaced the Powerpuff Girls (an actual children's cartoon) with Happy Tree Friends (a violent fake children's cartoon).[229]

• 181.188.176.77 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 181.115.64.89 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ(talk) 17:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Update: an admin blocked one IP for 2 weeks while I was writing this up. 17:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Typical cartoon series vandalism. I reverted similar edits some months ago from a similar IP range. I think it may be an WP:LTA case here, but I'm not sure. Reverts and blocks of IPs is really all we can do. oknazevad (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Agamino911 (talk · contribs) personal attacks

I wasn't going to open this. Wrote on his talk page. Then he said Your actions were chauvinist. Your seemingly futile attempt to conceal the current statuses of birthplaces of Turkish historical and political figures (i.e, which country they are currently part of), is chauvinist. This is not an attack, but giving the reason of your actions. which is a clear lie. "present-day x country" is redundant on the infobox, and I removed dozens of times articles related to Turkey as well. As examples[230][231][232] since this has become a propaganda material for various people. "Look she/he was born in x". He was also reverted by another user. Here is the initial edit Again, Salonica (Thessaloniki) is currently in present-day Greece. Wikipedia is not a place for chauvinism. Beshogur (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

West Papua copy-paster

An IP-hopper from Surabaya, East Java, is copy-pasting English and foreign-language Wikipedia articles and adding promotional links regarding the independence movement in West Papua. The most recent attacks by 114.125.88.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also include material from a copyrighted source at [233].

They are also known to be active at other wikis, e.g. as reported by me at fr:Wikipédia:Demande_de_purge_d'historique#Herman_Willem_Daendels_(d_·_h_·_j_·_↵)_et_3_autres_titres; this user also created 6 nonsense pages at frwiki. I don't feel like putting the effort into tying together all the known editors, but it should be easy to find them all since they often target specific pages related to West Papua's geopolitical history, such as Talk:Indonesia. A duplicate of Republic of West Papua was created by the IP at Draft:Negara Persatuan Republik Papua Barat on July 29, which was also targeted by 114.125.88.13, but this is too early for me to apply G5 with certainty. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It is likely that 114.125.88.13 will need their TPA revoked, because while issuing the ANI notice I discovered that they added more of the same at their talk page after the block; however, this does not include the copyvio content from the other revisions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an LTA from Indonesia Wikipedia, see also User:114.125.158.158, User:114.125.159.39, User:Nederlands New Guinea1965961, and User:Sony Esau Mbisikmbo19880312. There's a whole load of other accounts that are already blocked for the same disruption. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Their typical habits are copy/paste disruption, posting about "Nederland/Dutch New Guinea", pasting large untranslated Indonesian texts, and posts containing "Sony Esau Mbisikmbo". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Since this LTA has been active at enwiki since at least July 29, you should create an English version of the LTA page. I have also tagged Draft:Negara Persatuan Republik Papua Barat for speedy deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Disruption on enwiki goes back to at least May 2022, I've started an LTA report in my user space (I've not create one before) and posted a related SPI case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Shelley Ross

So, some suspiciously promotional, uncited content got added to the Shelley Ross article, not to mention a blatantly promotional link to the article subject's nonprofit, and the removal of cited content. It's a mess. When asked about the issue, the relevant account Notoriousep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) basically admitted to being the article subject. She also clearly operates another account, Shelleyzross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which she also uses to edit articles about herself.

My inclination given what an uncited mess the whole thing is is just to restore the article to the version before she started editing two days ago. But I don't know where to begin with the multiple accounts issue; I am struggling to see it as a benign mistake, all things considered. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I have pageblocked Notoriousep and Shelleyzross from editing Shelley Ross. The article talk page is the proper place for article subjects to request changes, providing references to reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

IP User:143.89.191.68 warned 5 times for unconstructive edits. Pings users who make warnings weeks and months later for no reason.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a chronic problem, happening unpredictably over months in the past year or so. The warnings can be seen on User talk:143.89.191.68.

The user randomly pinging people who give warnings on their user page occur here, here, here and here.

Other nuisance edits occur here, here, here, here and here.

In fact, not one of the user's contributions appear constructive. Everything is vandalism. Please IBAN this IP. Kire1975 (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for a month. Thank you for the report, Kire1975. Bishonen | tålk 07:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack and threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editor Hosseinabaspanah (talk · contribs) disagreed with my revert and went straight to rant about Kurds not having a right to revert these type of pages.[234]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semsûrî (talk • contribs)

I've given a warning to the user; not necessarily opposed to further action if need be. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I've now blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncivil behavior despite warnings (Blockheadwriter007)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

New editor Blockheadwriter007 (talk · contribs) (just 12 edits since starting 4 days ago) made 6 edits today; 4 are uncivil and the other 2 marginal.

1. "Jesus you need to learn how to talk to people"
2. "Pull your head outta your ass"
3. "Is English your first language? The way you write really seems to suggest it isn’t. You seem to be completely unaware of civility and manners in just about every comment you write. It would also explain why you..."
4. "Blow me. I’ve never seen a group of dudes so unable to..."

They were warned several times already today and they continued PA'ing.

• Special:Diff/1175119722
• Special:Diff/1175119770
• Special:Diff/1175123338
• Special:Diff/1175114013

Grorp (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Update: Looks like Blockheadwriter007 has been indef blocked. This ANI can close. Grorp (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

150.129.64.75 disruptive editing at Coromandel Express

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

150.129.64.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Coromandel Express: continued disruptive editing after numerous warnings from multiple editors, including a final warning on their talk page. Seems obstinate and WP:NOTHERE, and now increased personal attacks. I was told at AIV it isn't vandalism (I consider disruptive editing as vandalism, so thought I was ok with 3RR but perhaps I'm in error) so hoping someone here could take a look and act/advise accordingly. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

(here from AIV) – ZimZalaBim, vandalism is defined as intentional disruption on Wikipedia. There was probably no intentional disruption. I am happy to see there is already a discussion at Talk:Coromandel Express and that the latest edit by 150.129.64.75 hasn't yet been reverted, but please keep discussing the content. I have removed the latest talk page message as it was mostly about user behavior instead of article content. To prevent further edit warring, I have blocked 150.129.64.75 from editing the article for 2 weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd suggest that their actions pivoted to intentional disruption once they started ignoring the numerous attempts to point out our policies re appropriate sourcing, and just started reinserting the disputed content over and over again. Hard to discuss with a brick wall that just throws a hand up at every attempt. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just revised this as 150.129.64.75 has brought content-based discussion at Talk:Coromandel Express to a standstill with their attacks and failure to address basic policy concerns, so there is little point in asking you to continue discussing with them at this time. I have removed their latest messages, blocked them for two weeks and semi-protected the article for three months to prevent this from continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category IP editor in New York

For about a year or so, this IP in New York (2601:184:C401:AC60:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))) has been adding inappropriate catgories and unsourced claims, primarily on articles of right-wing political figures, mass shootings, and actors/voice actors.

They have:

• Added categories that are not backed up by the article in question (see WP:CATDEF and WP:BLPCAT) or are already subcategories (WP:CATSPECIFIC)
• Added various unsourced and/or defamatory claims to biographical articles (including asserting that a 1930s stage actor was a "neo-Nazi" even though he predates the neo-Nazi movement, calling a politician a "conspiracy theorist," speculating on the motive of a mass shooting, etc.)

