Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136

Nazi flag

Collapsing to make just the useful info visible — Trey Maturin™ 18:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what the protocol here is, but anon 213.121.189.138 just vandalized my talk page with a Nazi flag. Anon is clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC) This is a new one. Apparently this random IP from the United Kingdom placed a swastika on my talkpage with the caption "The chungus impostor is sus." I'm not sure what those words mean or why I was targeted... but anyway, is this a new form of trolling? And shouldn't that image be on the bad image list? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC) For the record, "chungus" is a meme and "imposter is sus" refers to Among Us. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 15:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Hey, I got one of those too. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC) check AIV I'm reporting as many as I can Knitsey (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Seems to be an epidemic. EEng 03:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Aw, and here I thought I'd made a new friend... Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC) I got an invite, but it didn't look my kind of party. Narky Blert (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Me too. A different IP put one on my talk page too and on another users page as well. I just deleted them both. Here's a link to their contribs page. This IP only has the two edits so far [1] EEBuchanan (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC) My talk page was vandalised several times too. First, it was the Nazi Swastika flag, then a different IP came in and changed random words throughout my talk page to bad words. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC) 188.74.100.3 posting a swastika on my user talk I've obviously annoyed someone because a IP user has just posted a swastika on my user talk. This is obviously unacceptable behaviour. AlanStalk 03:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Huh. That's the third one in a row. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Edit filter time? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Yup. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC) There's a lot, see also WP:AIV. Might be worth a brief block on any AS belonging to Hutchison 3G UK Limited/Mobile Broadband Service, which seems to be the originating AS? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Edit filter is way smarter, ignore me. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC) IPs were from the Netherlands and the UK. Netherzone (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Star Mississippi and Acroterion's talk pages just got hit a few minutes ago from 3 different IPs. I think an edit filter was requested, but someone should double check.Netherzone (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC) I wonder what their motive is. Seems very juvenile. AlanStalk 03:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC) It's one of our frequent fliers, I can't be bothered to figure out which one, using proxy IPs. I've asked for an edit filter, since the image is widely used and hard to blacklist. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC) They're going nuts on my user talk at the moment with Geni reverting the edits and blocking different IPs over and over. AlanStalk 03:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC) My page was also vandalized in this way. I have reverted. The IP which left the hate symbol on my page is: 88.202.157.204. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one, at least. I thought it was some personal vendetta against me. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Looking at the revision history of this page there was vandalism going on here earlier today. I think they might have gotten editor names from here and targeted their user spaces. AlanStalk 03:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC) I've gone back 500 edits (filtered to ip's and reported a load of them. There may be some stray edits knocking around that we missed. The 500th edit was a flag vandal but I could only go back 500 on my phone...which I now need to recharge. Knitsey (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Not sure why these are being revdelled, but if they're supposed to be I suppose I should note I reverted this one. CMD (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC) It's the sort of thing that's within an admin's discretion but also not required. Personally, I'm happy to revdel any particular ones at the request of whoever's userspace it is, but won't be going out of my way to get them all. (If any admin does feel like tracking them all down, Special:Log/block/Tamzin is a good place to start.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC) I was trying to say that I'm not sure why because I can't see them. I have no idea if the one I reverted is standard, or if the revdelled ones were different in some way, or any information that might be out there feeding into the reasoning. It was not mentioned here either. Without any access to this information, and given there are revdelled diffs, the safe option seems to be reporting here. CMD (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC) @Tamzin: Same thing happened to me (diff). Kindly revdel and block that IP. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)  Revdelled. Blocked by Materialscientist. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC) @Tamzin: Much obliged. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Tamzin, I also got hit. Revdel these 2 diffs (1, 2) please? CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 16:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Multiple IP Addresses spamming Nazi flags on many user's talk pages Can I request any admins to help clear the backlog at WP:AIV? 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 03:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC) No point. The vandal cycles IP after a couple of edits regardless of if they have been blocked or not.©Geni (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC) This makes a very good argument for requiring registration for any form of editing. AlanStalk 03:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Or just a good argument for having better IP abuse tools. We can WP:DENY and not let a vandal decide our editing policies; wouldn't be shocked if the whole "point" was to get people to react, and they'll get bored before we do. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 03:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC) "Best we can do is require IP address masking" -- WMF. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC) 46.20.220.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 188.222.180.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 81.130.142.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 81.56.152.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 80.14.119.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) My god when will this stop.... These IP addresses have replaced most of my decorations with images of Hitler. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 04:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Can we please stop reporting these IPs, both here and at AIV? It is clear that the vandal is quick about hopping to new IPs after making a single edit, and unless there is evidence that they like returning to a particular IP, I really don't see what WP:PREVENTATIVE benefit there is in playing whack-a-mole with the block button here. I'm afraid the edit filter and patrolling recent changes are just going to be what we have to do. Mz7 (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Fair enough. I was reporting them because I figured they were probably open proxies that should be blocked anyway, but I'll remember that next time I'm cleaning up after a similar attack. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC) The particular kind of proxy they are using is very difficult to detect because they could be a mix of legitimate and anonymized traffic, and they often don't last very long. In other words, we can block these IPs in the short term (e.g. for a few days), but anything longer could result in collateral damage. Mz7 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC) To be clear, my opinion at this point is still that it's not worth blocking at all, but I recognize it is within discretion for another admin to make blocks. Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC) 100% agree with AlanS. Registration should be required. If someone really gives a hoot about editing a certain page in good faith, they surely could spend two minutes creating an account. Imagine the headache this would spare everyone. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC) The flaw in your logic is that most editors don't start out really giving a hoot about editing a certain page -- they just see a way they might contribute, and take the opportunity, and then 1 in a 100 of them gets hooked and become long-term contributors. I can personally attest that if I'd had to create an account before making my first edit, I never would have, and WP would have to have somehow got along without me all these years since. (Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing I leave to others to decide.) EEng 05:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC) The flaw in that logic is that for everyone like you who states they never would have bothered if they had to make an account, there's at least one editor who isn't building the encyclopedia because they're too busy whacking IP vandals. And with that, seriously? Everyone on Reddit's made an account. Everyone on Discord's made an account. Everyone on Facebook's made an account. Everyone on Twitter's made an account. Everyone commenting on a Disqus forum's made an account. Most forums require accounts. Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, YouTube, accounts all around. The notion that Wikipedia would be shunned if registration was required flies in the face of 90% of the Internet. Ravenswing 12:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC) When Wikipedia was in it's infancy, anonymous editing was still a big thing I would say. Now? It's an outlier. I've been on the bandwagon of no longer having logged out editing for sometime. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC) I highly doubt blocking anonymous edits would do much to deter this type of attack in the long run. Since enabling captchas stopped the current round, that demonstrates it's likely automated. In that case, they could still do the same thing if anonymous editing were disabled simply by adding a few steps in their attack script to create a new throw away account with a random username and automatically create a new account after a few edits and/or when the current account gets blocked. AI enhanced tools have gotten rather good at solving captchas too. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:E06F:6EFC:616E:44FE (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC) They have now moved on to inserting random words into articles. I've done my bit by reverting 100+ of these today (as have others). A filter for the flag would help. Knitsey (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC) I think given the timing, the nature of the edit, and the fact that it is the only edit in the IP's contrib log, I think my talk page got hit by this vandal as well. And yet, for some reason, instead of a swastika, I got a random photo of some polish boxing commentator? 🤔 I don't know if this data point is at all useful to those addressing this disruption, but figured I'd mention it here just in case someone is compiling all the utilized IPs. SnowRise let's rap 10:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC) I just got hit, and they changed out the about 10 images on my user talk page to pictures of Hitler, and added text. IP from South Korea. Netherzone (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Defacement of talk page by 37.210.128.134 37.210.128.134 (talk · contribs) defaced my talk-page with disturbing images. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChaipau&diff=1168411340&oldid=1168391998 I have reverted it but request some action. Chaipau (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC) This is related to the above Nazi imagery LTA attack. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Ah, I should have checked. Thanks for mentioning it here. Chaipau (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC) @Chaipau Fyi, I have reported to WP:AIV for you. This is related to #Nazi flag above. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Could potentially be the same IP as 50.86.121.146 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Its an LTA automated attack. See the above Nazi flag section. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