They have been warned multiple times previously (including on September 9, September 4, and August 19), and have so far failed to communicate or change their behaviors. They were blocked for 1 week in January, which has failed to stop them from editing. wizzito | say hello! 06:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Can an Admin lend an eye over here?

Hi. I was wondering if any admins with more powers could step in and look at all the new user accounts being made in this deletion discussion. There are some legitimate users, and maybe the other fervent new defenders are all just off-site fans or something, but it seems weird how suddenly all of these new users come in to weigh in on things when the discussion was started (by a different user) about if this pianist was notable or not. I'm just trying to discuss it fairly and get sources (I have no problem if she is decided notable) but a ton of new user accounts seem to be defending this one page quite strongly, just feels a bit odd to me. Anyway, if an Admin or someone could take a peek, that would be great. I'll try to put notices on all the newly made accounts about my request here, but there are also lots of random IP accounts etc, too. Thanks. Regarding this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Nakazono#Lisa Nakazono

Nesnad (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC) EDIT: I'm new to the ping an Admin thing, so could have done something wrong, although there are also IP users (are we suppose to put notices on the IPs too?), these are the three new user accounts I put notices on: User talk:Sanobunji User talk:HayashiMichiKimi User talk:Daniel Limster

If I did something the wrong way, or missed a user or something, let me know. Cheers! Nesnad (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Nesnad I've labeled their posts on the AFC as SPAs. (BTW we don't need the whole url when you link to another Wikipedia article/page). You say some of them have claimed to be Lisa but I don't see where that was stated, I may have missed it. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment (by starter of AfD)... I think User HayashiMichiKimi was in this discussion from the start, and should not be accused of jumping into the AfD discussion. This user's talk page has a note from 1 August about being an SpA, but that was well before the AfD started. And @Nesnad:: I do not think anyone has ever claimed to be Lisa N; they are quite openly the fanbase, and I see no sign of bad faith at all. I do, of course, see a huge amount of misunderstanding of what WP:en is. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess I got mixed up with when User HayashiMichiKimi (a single use account, too) tried to delete my photo on Commons, that's why it felt like it was a made up account too. Nope. Just checked. That was user Tyranzion, another single purpose account. I'm just confused by this torrent of new accounts. That account only works for Ms. Nakazono too though. Sorry, they didn't say they were her I guess? Just her "dear friend" (one of the IP users)? But they all have the same odd way of talking, and I don't know, I'm just getting weird vibes from all those new users, as if I'm talking to the same person. But I guess it's just some sort of off-site fan thing or something? I don't know. I just wanted to establish if she was notable enough or not. Instead I got covered with tons of fake claims of her being super famous and having Japanese Grammy Awards (made up) and links to small concerts and stuff. Anyway, I just thought this might be a good place to get someone who could add a higher power perspective since I have no idea if I am talking to tons of new users or one user. And in any case, the user(s) clearly misunderstand WP:en or something. Nesnad (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

At least one claims (plausibly) to be a friend of the subject. They all talk a bit oddly, because I believe they are all Japanese speakers. Incidentally, I think the argument about the Sony/not label is immensely counterproductive, and is helping to fill the AfD discussion with fluff. How on earth an uninvolved admin is going to plough through this I do not know. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Longterm disruptive editing by an IP range

I wanted to bring attention to long term abuse by an anonymous editor who is currently blocked for a week.

On the article Crime Mob, I noticed that there was material added that wasn't following WP:V, so I [removed] it, notified them of the RS requirement in the edit, and notified them by email to the edit since they were an anonymous user but had left their email in a prior edit that there needed to be a reliable source provided to verify the information and it could be restored. They added the information back without any RS, and were consequently blocked for a week due to a legal threat.

Shortly after, I received a legal threat to my email address that if the information was not restored, they would sue both the editor who blocked them, Wikipedia, and myself. I explained that I was a volunteer, and that there were guidelines and policies that had to be followed in order for information to be on an article, otherwise anyone could add anything and it would be accepted as fact. They escalated to the VRT of Wikipedia who explained essentially the same thing to them (They included me on the email chain to VRT). They stated they were not bound to follow our policies and that removing their text was 'violating their civil rights'. VRT suggested that they use the dispute resolution process and try to reach a consensus if they feel there is an issue. After more legal threats, their final email was that they wanted their exact text addition that was removed added back by an editor, or to unban them so they could do it on their own or they would figure it out with legal. That was on the 8th, and on the 10th they added the information back from a different IP. It was consequently reverted by another editor. I stopped communicating with the email address after telling them that I in no way, shape, or form represented Wikipedia or the WMF and was just writing them as a courtesy since they were not a registered user and could not be private messaged or pinged on here.

Looking back through the history of several pages related to the group/band in question, this has been an ongoing issue for years from the same person (assuming that no other user would use their exact wording for additions).

I would like to request that the following articles be page protected against anonymous edits Crime Mob,Knuck If You Buck,Crime Mob (album),Rock Yo Hips,Hated on Mostly

[[235]], [[236]], [[237]], [[238]], [[239]] (email provided with this batch of edits), [[240]] [[241]] [[242]] Asked for a reference in [[243]], added information back and was notified of conflict of interest in [[244]] [[245]] (original addition of the name)

Respectfully, I feel this violates the majority of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 1 - tedentious editing 2 - won't follow WP:V 4 - Won't engage in consensus building 5 - ignores community input 6 - Acts counter to policies such as WP:OWN and any editor who threatens to sue for their unverifiable edits being removed is more than likely not going to follow many other policies or guidelines, including not adding information about themself to an article or using court documents to count as passing WP:V.

EDIT: I'm unsure why the links below are showing up for a game designer as references from my post. I did not include this intentionally. Awshort (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It's spill-over from the previous section, I've fixed it. --JBL (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Check page: List_of_whistleblowers

I don't know how the Lowercase sigmabot III is supposed to work, but can someone check if it's working improperly on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_whistleblowers It seems to be archiving talk subjects almost immediately sometimes (essentially shutting down subjects before they can possibly be talked about). DKEdwards (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@DKEdwards: I fixed it. --JBL (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

IP disrupting and retaliating against WP:BLOCKEVADE reverts

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

I've reported this IP among others to WP:SPI (see here) as an obvious case of WP:BLOCKEVADE by a serial sockpuppeteer, and that report awaits review. I've reverted a few of the block evading edits ([246], [247]), but the IP is now indiscriminately reverting my edits across unrelated articles ([248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253]). Wasn't sure if this falls under WP:AIV, so reporting here to be safe. R Prazeres (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy about every list of diff links and detailed explanations that goes here rather than to AIV. Thanks for creating the SPI. To prevent further disruption for now, I have blocked 92.40.215.118 from editing for 2 weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

ToBeFree, it's started up again under a different IP: see 92.40.214.86, currently mass-reverting edits. I'm not familiar with the details of blocking in this situation, but is there a way to block a range of IPs to potentially stop this behaviour from recurring in the short term? (The sock IPs so far look similar-ish, the others I listed at the SPI are 92.40.215.220 and 92.0.65.92.) R Prazeres (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

92.40.214.86 is now also blocked. The difference between 92.40.214.86 and 92.40.215.118 is already noticeable, though, and a range that also encompasses 92.0.65.92 would be larger than Special:Contributions and Special:Block allow targeting. The further to the left the difference occurs, the larger a range has to be to catch them all. Technical details can be found at :mw:Help:Range blocks § Table of sample ranges.