EmergencyCaptcha mode in effect

EmergencyCaptcha mode is in effect as of a few minutes ago. It applies to all unregistered and non-autoconfirmed users. Disruption has stopped for now; if that holds for a few hours, someone should reach out to a dev and ask to have it turned off. The task to reference, even if you can't view its contents, is T343294. Longer-term, a relevant task is T303433 (allowing stewards to enable EmergencyCaptcha). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this measure appears to have been highly effective. Thanks for your work on this! Mz7 (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Hopefully this fixes the problem. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we think we're ready to revert this? — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 09:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime-WMF: I'd say so! -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

My take is that if there is no evidence of disruption for the last 1-3h, it's worth turning it off as long as we have a reasonably quick way of flipping the switch again if needed. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rockstone35 and Blablubbs: Reverted, thank you — I am monitoring this thread, so please ping me (or any other sysadmin) if this level of disruption resumes — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 10:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime-WMF: We might need this back on again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Ack, are filters ineffective again? — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 14:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The vandalism hasn't resumed yet - but they just threatened on SFR's talk page to start vandalizing again, so we might need the captchas soon. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

There were a number of now revdel'd post with the same type of message here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime-WMF: It'd be for the best to wait until it actually resumes to enable it as it's a rather disruptive mitigation. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 15:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Deauthorized: Understood — other mitigations are being reviewed — TheresNoTime-WMF (talk • they/them) 15:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• What is best practice the next time this happens? I responded to this incident last night and blocked probably a score of IPs, maybe more. I wasn't sure what the best route for escalation is. Feel free to reply by email if you don't want to, erm, spill any beans. —C.Fred (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  @C.Fred: when things get "bad enough" that community-based mitigations are no longer effective, privately asking for SRE/Security assistance (ideally via a Security Task on Phabricator) is the best course of escalation, as Tamzin did in this case — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @C.Fred: I think this much ought to be said publicly, to increase the bus factor of admins who know what to do: My approach and others' in these cases is increasingly aggressive filtering of IP edits (or new-account edits, depending on LTA M.O.), up to an extreme of disallowing or drastically limiting all IP edits outright. (Granted, not all admins are edit filter managers, but all can monitor private filters and discuss with EFMs as needed—or self-grant EFM and make limited changes to the extent they feel competent to do so.) When one is in the territory of those extraordinary measures, that's the time to talk about EmergencyCaptcha. There's a few sysadmins I'm friendly with who I'd normally reach out to in such a case; in this one, they were all offline, so I dropped a message in #wikimedia-operations ^connect and got a response after about 20 minutes. If things had been a bit more acute, I might have requested a Klaxon blare, although in practice finding someone with Klaxon access can be just as hard as finding someone with access to do the needful in the first place. I'll note that, while antivandalism work is usually below our devs' paygrade, I've found them uniformly enthusiastic about it when push comes to shove. They also have other interventions they can use, such as removing limits on AbuseFilter hits and some other stuff I won't get into. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know if the emergency captcha is on or off, but the disruption is still going on this very minute. Bishonen | tålk 16:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC).

  It is not, but it might be needed again. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 16:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've implemented an edit filter to try to stop it, but we'll probably still need the captcha. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Ingenuity: The captcha is being enabled as of right now. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 16:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not quite. Pending at the moment. 684 is holding up last I checked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  Going live soon. With significant regret, I have disabled all IPv4 editing via 684. Will self-rv as soon as the patch is live. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Admin advice for "ordinary" editors who spot an outbreak

I missed yesterday's main drama, so apologies if this has been discussed. If this can be done without spilling stuff... what should "ordinary" editors like me do if we spot another outbreak of this sort? I've seen admins asking for and recommending against reporting the IPs to AIV, for instance.

What would you lot with the mops and big red buttons like us to do? Is it just revert and ignore, knowing that others will see the issue and do the revdeling and blocking as and when? — Trey Maturin™ 16:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

If it continues it might be worthwhile setting up something (another type of AIV?) somewhere (I'm still a noob so I've no idea where) to request rev/dels maybe? I don't know if that's a possibility? Knitsey (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

If it's of this severity, then Tamzin's writing above is the reasonable solution. Due to it being a security task it's unfortunate that 191 people can know whether the process has started without asking, but it comes with the territory. As Ingenuity said below, there's not much point in reporting (and by extension blocking) since they hop around the IPs on speeds that make it unviable. Reverting and ignoring is indeed the way to go, with RD being applied when appropriate, although I don't believe adding photos of Oswald Mosley and replacing random words rises to that level. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's basically nothing you can do except revert the IP edits. Each IP is only used for one edit, so there's not much use in reporting them to AIV. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It was more about asking for rev/dels after reverting. In this case it might be there are too many though. Knitsey (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The insane attack took place in the early dawn in UTC+3, it just like block numerous IPs and cleaning up the clutter. My talk page is protected already but will end on August 5, but the logic is, the numerous anons claim to be from the UK and Netherlands as stated above when it was dark then. If this persists, other than the filter created fails, it would be a problem to all non autocomfirmed users. Too odd that all affected versions are hidden from view. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, simply patrolling recent changes is a truly big help and is something anyone can do. I think some of us who have been around for a while like to roll our eyes at the banality of this work compared to other things we could be doing on Wikipedia, but the less editors doing it, the likelier it is that vandalism will slip through and be seen by readers. Mz7 (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Dedicated filter for emergency mass IP block

Well that was... something. Since it's suboptimal to have a massive IP block be logged on whichever more specialized edit filter was in use before then, especially if the filter is private, I have created filter 1263 for such (hopefully extremely rare) cases going forward. It is disabled by default. For any admins reading this in the future: to use, select all, IPv4, or IPv6; select namespaces if applicable; enable; notify AN or AN/I; and request EmergencyCaptcha if it has not already done so. The filter uses the custom MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-emergency-IP, newly created by DatGuy and Reaper Eternal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems like it'd be instantly throttled. Unless the configuration for throttling has changed. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Not sure. 684 wasn't throttled (although it was flagged) in the 2 minutes it blocked all IPv4 edits. Either way it'd be better than nothing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, there really needs to be better tools for these types of mass attacks. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, I'd add !user_mobile as an option as most high-speed vandals edit from desktop; this way some 50% of users won't be affected by the filter. You could also throttle by (user,range), (user,page) allowing 1 edit in 10-20 minutes. 68.199.122.141 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Question: Will it also affect new users? ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 17:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

No. It could be easily modified to do that, but—at the risk of tempting fate,  Kinehore—that's a significantly less likely scenario, since account creation is a bottleneck. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY don't prevent edits by new users, it's disruptive enough when IP editing is disabled. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 17:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Note of appreciation

I just wanted to take a second to thank all of our admins, functionaries, and patrollers who so quickly and diligently moved to effectively address this disruption, and who did so with an eye towards minimizing the impacts on good faith contributions. Unfortunately, for reasons I'll BEANS past, I feel like these kinds of attacks are probably going to be occasionally with us, for at least this immediate forthcoming era of the project, so it's good to know that our response mechanisms are so adept and well-crewed. Three cheers for our response team here: you're too numerous for me to track you all down and give you barnstars for your work, but please know you are noticed and appreciated, during larger scale disruption, and generally. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, an inquiry too. Per Mz7's comments above, I'm going to make an effort to over the following days to lend some extra eyes at RCP. And I wonder if maybe it wouldn't be the worst idea to have a mass-message subscription that could send up a quick flair to regular patrollers to let them know when one of these attacks is happening, and extra hands on deck would be appreciated? Maybe also some notices to some high traffic spaces, or a reserved space/template/notice so that editors such as myself who do not regularly volunteer as new page patrollers, but would be inclined to do so under the circumstances, can be aware of the temporary need?

Of course any amount of adjustment that requires mobilizing additional editors risks becoming the kind of reaction that only encourages this sort of thing. And vandalism busting is not my area, so for all I know CVU already has some tools in this area, which might be perfectly well supported by sufficient numbers of volunteers to respond to these issues. But it seems like mobilizing enough extra rank and files on short-to-immediate notice timelines to squash these kinds of attacks flat as instantly as possible might be useful thing? I don't know, I'm a little out of my element, so maybe I'm only talk about obvious stuff that already exists. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. — Trey Maturin™ 22:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

SnowRise, my impression is that those who are interested already have ways of notifying each other off-wiki. But in any case, the less edits that are made over this sort of thing, the less happens on-wiki because of it, the better. One of the initial vandal messages here on ANI was that they want 'war'. The obvious answer is WP:DENY. I think that actually, we handled this case particularly badly on that front. What we're doing here with the barnstars, and my very comment (also acknowledging I actually read their trolling message), runs directly contrary to good practice. Don't get me wrong, I highly appreciate the admins working on this. I also appreciated them the last time I witnessed a similar display by another hopelessly pathetic proxy-wielding vandal. But at the time there was almost no fuss about it on ANI, and it seems that 'fuss' is all these trolls are really looking for. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough as to most of that, but I actually think the barnstars and general expressions of appreciation to our anti-vandalism volunteers runs in the opposite direction: it's a healthy response as an internal matter, and even if the LTA does see it, all it shows them is that they are only bringing us closer together and making us more committed and organized.