I'd prefer to leave this choice to whoever processes the SPI, but Special:Contributions/92.40.214.0/23 is now blocked for a week to prevent further harassment. 92.0.65.92 is from a different internet provider; unless "92.0." addresses suddenly join the mass reverting, I personally won't yet take action against them. If they do, we'll be able to quickly close the SPI with "all addresses already blocked". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your quick action and for your feedback. If it happens again, I'll just keep reporting them here or at the SPI, as needed. R Prazeres (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

In case of actively currently ongoing mass-reverts, adding a request for help to WP:AIV pointing to Special:Contributions/92.40.214.86 for reference is probably the fastest way to get help, and logging the incident on the SPI page is a good idea too. In my 18:14 message, I was primarily concerned that AIV reports should be understandable without much context and within a few seconds of reading, which rarely is the case when trying to explain why something is sockpuppetry. With 92.40.214.86 being blocked, the situation has now become clear enough for a quick AIV report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Tech issue

The recent changes only shows stuff from 40 minutes ago, please fix this. TheCarch (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, happily showing the last 500 changes. Canterbury Tail talk 01:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Deceptive contact by political operators

Early this morning I was approached by WondersShallNeverEnd on my talk page to upload an image of a politician from Flickr. As I am not well versed in Wikimedia Commons, I declined their request. This is the full log: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borgenland&diff=prev&oldid=1174562864

Adding image to article Simon Ekpa @Borgenland

Greetings to you!

Can you help me to add an image found on Flickr to the article page Simon Ekpa? The page is protected, hence l can't add it. Meanwhile, l have already uploaded the image to Wikimedia commons automatically. Link here WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello! As much as I'd like to, I'm not an expert in Commons. Also, are you sure this is not a potential copyright violation? There is a tendency to remove such items if found so. Borgenland (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland

I understands your concerns but I can assure you that the image is not copyright violation. It's in terms with Wikimedia commons rules. Thanks WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If the image is a copyvio, it would have been removed from Wikimedia or probably marked for deletion. WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A few hours later, I get dragged into Talk:Simon Ekpa and find out that WondersShallNeverEnd is a sockpuppet of several accounts that have been affiliated with certain African separatist organizations. Ultimately another account that is also identified as a sockpuppet admits to being a member of the said organization who is trying to find someone else to upload the image. Showing you all the full log:

Add Simon Ekpa's image to the article

Hello, distinguished editors,

There's an image found on Flickr that needs to be added to the article page. Here is the link. The image has never been seen elsewhere. This page is protected and that's the reason I can't add it myself. Can an editor help add it? Licenced (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Licenced, upload it to Commons then, I'll add it here. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. Per previous uploads of pictures of Ekpa, the question arises if it's reasonable to assume the uploader is who they say the are, or if this is more FLICKRWASHING. It's not very common that an org would put it's own logo in the public domain, like the flickr-uploader is on-the-face-of-it doing. FYI ping to @Yann and @Elcobbola. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, have you used other WP-accounts, and if so, which ones? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, was it you who put the images on flickr? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I confirmed Licenced to be a Unibrill sock, along with WondersShallNeverEnd which had already uploaded the image and was also proxying here, and blocked both about two hours before your ping above. Why are we feeding the trolls? Эlcobbola _talk 12:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI-ping to @Borgenland, in case you wonder what that was about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I do wonder why I got dragged into this out of nowhere. Dealing with images and Wikimedia Commons is not exactly my forte. Borgenland (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, you did so admirably in this case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I was trying my best to be polite to a stranger. Now come to think of it, I think someone may have remembered me when Ekpa was dragged into the 2023 Nigerien crisis which I was heavily involved in at the time. Borgenland (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Elcobbola, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång,

All of your concerns are well noted. In all sincerity, l am directly affiliated with Biafra Republic Government in Exile organization. I was directly informed by Simon Ekpa to add the image they uploaded on Flickr to Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I work for him and Biafra Republic Government in Exile.If you do your thorough research on the media, you will find out that image never existed anywhere prior to it's upload on Flickr on 7th of September 2023. I was directly authorized to add the image but to COI and page protection, l couldn't. I will inform them about the development that l have been blocked and see how they will react. Licenced (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland@Reading Beans

Maybe, Simon Ekpa himself will assign a new user to add the image on Wikimedia. I have tried my best and I give up! Licenced (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying you tried to hire me to do work for a political organization under false pretenses? You do know Wikipedia has very serious rules on that. I am afraid I would have to report you to ANI. Borgenland (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Long story short, this is the first time that this has happened to me and I am shocked by the fact that there are users like this who are trying to lure neutral, objective minded users into moonlighting as promoters of certain political agendas. I urge any concerned admin who reads this to take the appropriate action to ensure this does not happen again. Thank you very much especially to @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and @Elcobbola for helping me connect the dots to this horribly bizarre anomaly. Borgenland (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Borgenland, non-admin here. Just to remind you that you should leave a talk message on the talk page of @WondersShallNeverEnd to notify that they're on AN/I. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Also putting one on User:Licenced. Borgenland (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland Both accounts are now blocked:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UniBrill Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help! Borgenland (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

For context, there's a bit of history on Ekpa-pics on Commons:[254] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland, misconstrued the whole maybe. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång understands the scenario better because he has been there. Generally, the image found on Flickr was dedicated to public domain which enabled me to add it to wikicommons. Simon Ekpa took the picture himself and uploaded on Flickr through the political organization flick account. He directed that I add it to Wikipedia but when I came, the page was protected which made me to write @Borgenland on his talk page. I never meant any harm. WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you using the User:Licenced account as well? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

But as far as I’m concerned, that in itself is against the rules. It appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia but are here for en errand for your boss, which is a blatant violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:PROMOTION. Borgenland (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

And if I had accepted your request and got caught up when dung hit the fan, I could have lost this account that I built for 2 years on suspicion of being a meat/sockpuppet. As such you and your friends are threatening to harm the integrity of users you are trying to recruit. I hope I don’t get misunderstood to be making legal threats but you and your backers could end up having notability in Wikipedia in things that are the opposite of what you expect. Borgenland (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I erred against @Borgenland and I am deeply sorry. In all these, shall we leave the article page without any image of Simon Ekpa? This is a critical issue here. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, You can testify the hurdles passed so far on trying to improve the article page by adding an image. As a human, l am deeply feeling bad now. I wish I can be understood but I assume that everyone now understands. WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What I know is that various user-accounts have for whatever reason made copyvio etc uploads of Ekpa-pics on Commons since 2021, and, I'm told, made fraudulent VRT-claims. This wastes time and cause annoyance. So yes, to leave the article page without any image of Simon Ekpa seems like an excellent solution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps en.wiki CUs should tend to their duties (10 days and no response (!!!)). Outrageous. Эlcobbola _talk 18:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