Mind you, I can understand the BEANS and DENY arguments for keeping the community response small and discrete on the whole, and hiding community organization and response "under the bonnet", so to speak, but celebrating our hardworking volunteers at the gates in good cheer feels appropriate and if anything makes it clear to the vandal that we are largely unfazed by their nonsense. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Silence is the best response to this kind of disruption, but in a case like this where it's not entirely an option (some public coordination that needs to be done, plus the inevitable influx of "what's going on??"), I do think wholesomeness is the second-best response. I think trolls like this often have an image of hyper-intense admins seething behind our keyboards, obsessing over their next move. During the first wave of this, I listened to Yo-Yo Ma and Alison Krauss' rendition of "Simple Gifts" on repeat while I blocked IPs and then had a good night's sleep; I handled the second wave while chatting with friends and listening to "House Atreides" from The Dune Sketchbook, and then signed off for a boardgame date with my polycule. The most stressful thing that's happened to me today has been trying and failing to win as the traitor in Betrayal at House on the Hill. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

A little shameless self-promo: User:Giraffer/Sworn enemies. But on a more serious note, I agree with what most of the above are saying; it may not be the ideal scenario (or necessarily the most comforting), but for most patrollers, using our standard processes for vandalism should be a good solution in incidents like these. I don't think a massmessage or anything of that form is really needed at this stage^{knock wood} -- it takes a surprisingly low number of patrollers to deal with something of this scale, and I think the DENY-violating aspects of sending a message out heavily outweigh whatever positives may be gained from having a surplus of users ready to revert. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 07:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that perspective, Giraffer. Seems like everyone familiar with the area is convinced our current wo/manpower is more than sufficient to the task of restraining even the pronounced spikes of vandalism quite easily and that, as you say, any benefits of extra hands on deck are outweighted by the troll feeding it might enable. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 13:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

so that's who outed me as the Sussy impSuster from among Sus while i wasn't looking? cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

		The Multiple Barnstar
		To all those above represented and those behind-the-scenes. Your vigilance and diligence serve to keep the Wiki working and thriving. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

What does this person even want? Or are they just bored and pissed? Any idea? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't know, don't care, WP:DENY. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 03:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Their demands are simple: they uploaded some extremely reddit image (note that it's a browser on a booru and not /g/ or hosted on their own server or in a file explorer). Then they used it to perform the highly redditous behavior of vandalism, and it was deleted on Commons. This got them extremely rustled and they ran a massive botnet to piss and crap all over Wikipedia, instead of going back to reddit, which is where they belong. jp×g 20:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there any page to co-ordinate the clean-up so cover everything once rather than duplicating effort? Obviously ANI isn't the right place for it, but it would be good to have a link here. Certes (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• My two penn'orth, an anecdote. I was a mod on a site (now shuttered) on which the main problems were commercial spam and to a lesser extent trolls. We were hit by a Chinese spambot, making 8,000-10,000 junk posts per hour. After some initial confusion, it was dealt with in a couple of hours. The second attack was handled more efficiently. When the third struck, there were three mods in our chatroom: the rough equivalent of a steward and 2 CUs (a veteran and the office junior (me)). I was monitoring the equivalent of recent changes, sounded the alarm, and volunteered to sit on the head of the queue (a task which included advising honest users what to do). The veteran took the tail and worked up towards me, both of us reporting new IPs to the steward as they were found. The latter used mass-deletion tools and applied blocks (at one point, she proudly announced that she'd just blocked one-third of mainland China). The rubbish started disappearing as fast as it was posted, and within an hour and a half they gave up and never came back.

Obviously, this recent idiocy was a very different type of incident; but the way editors came together to counter it was familiar. I am confident that the public and behind-the-scenes channels set up because of it will make for an even more efficient response next time. Well done, all! Narky Blert (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you search for instances of that image?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

If you know the filename (please do not post it here), then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=20&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%22FILENAME%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 replacing FILENAME with all or part of the filename should do it. But... it's a commonly used file with many encyclopaedic uses, so each and every article would need a check – no blind reverts. — Trey Maturin™ 17:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

There are several images; one edit I reverted introduced three and I've seen others elsewhere. Unfortunately, an insource: search is likely to time out unless accompanied by an indexed search term, and I can't think of one. I'm currently working through a list of changes from relevant time ranges which are by IPs and still current, but thankfully finding very few edits of concern. Certes (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll start watching RCP with Huggle and AV a little bit more than normal, at least for the next week or so. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 22:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Image blacklist

Why isn't this image on MediaWiki:Bad image list and whitelisted to be on articles where it is necessary? I would have sworn it was a while ago when I went through said list. Indeed, there are already some swastikas on there. jp×g 20:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It is used on 184 pages, and there's no reason to think that's an exhaustive set. There are many encyclopedic reasons to depict the Nazi flag. The image was temporarily added to the bad image list while it was being spammed, at the expense of it rendering correctly on articles where it is used legitimately, but was removed once things died down. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible bot account

User:Cyrobyte appears to be operating a bot account, or if not a bot certainly highly automated.

The account has made over 25,000 edits virtually all of which simply add a 'use dmy dates' tag at the head of the article. The account adds over 30 of these tags every single minute while active. It is not possible for a human user to open a page; open an edit window, add the tag, add the edit summary and then close the window in under two seconds. 86.177.26.80 (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've warned the user. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Admonishment against WP:SOAP brings WP:LEGAL 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.

---

• Deathmolor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WikiTree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This request for dispute resolution drew my attention to Talk:WikiTree where there seemed to be (on a cursory examination) some significant WP:FORUM, WP:SOAP and possibly WP:COI going on all around in different ways. I responded with [2]. Another editor took the suggestion to just nominate the article for deletion. I particularly noticed the editor Deathmolor was FORUMing on Talk:WikiTree (e.g. [3][4]) and I gave them a level 1 warning (dialed back from initially level 3 because I realized they maybe just had no idea).[5]

Their response to the level 1 warning is thus:[6] Meant to be a chilling effect on contributions by those indigenous people choosing to contribute to English pages. If the discussion continues to be about the known racism in english wiki then I highly recommend just staying out of it. It will come to pass eventually when there are another set of rules, that does not require me to wade into the wiki English bureaucracy. The courts will have to be involved to simplify this process.

To be fair, their concerns about the WikiTree article may be well founded and I supported its deletion and proposed SALTing. My response to the dispute resolution request was meant for anyone at all involved in the article on any side, but Deathmolor's response here continues what I had feared about their approach to editing, and does seem to be an explicit legal threat against Wikipedia. I was actually ready to apologize for not maintaining an even and impartial tone, until I saw this.