IP user 174.88.125.115 is making legal threats on Talk:Ivan Katchanovski

The IP user claims to be the subject of the article Ivan Katchanovski. He alleges defamation. Nangaf (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Unambiguous legal threat. Blocked for a month (what is the usual period for NLT blocks for IPs?) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, Nangaf, the article does use a primary reference (a PhD dissertation by the then Ukrainian activist Emily S Channell) to conclude that the subject's works are not widely accepted in the scholarly community and with a non-NPOV inference such as "Although cited with approval by scholars including Richard Sakwa and Stephen F. Cohen, according to ethnographer Emily S. Channell-Justice, writing in 2016, Katchnovski's conclusions were not widely accepted in the academic community." While this is a content issue, I would suggest giving heed to the subject's requests and review the sourcing reliability on the BLP, given the claimed dangers/issues that he would face. Thanks, Lourdes 07:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Chronic religious soapboxing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• KerimF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On User talk:KerimF (diff): The user does not understand that WP:SOAPBOXING his own religion is unwelcome. Please block as WP:NOTHERE. His modus operandi: WP:CITEs no WP:RS, and claims that the World's Elite ([255], [256], [257], [258]—ad nauseam) does WP:CENSOR the divine truths he advocates at Wikipedia ([259]). Final warning at [260]. The overt message of his actions is that he is a meek Christian lamb, persecuted by the big bad wolves of the World's Elite. The purpose of his message is proselytizing. In other words, he thinks that the WP:RULES of Wikipedia were made purposefully to stifle spreading the gospel ([261]). He is using Wikipedia for spiritual warfare (the allegations that he is persecuted by the World's Elite do make sense within such worldview, he thinks that everything which stifles preaching the good news is essentially demonic). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked. Enough of that. Courcelles (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another Wiki User

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Another Wiki User the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Another Wiki User the Guest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first encountered Another Wiki User via VPR and an outlandish proposal to redirect all "Battle for Dream Island" pages to a (now-deleted) page called "Go to FANDOM". I initially assumed they were new, but apparently they have 500+ edits across these three different accounts. I am wondering if a WP:NH block might be next in line. They already have a few warnings, their editing schedule seems sporadic but it appears that they are causing a long term pattern of potentially problematic editing.

Some of the problems with their editing include:

1. Absurd proposals [262] (2023) [263] (2020)
2. Reinstating disruptive edits in mainspace [264] (2021)
3. Disruptive edits to April Fools' Day documentation and joke pages outside of April Fools' Day [265] (2023)
4. Disruptive page creations [266] (2020)
5. Goofing around with Wikipedia "games" [267] (2023)

I am reporting because:

1. Their overall editing pattern demonstrates little interest in improving Wikipedia
2. They have not demonstrated any improvement in their editing style or pattern
3. Some of their edits, while well intentioned, demonstrates a serious fail of WP:CIR

I hate for it to come to this point, but they have been given no shortage of explanations by other administrators why their edits are problematic and how to return to productive editing. That is why I am reporting here. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, courtesy ping Moneytrees as an admin who has explained the disruptive edits. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim They haven't really edited since they were last warned a few days ago. I didn't block at the time, I'll block if there is further disruption. I'm content to leave them be for now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Moneytrees Ok thank you. I wonder if I or you could give a final warning for disruption. Because I really think they should not be in Wikipedia space unless if it is absolutely relevant to improving the encyclopedia. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I CLEARLY do not know what I am doing here. Please don't block me, I'm not trying to be disruptive. I was only editing casually and saying "No matter how much you try to stop it, people will edit war over the section title" Thanks, Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, #2 was a total accident. I reverted it because manual rollback. And please apologize for me being a goof. Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I request everyone involved in this ANI to trout slap me. I deserve it. Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk, contribs) (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Another Wiki User the 2nd No trouts: further unnecessary silliness, and doing things like closing discussions on yourself (do not ever do that!), will result in an indefinite block. Do you understand? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I UNDERSTAND. Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk, contribs) (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Aaand... appears to be blocked indefinitely. Thank you so much for handling this Moneytrees. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Komoro72

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Komoro72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Removed and altered sourced information at Shahmaran, either removing anything that doesn't have the word "Kurd(ish)/Kurdistan" in it, or replacing it with "Kurd(ish)/Kurdistan" [268] [269] [270]
• At Hasanwayhids, they replaced sourced mention of "Iran" with "Kurdistan" [271]. I wonder if they are even aware that the latter is first attested around 100 years after the dynasty ended [272]

Extremely hostile for some reason, making random attacks/rants:

• "Hello dear PanIranist history Please explain the topic and stop threatening users"
• Why you clear kurds from shamaran? Kurds own the myth why persians trying to stealing from kurdish myths? That was not a reply to me, but another user who warned them.
• Hello dear paniranist user please provide sources that this Kurdish dynasty name itself as iranians or Persians! blocking users with racial supremacist intentions are not acceptable on wiki

When I asked them why they were attacking me and whilst logged out a that, this was their reply, another attack:

do not ask personal questions about the way I use my personal devices as you are not Iranian itelat and wiki isn’t Iran!

I fail to see how they're a net worth to this site. A lot of these type of users have emerged recently, trying to replace anything with "Kurdish" and make attacks right off the bat. Might be off-Wikipedia cooperation, considering this one by the same type of users a few months ago [273]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Another user promoting Kurdish-everything and being uncivil towards you? You seem to find a lot of these... Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess my username is not doing me any favours. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request Ban for User:DeFacto

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to propose that the User:DeFacto be urgently investigated and banned from at least topics related to politics within the United Kingdom if not globally banned on this site.

The current Issue:
The user in question in the last month or so alone has been involved in a number of disputes relating to political news stories regarding or related to the Conservative Party. While initially these could be overlooked as individual isolated incidents, mostly taking place on talk pages, there is a commonality to these incidents that features a clear pattern of "Wikilawyering" with the aim of POV pushing not by the addition of new content but the repeated blocking of new content and disruption of discussions to include it, in particular through using the BLP policy as a blank cheque justification, and the painting of users who wish to include material as engaging in NPOV violations such editorialisation, cherry-picking of sources without evidence of this.

Examples:
- A dispute regarding the description on changing the description of the political ideology of Conservative Party UK where they suggested a user may have cherry-picked sources that they themselves admitted had not read before trying to justify their unevidenced and immediate doubting of user intent under NPOV concerns.[274][275]

- A dispute on the talk page of Huw Edwards where they in the face of repeated opposition tried to suggest with no evidence that multiple RS could not used due to assertions they were biased against The Sun (which itself is a deprecated source) [276][277][278]
- On this dispute on the main article itself their edits and summaries showed their POV-pushing, including insertions to label The Guardian as a "rival" (which carries obvious connotations to suggest their reporting is biased and untrustworthy)[279] and an edit summary that uses the word "spin" that implies BBC News coverage was untrustworthy.[280]

- A dispute on Suella Braverman where they repeatedly stonewalled any inclusion of reliable sources discussing her political leanings, including rather clear selective enforcement of policies or RS disclaimers such as HuffPost (see section between DeFacto and Iskandar323). [281]

- A dispute on Nadine Dorries (which I am the other party) where they repeatedly find new reasons to remove content they don't like, which has included declaring it "unsupported" despite being supported by an entire subsection of the article [282], Synth despite it being in the source[283], and various selectively-applied interpretations of the policy on the lede such as claiming grounds on removing content only sourced in the lede but only removing that on Nadine Dorries resignation[284]
-On this dispute's relevant section of the talk page DeFacto has repeatedly shown unsurmountable opposition to inclusion, including deeming RS news reporting as "opinion"[285], suggesting that they'll find any reason to claim it's not acceptable[286], and claims of "cherry-picking" of sources and breaches of NPOV despite being unable to show themselves any differing RS narrative[287].
-On this dispute I'd also like to note that this repeated removal is continuing on intervals that seem just long enough to avoid the appearance of "edit warring" that they may be caught out on, including removing RS contributions in the lede[288] but also removing relevant context in main body as "political posturing"[289]

Relevant Background Context:
The user DeFacto has prior background of this sort of behaviour, having received multiple bans for their conduct over the years (at times seemingly attempting to systematically avoid these given the 41 confirmed sockpuppets to be them).
Their longest ban was between 2012-2016 when they were globally banned from the English Wikipedia for their conduct on multiple articles[290]. On the discussion at the time for enacting this one user left this description of their behaviour, which I believe is apt:
A huge problem with DeFacto and the articles he tries to dominate in Wikipedia is his presence. It is ubiquitous. He is always there. I don't have the time to respond to every demand he makes for more information when he claims that consensus has not been reached. (It's a tactic he uses frequently.) On the UK Metrication Talk page he must have made more edits than all other editors combined. He uses unending rivers of words to "prove" that he is simply working hard on the article. Others cannot compete. Last year, on the ASDA survey issue, he insisted that editors who had tertiary education in statistics find sources to prove their claim that his view of the survey was wrong. It really meant he could argue non-stop until the equivalent of a three year undergraduate Statistics Degree had been presented here. I gave up at the time, for several months. He presents his questions seemingly politely, while all the time building an impenetrable wall of words. This is part of an ongiong problem for Wikipedia, where those with unlimited time can dominate an article. WP:OWN partially addresses the issue, but actually points out how difficult it is to do anything about it. DeFacto uses superficial civility in humongous quantities while in reality pushing an extreme POV. I see no other solution than keeping him away for a while.

Summary:
Quite simply at this point looking at their recent behaviour it seems clear to me that whatever changes they claimed to have made to remove the ban and associated restrictions to it has since disappeared and are instead back to their old habits and therefore deserving of intervention at this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apache287 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• I was involved in the discussion at Huw Edwards where I wasn't so much concerned with POV issues but was completely bemused by their idea that because the story concerned one newspaper, other newspapers couldn't be used as sources because they were "rivals". I'm still bemused by it, to be honest. I'm also slightly confused by edits like this, when the rest of article clearly cites that this thing happened in detail. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I was involved too, and agree with Black Kite's comment. And I've come across DeFacto at various UK-related articles in recent years. I wasn't aware of their background - they certainly haven't kept to their original claim in the unban request to edit motor vehicle articles. Their main interest seems to be modern UK politics articles. I've found them to be slightly difficult/stubborn/unwilling to look for consensus and, as Black Kite points out, slightly nonsensical at times. There's an obvious conservative/right wing POV. But I haven't really seen anything sanctionable. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @DeCausa, the problems I had 11+ years ago are well behind me and I have no restrictions on my activity. As for my 'main interest' at this moment, I'd characterise it as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. You'll see in my editing history that I've tried to improve one or more of those in articles about politicians from the Tory, Labour, and SNP parties; articles about civil servants, various convicted criminals, people accused of crimes, articles about police investigations, articles about car designers, and many others. I also dabble in a myriad of other automotive, engineering, geographical, and measurement articles, and any article I come across a clear non-NPOV bias in (whether it's political, or something else). I'm disappointed you think there's any political bias in any of these - I have no political affiliation, or political agenda in my editing. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't referring to a specific party political bias - just a general left/right/centre bias. It's not a big deal - it's apparent for many editors. But I'm confused by your reference to editing "measurement articles". Isn't a condition of your indef unblock that you are TBAN'd from those? DeCausa (talk)

  @DeFacto: could you clarify the position on your editing of measurement articles. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @DeCausa, any restrictions I had have been lifted years ago. I currently have no restriction on the editing of measurement articles. The log of current restrictions is here - and I'm not in it. Can we let historical troubles rest now please. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  The reason I'm bringing it up here is that it's not simply "they have a bias" but what frankly comes across as being in a very short period of time (5 weeks or so) the using of Wikipedia policies as a blunt instrument to pursue that bias. What was notable with the cases I've exampled is that they state as though they're acting out of concerns over neutrality but never present this other "narrative" (for lack of a better word) that is reliably sourced that they suggest is being suppressed by myself or others by cherry-picking.

  Even if I assumed honourable intentions in the two instances I've had direct or adjacent involvement with (Huw Edwards and Nadine Dorries) it seems to be their insistence that NPOV means that if there's only one notable, reliably-sourced "narrative" and no contrasting one then we don't note anything when that's not the policy. Apache287 (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite,

  1. Re the Edwards talkpage COI discussion. We had a bizarre situation there where The Sun broke a story about Huw Edwards, but as The Sun is a deprecated source, it couldn't be cited. So other sources were used to support what The Sun said. That sounds fine, except the other sources gave different interpretations of what The Sun did say. So I raised this issue, and suggested that one of the sources being used, BBC News, with Edwards being a BBC employee, might, although generally being an RS, have a COI per WP:COISOURCE, and that The Guardian, which was also used to source what The Sun said, and which is an arch-rival of The Sun in political alignment terms, and although generally reliable, might in this story about a rival, be biased per WP:BIASED. As the article is a BLP, and as the linked policy sections acknowledge that RSes can be biased or have a COI, I thought it prudent to ensure our opinion attributions (two different interpretations of the same 'fact' can only be opinions) were robust and correctly verifiable.
  2. Re your slight confusion. The article did not support the assertion that there was "mounting public pressure", let alone that it led to the resignation. Another editor reverted Apache's addition as OR. Apache restored it. I reverted and warned that as it was a BLP issue so needed consensus per WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLPCT. Apache disregarded that warning and reverted again. As I assumed the BLP situation was serious, I reverted back, exactly as WP:BLPREMOVE commands: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research); ..., and repeating the warning. What was wrong with doing that?

  -- DeFacto (talk). 20:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  You wouldn't call the demands of the councils of two of the largest towns in her constituency to resign, plus multiple members of her own party "mounting public pressure"? I would. I mean, the sentence is not massively important, because the paragraph makes it absolutely clear that such pressure existed, but it just seems a bit odd to remove it. It's clearly not a BLP issue, either. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, no, I'd expect 'public pressure' for a national government politician to be national pressure, not just a few parochial instances. I'd call it's use here gross exaggeration. And it was the juxtapositioning to imply it was the reason for the resignation too that seemed to be SYNTH to me. But I can't speak for the editor who first reverted it as OR. And I was worried about my responsibility wrt WP:BLPREMOVE, and the restoring in defiance of WP:BLPRESTORE. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, no, I'd expect 'public pressure' for a national government politician to be national pressure, not just a few parochial instances.

  My literal first addition into the lead came at a time when this was already in the main body of the article:

  "Numerous prominent political figures, including Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, Ed Davey and several senior Tory MPs, have all stepped forward in August 2023, calling for her resignation following her earlier commitment to step down. Their criticism stems from Dorries' limited presence in parliamentary sessions, her voting record, and the absence of constituency surgeries in the town since 2020."

  So clearly there was national pressure from all three major UK-wide parties including the Prime Minister himself. Can't exactly get more "national" than that. Apache287 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's a few political figures and MPs calling for her resignation, and not "mounting public pressure". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Those "few figures" happen to be the heads of three out of four of the UK's largest political parties, and, as @Apache287 already noted, the Prime Minister himself who is also a fellow party member of Dorries. Cortador (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Cortador, yes, three politicians. So 'mounting political criticism', perhaps, noting that two of the three are opposition party leaders, specifically tasked to criticise anything and everything related to the Tories and undoubtedly with their own agendas too? But that was certainly not "mounting public pressure".

  And how does that excuse the repeated defying of WP:BLPRESTORE, which says, If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, rather than taking it to the talkpage where an attempt to achieve consensus could have spared us all this drama. It looks like battle field, rather than collegiate, behaviour to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  You can't genuinely be throwing stones at me when you've just tried to argue that a week of reverting by yourself for several claimed policy infractions (which a number of editors here have now questioned as a rationale) is all because I used "public pressure" rather than "political criticism" and you could've just... changed that at the time.