If this grows into a wider inquiry about WikiTree's editors that's fine, but that was not my intent here. I didn't notice any other glaring problems than with this individual. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior for sure. Not sure if that's a legal threat though EvergreenFir (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it a distinction of "Wikipedia will have to be sued if it doesn't stop" and "I will sue Wikipedia if it doesn't stop"? —DIYeditor (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You talk like people don't read what you say, you people truly live in your own little rule lawyering and deanthropomorphizeing process. I am a real person, and i do not understand your little world of alphabet soup rules. I shouldn't be required to understand this to contribute. Again this would be a chilling effect to to wiki's objective of participation and cooperation. As for legal threat, i believe an actual legal threat comes with it an actual legal objective. It is interesting that there is an actual rule that allows administration to silence someone for even mentioning the existence of courts. Deathmolor (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

[7] Ya i have noticed you are having an internal cross pollination with other talkers of alphabet soup rule language intended (intentional or otherwise) to intimidate participating editors of other cultures. Why do you feel you are being discriminated against? WikiTree, Wikipedia, other Wikipedia users, everyone seems to be discriminating against you. I was under the impression that most (all?) cultures have rules. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be a cultural difference between the intent of Wiki and the actual execution of english wiki, based off the collective cultural example provided by indigenous cultures and then the inevitable use of rules to then chill the very culture of the wiki origins. Deathmolor (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Just another added point, I am glad the legal threat section WP:LEGAL acknowledges the chilling effect of legal threats, i believe in this very same way that using wiki rules in and bombarding way used by DIYeditor has a similar effect. Using the alphabet soup of rules on someone is chilling. The paradoxical use of rules is astounding. Deathmolor (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Deathmolor for a long history of personal attacks and showing bad faith. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• So Deathmolor's response to being indeffed by Doug Weller for "a long history of personal attack" was a long personal attack rant against Doug Weller! Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I know that admins like to give blocked users some leeway to vent after being blocked, but two more personal attack comments by Deathmolor indicate that it's perhaps time for TPA to be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore has blocked, removed the PA and taken away TPA. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 5 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.

SPECIFICO issue at Julian Assange

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.

---

SPECIFICO Article: Talk:Julian Assange, specifically Talk:Julian_Assange#Lead_-_Manning_documents Issue(s): defamation on WP:BLP specifically WP:BLPCRIMINAL in which the editor twice refers to the article subject as a thief. Article subject is not a thief. The subject has also not been in prison for a decade.

• Specifico states "he published illegally leaked, stolen documents that landed the thief in prison for nearly a decade." 15:20, 2 August 2023

• I noted it was probably a BLP violation to call the article subject a thief saying "SPECIFICO, above you call the article subject a thief. I think we can stop the discussion here, this is a WP:BLP violation" 06:57, 3 August 2023

• Specifico denies it: "No, I did not. Please review this thread and address the stated issue. Assange is the one who associated himself with a criminal. Others, including the US, claim that he too is a criminal due to having published stolen information. Also please review WP:ASPERSIONS." 08:25, 3 August 2023

• I seek clarification: "@SPECIFICO: I read you say "landed the thief in prison for nearly a decade." Apologies I thought you were saying landed the thief. Is that a quote of Assange or someone else? I am unable to find this quote in google. Did that article subject call himself a thief? Thanks!" (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Specifico doubles down confirming he is accusing the article subject of a crime and adding emphasis to that claim: "@Jtbobwaysf: Bob, I am going to AGF and respond to you this one more time before seeking outside assistance: Those are my words, italicized for emphasis after various unresponsive replies in this thread. There is no quotation, and it's hard to understand the purpose of googling a just-written WP talk page comment. So please consider the issue raised above and respond to the crux of the issue, per WP:TPNO. Thanks." SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• I reply: "It seems problematic that you are referring to the article subject as a "thief" additionally "italicized for emphasis". That appears to be a BLP violation, as I would think these talk pages are also covered by that policy." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

-Specifico no longer responds at this point. It seems to me that if the editor cannot control his/her emotions sufficient to stay away from making false accusations about the article subject, that the editor should refrain from editing that particular article (or be prohibited if the editor cannot control himself/herself).

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I think SPECIFICO is referring to Chelsea Manning as a thief, not Julian Assange. Manning was convicted of theft in 2013, and spent seven years in jail. BilledMammal (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I was about to post the same comment, this appears to be a misunderstanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is being unnecessarily acerbic, but I agree they have not violated BLP here. The "thief" they are referring to is not Assange, it is Manning. That's a bit obscure here, but they haven't violated WP:BLP. --Jayron32 12:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's odd that ununivolved editors see immediately that I was not referring to Assange but that several of the most active editors on that talk page shared OP's view to the contrary. And that OP, even after I tried several times to clarify the meaning to them, comes here to argue for sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 12:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's odd that you refer to Chelsea Manning as a "thief," and it betrays a lack of neutrality on that topic. Find me an RS that uses the word "thief" to describe Manning or anyone else convicted of stealing govt property. The words used by RS, and our article, are "whistleblower" and "activist," but it would be clearer if you just referred to Manning as "Manning" and not "the thief." Levivich (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