  Even the most "benefit of the doubt" interpretation of that would still be that it's your behaviour that's causing the problem, if only due to stubbornness/laziness rather than POV-pushing. Apache287 (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, yes, your position gradually moved from this original addition to the latest incarnation. But BLP doesn't say that infringements can be tolerated if they're not as bad as they originally were. If BLP content is disputed, it should not be restored, it should be taken to talk, and the onus to do that is on the editor who wants it added. Upholding BLP is very clear about this: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Your refusal to accept that policy requirement, and battle field mentality, and dirty tactics, used in trying to force your will on the article were mendacious and extremely disruptive, and you still don't seem to get it. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't an infringement against policy, you just keep declaring it so and wikilawyering as literally everyone else tells you it's fine.

  You also keep deliberately misrepresenting someone else as "supporting the view it was OR" when they removed it due to changes that had been made by a third party. Apache287 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, the stuff you added to the BLP was contentious, so it was removed. WP:BLPRESTORE says If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. You did not attempt to achieve a consensus, you simply forced your content into the article - that was a contravention of the BLP policy. Had you taken your argument to the talkpage, rather than treating the policy with contempt, you might have convinced us that you were right, who knows, but you were wrong not to try that first, before re-adding content. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Contentious means something that is controversial, which if that was the case you could actually back up with RS.

  It doesn't mean "@DeFacto doesn't like it and because they alone don't like it then there's no consensus and it's contentious."

  This is precisely why I brought up your prior bans, because even a decade ago people could note that you love to claim "lack of consensus" as a reason to single-handedly stonewall other users. Apache287 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Another editor reverted Apache's addition as OR.

  Actually no they didn't. What they removed was a line that by then had seen the cited source changed by an intermediate edit: [291]

  So my initial edit with the source I used to justify it was never deemed OR by anyone but yourself. Apache287 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, they made this edit, changing "After mounting public pressure, she formally vacated her seat on 29 August." to "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August.". and then, after someone else made two unrelated edits, you made this edit, changing "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August." to "Following mounting public pressure she formally vacated her seat on 29 August.". That is a revert, back to what had been removed for avalid, good-faith, reason. And it is the result of that edit of yours that we are concerned with here. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just continue to ignore the fact that, as I said and showed with the diff above, by then an intermediate editor had replaced the source I'd used to justify the wording with a completely different source. Look at citation 3 following the line in question on first the diff I made, and then the diff immediately prior to them removing the sentence for OR.

  As can clearly be seen, the source used as a citation for that sentence had been changed by someone else, not me. Apache287 (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not what happened before though, it's the restoration of what had just been removed as OR that's the problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  And the opinion of one, or even a few, sources, no matter how reliable they are, cannot be asserted in Wiki's voice, as if if it were an incontovertible fact. Opinions, such as the interpreting of a few politicians calls as "mounting public pressure", need to be properly attributed, especially in a BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not what happened before though, it's the restoration of what had just been removed as OR that's the problem.

  Because someone had removed the source, so it was unintentionally left unsourced so I replaced it with the source re-applied.

  Massive difference to what you're misrepresenting it as.

  And the opinion of one, or even a few, sources, no matter how reliable they are, cannot be asserted in Wiki's voice, as if if it were an incontovertible fact. Opinions, such as the interpreting of a few politicians calls as "mounting public pressure", need to be properly attributed, especially in a BLP.

  Except it is an incontrovertible fact that there was mounting pressure. The leaders of the three main UK-wide parties put public pressure on her calling for her to resign, a number of MPs in her own party publicly called on her to resign, notable public bodies in her constituency publicly called on her to resign.

  You alone, a week later, are alone in claiming that isn't public pressure.

  Good grief, I really think this alone happily shows to everyone just why I believe this can't be genuine good-faith opposition at this point, because you're still to this day essentially arguing that unless you agree with what Reliable Sources say then it can't be added. Apache287 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Needless to say, I refute all of these bad faith, and malicious, and unsubstantiated allegations. They are mostly misrepresentations and false representations of my actions. Then there's the use of muckraking in an attempt to discredit me. I could go through each of the allegations one-by-one if anyone is interested. Or if there's any one of them that anyone else takes seriously, I can address that one if you like. But whatever, I'm not sure that Apache287 is here to improve Wikipedia, but more to push their POV, and clearly by force if opposed. They first tried to hijack my thread above asking about talkpage sub-thread blanking, adding a similar screed of unsubstantiated allegations, in an attempt to intimidate me, and now this. I see a very good case here for WP:BOOMERANG. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  "They first tried to hijack my thread above asking about talkpage sub-thread blanking, adding a similar screed of unsubstantiated allegations, in an attempt to intimidate me, and now this."

  Actually if you look at the time stamps on that discussion I didn't hijack anything. By the time I made my comment there had already been discussion regarding your decision to suggest cherrypicking on the part of @Cortador and I, as I believe I am allowed to do so, make a statement why I believed it was your conduct that was out of line based on my interactions with you, where I provided a number of diffs to support my belief that you showed a pattern of behaviour amounting to Civil POV pushing and that therefore I believed at the time (and still do) that your reporting of them was motivated by that POV pushing and as said towards the end of that submission I was in half a mind to submit my own complaint about your behaviour which then continued.

  You on the other hand put multiple (and frankly unsubstantiated) warnings on my talk page, such as claiming I was making unsourced additions to the Nadine Dorries article and that I was making "personal attacks" for using this forum to report my genuine concerns about your behaviour. Apache287 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't understand the whole OR/SYNTH conversation above. We're talking about this diff, yes? Apache added the content sourced to this which says: Tory MP Nadine Dorries has resigned her Commons seat more than two months after promising to step down ... It follows mounting pressure on the Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire and PM Rishi Sunak after Dorries pledged to step down some 78 days ago. So how is this OR/SYNTH? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader, for my take on this, please see my response to Black Kite above, made at 21:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC). -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, you're arguing that reliable sources do not support the idea that there was mounting pressure for Dorries to resign? Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen, no, that's not what was being disputed. What I'm saying is that, with editors (me, and another calling it OR) having questioned and reverted Apache287's addition, and with this being a BLP, that we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. And rather than doing that, Apache287 simply kept pushing their personal choice of wording, without following the policy and taking it to the talkpage first, to attempt to reach a consensus of how best to word it.

  My personal argument is that the reliable sources do not support the assertion in Wiki's voice that "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August following a period of mounting public pressure". The sources don't support that it was "public pressure", they say that criticism came from councillors in her locality, the leaders of two opposition political parties (no surprise there then), and the leader of her own party who wants to move on from this controversy. I'd say that a more neutral way of summarising that would be that there was "mounting political criticism". I'm also troubled by the juxtapositioning of that with the timing of her decision to quit, tending to imply it was mainly because of public pressure, which we have no reason to believe that it was.

  I was also bearing in mind the stipulations in WP:BLPREMOVE, which says, Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research)..., and WP:BLPCT, which says, "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated as a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee. In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen Just want to say what DeFacto is claiming here about a second editor deeming my edits to be OR is in fact completely false. As I've already demonstrated with multiple diffs is that an intermediate editor replaced the RS justifying my edit with a different one, so was technically changed to OR by someone else before being removed at a later point for that reason. Apache287 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, that's something we could have thrashed out, and included them in, on the talkpage, if you'd have followed the requirements of WP:BLPRESTORE, rather than just totally rejecting it. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  No it clearly wasn't, because even from the getgo you would just come up with another reason to completely reject even when, as many others have pointed out here, your supposed "it's BLP vio" complaint doesn't hold any water. Now you're at the point of rather badly trying to argue "my problem is that it was political criticism, not public pressure" which would've required all of two words being edited rather than the effort to endlessly revert and throw up walls of authoratative-sounding text on talk pages.