There exist a very large number of RS that say Manning was convicted of theft. From Webster's: The meaning of THIEF is one that steals especially stealthily or secretly; also : one who commits theft or larceny. I don't see the problem using the term on the TP as it was used. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000: From the very message you replied to: calling Chelsea Manning a "thief" instead of using her name "betrays a lack of neutrality on that topic". CityOfSilver 18:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Look at the point of the paragraph. Neither the article or the paragraph was about Manning. Simply replacing the word with the name would have been less clear. The point made was that the documents Assange released were stolen documents and the perpetrator received a heavy sentence. Actually, leaving her name out is less of a problem as it is the action and the sentence and how they relate to Assange's actions that matters, not the name. In any case, this is not an NPOV problem since she was convicted on much heavier charges. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000: If Manning was mentioned, call her "Manning" instead of "thief" because calling her "thief" makes it look like you're speaking from a place of opinion, whether or not that's what you're actually doing. Or keep pretending it's more complicated and nuanced than that. CityOfSilver 19:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, and as far as your word pretending, WP:AGF. The point was that his notability derived from her, whatever you want to call it, that ended in a severe sentence. Simply replacing the word would not have put that clearly across. Oh, and I don't remember calling her a thief. That's all I have to say on the subject. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Levivich is correct here; there are shades of misdeed, and while sensu stricto SPECIFICO did not violate BLP, they did use intentionally and unnecessarily inflammatory language, which is likely to engender emotional responses from others. They were also rather circumlocutionary about the antecedent of thief, even when it was confusing to others. Clearly, they are acting in ways which any reasonable person would see as unnecessarily provocational. Tone matters, and as Levivich notes, one has many choices when referring to a person. Using a person's preferred name is always neutral. Calling them a thief (even if correct) is usually not. Make better choices, SPECIFICO. Please. --Jayron32 18:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I understand your point. And yes there are shades of misdeed. But it would seem "thief" is a very mild term considering she was convicted on 21 charges and sentenced to 35 years. It just seems like "thief" is simpler on a TP than "the person who stole the documents". Just saying "Manning" doesn't make the point of the post in its entirety. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

OTOH, in this thread Jtbobwaysf said "thief" additionally "italicized for emphasis" which I don't see as true as the entire sentence was italicized, not the word thief for emphasis. Also, they went on to say: It seems to me that if the editor cannot control his/her emotions sufficient to stay away from making false accusations about the article subject, which I think is out of line. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a strong POV statement to replace their name or pronoun with the person-noun form of a crime that they committed or to define the person by an offense they committed. Signed: Chronic-speeder North8000. :-) North8000 (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasnt aware that SPECIFICO was referring to Manning, apologies for the confusion. Manning was jailed for theft, thus probably not a BLP violation if that is the case. Apologies for much ado about nothing. I was thinking SPECIFICO was referring to Assange, hence the confusion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO could have avoided this discussion accelerating by saying that by saying "thief" they were referring to Manning, rather than Assange, instead of cryptically saying, "Please review this thread." An the fact that the U.S. has accused Assange of a crime is something everyone editing the article already knows.

This is trolling: using incendiary comments designed to create discord and disrupt improvement of the article.

TFD (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Is me, or is AN/I becoming even less polite than its reputation? This thread was a misunderstanding. There is no BLP vio. Seems like time for a close, and sorry for any part I took in extending it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This is the second thread that User:Jtbobwaysf has created to complain about other users making negative edits to the Julian Assange article/talkpage. Might be worth looking into his edits to see if a WP:BOOMERANG is in order, per WP:RGW. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not either party's first time at this noticeboard (indeed, in May SPECIFICO was given a thirty-day topic ban from American politics) or even the parties' first time at this noticeboard specifically regarding arguments on the Julian Assange article. That time, and this time, I have tried to go to the article's talk page and figure out what the dispute was, and been completely unable to determine what the argument was about, what each side of the argument believed was true or not true, or what changes they wanted to be made to the article (or what the reason for these changes was supposed to be). My honest recommendation -- this is not a joke -- is that all users be given word limits on the Julian Assange talk page, and limited to, say, 100 words per day. jp×g 22:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jayron32, TheFourDeuces, and North8000: On the article page, I made this edit. It was reverted, so I started this talk page thread. The three editors I've pinged have made comments about the word "thief" lead me to wonder whether you have read the entire thread that is the locus of this complaint. If you have not done so, I request, given the conclusory observations you have both made, you read the entire thread at this time. The sentence in which I used the word "thief" arose only for emphasis after a rather inexplicable failure of OP to understand several explanations of the straightorward article edit I was proposing and after I had repeatedly referred to Ms. Manning by name and had repeatedly explained that the central issue of Assange's current situation -- this is his bio page -- is whether Assange will personally be prosecuted and convicted as if he inherits culpability for Manning's crimes or whether, on the other hand, Assange will be afforded the protections of a journalist who reported but did not himself appropriate the information. I presume everyone's now aware that Manning was convicted of theft, just to put that concern to rest. Any of the 3 pinged, if you choose to review the entire Assange talkl page thread, I'd appreciate knowing whether you affirm or revise the views you've shared above. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Describing someone as a thief when that person is admired by some segments, including some Wikipedia editors, is provocative and likely to upset them. It distracts from attempts to improve the page as we get into off-topic discussions about whether that description is fair or accurate. I'll make no comment on whether it is or is not, but point out that having thst discussion on the talk page does nothing to improve the article and makes it difficult for editors to read through discussions.

You make your political beliefs loud and clear. But this isn't the place to promote them. Again, I make no comment on whether or not I agree with them. TFD (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify your proposal? Are you saying that we cannot talk about someone being a thief (and far more serious crimes) who has been convicted and imprisoned for theft to make a point about notability involving the source of stolen property distributed by another person on their article talk page because it will upset some editors who admire the person convicted on 21 charges and sentenced to 35 years? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Manning is being described as a "thief" not because it's true but because that's a word with extremely negative connotations that has no practical use in this context but to cast aspersions against an ideological opponent. This is a violation of NPOV. And before you link me to AGF again, consider that you just fired off a 65-word sentence that ostensibly restates another person's message but in reality completely, entirely misrepresents it. As you know, nobody has said or even implied that Manning didn't steal anything. CityOfSilver 02:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

We wouldn't call Nelson Mandela "the ex-convict" even though he was convicted and served time in prison. Nor would we call MLK "the serial offender" even though he was arrested nearly 30 times. We wouldn't call Martha Stewart "the liar" even though she was convicted of lying to investigators. None of those are neutral terms, or even truly accurate, despite being technically correct. So let's try this out again: referring to Manning as "the thief"? Not cool. Levivich (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It was necessary in the context because it was specifically about the fact that the material was stolen; not a general characterization of the person. And the paragraph wasn't even about her. It was about the distributor of the stolen information. Basically, the paragraph was stating that Assange was not the thief, presumably as a mitigation. Your analogies are way off base. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I did no such thing. And what "ideological opponent"? WP:AGF O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

On your comment:You make your political beliefs loud and clear. But this isn't the place to promote them, considering thet she is a Democrat, trans, and her sentence commuted by Obama; I guess you are saying SPECIFICO's politics are right-wing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:09, 5 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.