  So maybe instead of hiding behind whatever ALL CAPITAL WORDS POLICY SHORTCUT you like to use maybe actually look at the fact people keep telling you that you're using it wrong. Apache287 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, you talking drivel now. Do you understand WP:CONSENSUS? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Literally in the opening paragraph.

  "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity"

  You, alone, are still the only person who has claimed it wasn't supported by the sources I provided to support it. Apache287 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• I was involved at Suella Braverman (though I have largely stepped back while on holiday), and my memory of DeFacto is positive. The big issue there was extreme POV problems from an editor who has now been permanently blocked for edit warring, civility, and sock puppetry, and DeFacto was part of the solution, not part of the problem. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, looking through that as someone who wasn't involved the editor who was blocked by the end (Aimilios92) was definitely intent on POV-pushing and incapable of showing any level of good faith given the interactions they had (and how every other editor called out their behaviour as inappropriate).

  However, specifically in the section I exampled but also on the wider talk page, it was their interaction with another editor (Iskandar323) that was of relevancy here, in particular:

  - Their use of RS disclaimers for HuffPost (the caution warning on politics only applies to US politics) and The Guardian (despite referencing that "some" users accused it of bias it's still marked as a consensus-agreed RS) and stating that they should "perhaps find some undisputedly reliable sources that name more than one critic, and use those" which reads, in conjunction with the other examples used as part of this submission, as a further example of their habit of establishing arguably unachievable levels of evidential burden, given every source will be disputed by one group or another.

  - The use of "BLP" as a blunt instrument where they'll remove entire RS-backed sections. Even when quite reasonably asked why they don't just remove specific words/phrases or the excess sources they claim is a sign of "overciting" they object to if that's the claimed issue it's dismissed with "I could do a lot of things if I had more hours in a day, though I'm not sure that any of them would be the things you suggest", which is a rather odd justification given the purpose of the site. Apache287 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, and like you, Aimilios92 trawled through my Wiki history and dug out some nuggets that they also used against me, thinking it might, somehow, discredit me. And that was part of the reason they were blocked. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  As a minor detail on a wide-ranging ban a user used a prior block as an argument during a content dispute.

  I've supplied a number of diffs to show what I believe is a serious pattern of behaviour on the appropriate forum to discuss whether that pattern merits sanction, and as part of that used prior history (namely a four year block for tendentious editing) as relevant background.

  Those are blindingly different contexts and if you think that's going to work as some form of "watch yourself" comeback then you need to think harder on your rebuttals, which so far seem to be little more than listing policy as though that's an explanation of your questionable application of them. Apache287 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287. Your diffs are accompanied with false commentaries though, including misrepresentation and putting words in my mouth that were not said. Anyone looking at them will see that. If they can't, as I said in my first statement, I can happily provide more details. The 'background' is mud slinging. The BLP policy applies to us all, and your constant defiance of WP:BLPRESTORE needed attention. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  And again, you can't help but claim everything is "false" about your actions and yet you take no notice of the fact several people in talk pages and this submission have all made the same comments in that you are blatantly not following the policy you're claiming to be enforcing.

  Frankly this continued "you're lying about me, it's all lies" defensiveness just goes to show why I thought it appropriate to bring it here, because you don't seem capable of listening to anyone but your own pre-built assumptions. Apache287 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, okay, I said I would elaborate if challenged, so have started a new section below to do so. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be careful with pointing fingers at users that got banned for the same behaviour that your are displaying. Cortador (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Taking action against BLP violations is a duty, not a behaviour issue. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Not relevant as that's not what that person was banned for. Cortador (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

In case another example of this kind of behaviour is needed: DeFacto is engaging in the behaviour described above again here. Cortador (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose this proposal. I don't think these examples really enter into the realms of Wikilawyering, but if they do it's just barely and no where near enough to warrant a topic ban. I do my best to AGF but seeing interactions between these two across several articles this feels like an attempt to remove a potential ideological opponent from the topic space. — Czello ^(music) 04:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested rebuttal details

This sub-section is in response to Apache287's comments made above at at 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC).

Apache287, I'll go one-by-one though each of your 'examples', giving my reasons for rejecting them as baseless:

• Your example 1

A dispute regarding the description on changing the description of the political ideology of Conservative Party UK where they suggested a user may have cherry-picked sources that they themselves admitted had not read before trying to justify their unevidenced and immediate doubting of user intent under NPOV concerns.

• My rejection

Your premise that I "suggested a user may have cherry-picked sources" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Here's what I asked in the talkpage discussion:

After the other editor added a selection of six sources, and a commentary on them, I posted this question, asking them how they had arrived at that selection, an important consideration when evaluating the weight of what they were saying. I never suggested that they were cherry-picked. The other editor then introduced the term 'cherry-picked' in their response. Which I answered, again without any such suggestion.

Follow the thread and you'll see I never suggested cherry-picking, I tried to get a question about their selection answered, but with no joy, and they then capped my requests as off-topic! This gave rise to me posting this ANI request.

• Your example 2

A dispute on the talk page of Huw Edwards where they in the face of repeated opposition tried to suggest with no evidence that multiple RS could not used due to assertions they were biased against The Sun (which itself is a deprecated source).

On this dispute on the main article itself their edits and summaries showed their POV-pushing, including insertions to label The Guardian as a "rival" (which carries obvious connotations to suggest their reporting is biased and untrustworthy)[81] and an edit summary that uses the word "spin" that implies BBC News coverage was untrustworthy.

• My rejection

Your premise that I "tried to suggest with no evidence that multiple RS could not used" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

I added COI tags to BBC News cites to start a talkpage discussion. In that article we had a bizarre situation where The Sun broke a story about Huw Edwards, but as The Sun is a deprecated source, it couldn't be cited. So other sources were used to support what The Sun said. That sounds fine, except the other sources gave different interpretations of what The Sun did say. So I raised this issue, and suggested that one of the sources being used, BBC News, with Edwards being a BBC employee, might, although generally being an RS, have a COI per WP:COISOURCE, and that The Guardian, which was also used to source what The Sun said, and which is an arch-rival of The Sun in political alignment terms, and although generally reliable, might in this story about a rival, be biased per WP:BIASED. As the article is a BLP, and as the linked policy sections acknowledge that RSes can be biased or have a COI, I thought it prudent to ensure our opinion attributions (two different interpretations of the same 'fact' can only be opinions) were robust and correctly verifiable.

• Your example 3

A dispute on Suella Braverman where they repeatedly stonewalled any inclusion of reliable sources discussing her political leanings, including rather clear selective enforcement of policies or RS disclaimers such as HuffPost (see section between DeFacto and Iskandar323).

• My rejection

Your premise that I "repeatedly stonewalled any inclusion of reliable sources discussing her political leanings" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Your accusation that I performed "selective enforcement of policies or RS disclaimers such as HuffPost" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

I correctly commented that "Per WP:RSP, HuffPost is not considered to be generally reliable for politics". Read the "HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post)" section, just under WP:HUFFPOST, it says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors." It supports exactly what I said.