Invitation

The moral of this tale is that we need more editors to volunteer on the Julian Assange page. I may post at NPOVN and BLPN shortly. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise

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 Future Perfect at Sunrise should NOT have administrative privileges. If you look through his edits it's clear he has a pro-Turkish agenda and distinctly edits articles related to Turkey, or former Ottoman territories in order to glorify Turkey or give a pro- Ottoman bias. This completely goes against Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. At the least he should be barred from editing Ottoman/Byzantine related articles. SouthernResidentOrca (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

What specific diffs can you provide? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

:Not to put too fine a point on it, but wasn't this the same sort of problem that saw this same user indef'd less than years ago? i wasn't even aware that they had been allowed to return, or - in a Bizarro-World tweest - was an admin again. Strange days, mama. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs)

Who exactly are you referring to? Who was indef'd less than years ago? Future Perfect at Sunrise was accidently indef'd about 9 years ago by mistake and was unblocked within 60 seconds of being blocked, as it was a mistake. Do you have diffs for whatever you're referring to? - Aoidh (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@SouthernResidentOrca: This looks like a content dispute limited to a few edits over a couple of days on a specific page, and it doesn't look like you've tried to discuss the dispute with Future Perfect at Sunrise in any way, either on their user talk page or at Talk:Byzantine Empire. I would suggest using the article's talk page to try to get a consensus for your proposed changes, and using dispute resolution such as WP:3O or WP:DRN if the talk page discussion stalls, but this doesn't seem to be an issue that warrants WP:ANI or the duplicate AN discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• I looked at the edits at Byzantine Empire and have to agree with FPaS that the OP's edit were "mostly not an improvement". I'm not sure how trying to make the articles read as well as possible translates to a "pro-Turkish agenda", but I'm sure the OP will enlighten us. Black Kite (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ditto; I've reverted. --JBL (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  If Future Perfect at Sunrise was pushing a pro-Turkey point of view, that should be obvious from the 471 edits that they have made to Greece, where they are the most active editor. Evidence free accusations accomplish nothing. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Which, ironically, is just one single edit more than all the mainspace edits the OP has managed in over a decade [8], a factoid that somehow doesn't surprise me. Ravenswing 03:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• @SouthernResidentOrca: You have failed to notify Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) of either this or the WP:AN report. Both of these noticeboards have a warning on the top of the page clearly requiring you to do so (although the WP:AN one was removed later). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• @SouthernResidentOrca: Accusations without evidence are personal attacks. Please either provide evidence (preferably in the form of diffs, with explanation of what policies were violated if non-obvious) or retract these claims, at your earliest convenience. Note also that this falls into the Eastern Europe & Balkans topic area, and as such is considered a contentious topic; I will leave a note on your talk page elaborating on what this means. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:49, 5 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.

User:Nassimohr: not 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.

---

In a continuation of the situation from this thread, Nassimohr has been disruptively editing by attempting to overturn the concensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algeria at the 2022 World Athletics Championships. They were aware of the correct way to request a deletion review, but chose to instead ignore that suggestion. Nassimohr has previously been blocked for edit warring over the above concerns after three escalating warnings, has made personal attacks and their talk page shows a distinct sign of a mentality of content ownership. Even though they were blocked, they proceeded to once again revert these articles back to their pre-AfD form, once again ignoring concensus. I think it is clear that Nassimohr will not listen and is not here. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for two weeks. I did consider indeffing them as they are clearly not interested in following consensus, but the last block was only 24h so I have given them one more chance. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 5 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.

User:2600:1700:ACC0:16F0:2AF:BBF0:34B5:4E09 and Disruptive Editing

This user keeps removing people from List of Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements, arguing that donations do not qualify as endorsements. S/he completely ignores the fact that the sources I cite make mention of the donors' explicit support for DeSantis, which means that they aren't just donating to his campaign. The user doesn't have a talk page, so I think that an IP ban may be in order. User may be User:JasperLL. TheClubSilencio (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, so you should contact them on their talk page and/or discuss on the relevant talk pages. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheClubSilencio A donation does not qualify as an endorsement, see the guideline WP:Political endorsements, specifically point 3. To add someone to that list they need to have been explicitly described as endorsing Ron DeSantis' 2024 presidential campaign primary, you cannot add them on the basis of donations or expressions of support. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Some donors "spread their bets", especially early in the United States' primary season, donating to more than one candidate. Or they donate to more than one because they change their mind.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Dexedream

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

The editor is engaging in persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND editing.

• Addition of unsourced material (in addition to POV-pushings) into biomedical articles:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardioversion&diff=1168879391&oldid=1168016300
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudodementia&diff=1168653766&oldid=1168646810
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebound_effect&diff=prev&oldid=1157077808
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alprazolam&diff=prev&oldid=1168517952
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evil_laughter&diff=prev&oldid=1168311550
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medell%C3%ADn_Cartel&diff=prev&oldid=1168819245
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renal_colic&diff=prev&oldid=1168514558
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atherosclerosis&diff=prev&oldid=1164771170

• Persistent WP:DISRUPT:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Methamphetamine#Methamphetamine_Hcl_=\=_Crystal_meth?_Also_physical_dependence
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cocaine#Cocaine_and_liability/degree_of_%E2%80%9Cdependence%E2%80%9D
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiLinuz&diff=prev&oldid=1159556266
• "Take your own advice"

They were previously blocked by 331dot for the same reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADexedream

They persist WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and addition of unsourced information into biomedical articles. Therefore I propose an indefinite topic ban from biomedical articles.

Their previous edits should also be reviewed since they engage in this style of editing for a long time. --WikiLinuz {talk} 06:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks / WP:OUTING by new 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.