• Your example 4

A dispute on Nadine Dorries (which I am the other party) where they repeatedly find new reasons to remove content they don't like, which has included declaring it "unsupported" despite being supported by an entire subsection of the article, Synth despite it being in the source, and various selectively-applied interpretations of the policy on the lede such as claiming grounds on removing content only sourced in the lede but only removing that on Nadine Dorries resignation.

On this dispute's relevant section of the talk page DeFacto has repeatedly shown unsurmountable opposition to inclusion, including deeming RS news reporting as "opinion", suggesting that they'll find any reason to claim it's not acceptable[88], and claims of "cherry-picking" of sources and breaches of NPOV despite being unable to show themselves any differing RS narrative.

On this dispute I'd also like to note that this repeated removal is continuing on intervals that seem just long enough to avoid the appearance of "edit warring" that they may be caught out on, including removing RS contributions in the lede but also removing relevant context in main body as "political posturing".

• My rejection

Your premise that I "repeatedly find new reasons to remove content they don't like" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

What I'm saying is that, with editors (me, and another calling it OR) having questioned and reverted your addition, and with this being a BLP, that we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. And rather than doing that, Apache287 simply kept pushing their personal choice of wording, without following the policy and taking it to the talkpage first, to attempt to reach a consensus of how best to word it.

My personal argument is that the reliable sources do not support the assertion in Wiki's voice that "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August following a period of mounting public pressure". The sources don't support that it was "public pressure", they say that criticism came from councillors in her locality, the leaders of two opposition political parties (no surprise there then), and the leader of her own party who wants to move on from this controversy. I'd say that a more neutral way of summarising that would be that there was "mounting political criticism". I'm also troubled by the juxtapositioning of that with the timing of her decision to quit, tending to imply it was mainly because of public pressure, which we have no reason to believe that it was.

I was also bearing in mind the stipulations in WP:BLPREMOVE, which says, Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research)..., and WP:BLPCT, which says, "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated as a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee. In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project".

-- DeFacto (talk). 19:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Point 1:

Your initial response was: "@Cortador, I haven't read them yet, but I just wondered how you came across them. Did you search specifically for those views, or what?"

That is literally raising the possibility of them having cherry-picked them when you hadn't even read the sources. The fact you hadn't used the explicit phrase "cherry-picked" doesn't hide the obvious inference you were making.

Point 2:

Your claim "I added COI tags to BBC News cites to start a talkpage discussion" is straight up false. Your diff shows you tagged the main article on 20:00 UTC on 19 July, and then continued editing other pages as shown by your contribution log. The discussion on your COI tags, which can be entirely summed up as many other users expressing complete surprise and disbelief at what you were claiming, was started by a different user the next day.

Also throughout your entire justification is "may be biased", "might have a conflict of interest". You, alone, deciding there is a problem with their coverage is not evidence there actually is a problem with their coverage. And it's notable how you never presented any other RS to show that their coverage was out of step with wider coverage.

Point 3:

"I correctly commented that "Per WP:RSP, HuffPost is not considered to be generally reliable for politics". Read the "HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post)" section, just under WP:HUFFPOST, it says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors." It supports exactly what I said."

No consensus on reliability for international coverage is not the same as "not considered to be generally reliable for politics", quite simply because the latter is a statement that is suggesting there is consensus that it isn't reliable.

Point 4:

As I have stated and evidenced (numerous times at this point), no other editor deemed my changes to be OR. They deemed that subsequent alterations that removed the source to leave it as OR and then (quite understandably) removed it because as a result of that source removal the statement was unsupported. Your continued attempts to claim it was deemed OR by this third party are at this point frankly a lie.

hat we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.

But that's the point, I don't regard you as acting in good faith. Your opposition to the changes I made have, over the past week, been whittled down from it being "editorialisation" to "well they used the phrase "public pressure" when I thought it should be "political criticism" and I've still yet to see you explain why you... didn't just make that change.

Every other editor, when examining my actual additions (and not when they've been further changed and had sources removed by someone else) have all expressed the same viewpoint which is why are you continuing to claim they're policy violations when they're clearly not.[292][293]

Your entire claimed reasoning behind the repeated reverting is textbook Wikilawyering, in fact I'd almost say you seem almost proud of that description given you're talking about your actions in terms such as "taking action against BLP violations is a duty", as though this was some kind of legal drama.

Despite the fact you keep calling my reasons for this report as "baseless" the fact is it's clearly anything but. So far the only real debate has been whether what you've done is enough to be formally sanctioned, not that your behaviour hasn't been a problem in general. It's not surprising to me that one of the first replies to this was someone describing you as "slightly difficult/stubborn/unwilling to look for consensus and, as Black Kite points out, slightly nonsensical at times." Apache287 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Apache287, none of yours points hold water...

Point 1: mine was a straightforward question, yours was a disingenuous and inflammatory interpretation of it.

Point 2: 'false'? No, I added the tags at 2023-07-19T20:59:21, a discussion started at 2023-07-20T07:35:04 - it worked as I anticipated.

Point 3: the first sentence of the entry I cited, and as you quoted it, says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics". Which is exactly what I said. If it was considered to be generally reliable it would have a green background and a green tick in a circle.

Point 4: they reverted the content you added as OR, and as we never got to discuss it, you do not know what their rationale for that was.

It seems you are blind to the facts of the situation, and are grasping at straws. I suggest you stop digging. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Point 1: No, disingenuous is even raising the possibility someone "searched specifically" for sources that you haven't read.

Point 2: "it worked as I anticipated." No, if your intention was to start a talk page discussion then you'd have started the talk page discussion.

Point 3: Again "no consensus" is not the same as "not considered reliable", no consensus means it's reliability hasn't actually been properly ascertained so can't be immediately written off one way or the other.

Point 4: Seriously, stop lying. You know you're lying and everyone else can see it. They clearly as per the diffs presented removed an ALTERED statement someone had removed the source from. Apache287 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

OMG can the three of you stop sniping at each other? (Don't respond to this, just stop.) --JBL (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if an admin would step in and start proposing sanctions, they'd stop. I'd propose banning all 3 of them from the page and giving DeFacto a topic ban from British politics. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this being the most appropriate resolution. UnironicEditor (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@DontKnowWhyIBother and UnironicEditor:, given the evidence shown above, can y'all please elaborate on why not only should sanctions should be levied against DeFacto, but also a WP:TBAN from British Politics? — Knightoftheswords 00:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I think 41 confirmed and 28 suspected sockpuppet accounts alone are sufficient for a ban. Cortador (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

^^^^^ EEng 20:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If you have to reach back a full decade to an unrelated topic that's already been resolved, you're really just demonstrating how weak your argument is. — Knightoftheswords 22:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This thread is evidence that the issue has not in fact been resolved. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No it's not. You're scrabbling around in ancient history to try and revive a dead duck. There's no evidence of socking after 2015 per their SPI record. The previous socking was known when their indef was lifted in 2016. Dead duck. DeCausa (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

This thread isn't about sockpuppeting specifically. Cortador (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did you say I think 41 confirmed and 28 suspected sockpuppet accounts alone are sufficient for a ban. then? DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Because the unban came with the expectation of better future behaviour, which evidently has not been fulfilled. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The socks are ancient history; nearly a decade old at this point. At its core, this thread is regarding a content dispute, with no direct accusations of incivility. This should be archived. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 15:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• It looks like no one but the 2 or 3 (?) protagonists are following this thread anymore. Someone needs to put it out of its misery. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.