---

• Aimilios92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

During a discussion at Talk:Suella Braverman, this user responded to a fairly reasonable comment with a personal attack on User:Jonathan A Jones and outing their apparent social media.[9] From what I can see Jonathan doesn't list their social media anywhere on their profile, so this was done without their consent. I removed the comment and warned the user, which they removed with the edit summary "thanks, buster".

Next they violated 3RR by edit warring on the page of this article. After User:ProcrastinatingReader explained why their edits were unacceptable, they reverted with the edit summary "No worries xo", which is pretty dismissive. Instead of taking them to WP:EWN I noticed they hadn't been warned, so I placed a notice on their talk page (which they deleted).

They then resumed bringing up Jonathan's social media and dismissed his comments on the talk page based on this ("Your assertion of 'never mind as true' seems to stem from the content and patterns observed on your social media usage. It gives the impression of a certain detachment from the UK political scene due to the incorporation of some rather unconventional and quite fringe views.") I once again asked them to assume good faith.

Despite this, they once again attacked Jonathan and brought up his social media, (" So far, it appears that both you and another user, a well-known TERF/climate change denier account from Twitter") despite the fact I've asked them several times to comment on content, not contributors.

On top of this, they have brought up User:DeFacto's block record in an attempt to discredit their edits several times.[10][11]

In short, I find this is a user who can't collaborate with others, and despite multiple warnings feels the need to continually comment on others rather than their content when they encounter opposing views. — Czello ^(music) 19:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this editor has made collaboration difficult. My sole substative recent contribution to the talk page was to suggest that some material should only be added with attribution, and the response was outing (since deleted) and personal attacks. I'm not particularly concerned about the outing as I make no secret about my real life identity either here or on Twitter, but the behaviour is still inappropriate as I have not made any connection explicit. Multiple warnings have been issued, but the personal attacks on me and DeFacto continue. I'm grateful to Czello for raising the matter here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I echo Jonathan A Jones's remarks, particularly his gratitude to Czello. After more than 17 years editing here, and with much of it dedicated to the often perilous task of trying to improve Wiki policy compliance in subject areas that generate a lot of passion and polarisation, I consider myself pretty thick-skinned. However, one thing that I do consider is totally unacceptable is the use of inflammatory language and false accusations in talkpage discussions as in this editor's contribution in their first paragraph in this edit, and particularly when they refuse to correct it (which I had to then do later) after being politely asked to do so. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I have blocked them for 31 hours for "Edit warring, Personal attacks including WP:OUTING and general WP:INCIVILITY" though I have no issue if any admin wants to adjust the block as appropriate. I'm hopeful that a shorter block like this will resolve these issues, but if it does not then the subsequent block may not have an expiration, as these behaviors are unacceptable in a collaborative editing environment. - Aoidh (talk) 20:36, 7 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.

User:Ojadi Emeka making renaming vandalisms

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.

---

Caught User:Ojadi Emeka unilaterally renaming Simon Ekpa to a frivolous name. Apparently has some prior issues regarding Biafran/Nigerian topics involving bias/conflict of interest. See: User talk:Ojadi Emeka and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Ekpa&diff=prev&oldid=1169166392 Borgenland (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if this account is linked to User:Emekaanyaora that was just blocked for legal threats. User just came off a block for disruption as well, reblocking for 1 month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think user is here to contribute to Wiki, citing the introduction of their talk page:

"Philknight blocked my account I want to ask is he working against the Indigenous people of Biafra that he will allow some people to edit the history with lies What did he wants to gain from allowing that to mislead the public with fake information That Simon ekpa needs to be removed he is not a member of IPOB And he is not related to what IPOB is doing If you need the documentation or news link I will send it to you here Also IPOB's website is Ipob.org not that one those criminals are putting there You need to stop this to maintain good history so not to mislead others"

Borgenland (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Also made direct references to User: Philknight Borgenland (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

They look very similar. Secretlondon (talk) 18:15, 7 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.

Proposal: Stop non-admin closures at AN and ANI

This is an admin noticeboard. So, unless an OP wants to withdraw their own post, threads here should only be closed by an administrator. Administrators wanted the mop, the community should let them use it...Now, before someone chastises me for not doing it, how do I post a notice to every administrator's talk page at once to let them know there is a discussion here that involves them? 2602:FE43:1:46DD:2451:6014:6F72:225E (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

What specific issue is this supposed to address? What evidence are you offering that there is any need for such a restriction? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

See any of the vast number of previous discussions on this page where an NAC was used. 2602:FE43:1:46DD:2451:6014:6F72:225E (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples of where a NAC proved sufficiently problematic as to justify the restriction you propose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This proposal is not necessary. Most closures are routine when a matter has been resolved. Occasional inappropriate closures are dealt with promptly. This is a solution in search of a problem. Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I probably need to notify all of the administrators first since this involves them. Do you know the shortcut I can use to post a notice on all of the administrators talk pages without having the make a separate edit for each one? 2602:FE43:1:46DD:2451:6014:6F72:225E (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

And who are you the WP:LOUTSOCK of? RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

No sock per se, but if you like, you can refer to me as the ANI Troll. I've trolled you before Rick...omm nomm nomm. Thanks for the food 2602:FE43:1:46DD:2451:6014:6F72:225E (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be considered canvassing, so, no. Zaathras (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:ACC0:16F0:2AF:BBF0:34B5:4E09 and Disruptive Editing

This user keeps removing people from List of Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements, arguing that donations do not qualify as endorsements. S/he completely ignores the fact that the sources I cite make mention of the donors' explicit support for DeSantis, which means that they aren't just donating to his campaign. The user doesn't have a talk page, so I think that an IP ban may be in order. User may be User:JasperLL. TheClubSilencio (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, so you should contact them on their talk page and/or discuss on the relevant talk pages. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@TheClubSilencio A donation does not qualify as an endorsement, see the guideline WP:Political endorsements, specifically point 3. To add someone to that list they need to have been explicitly described as endorsing Ron DeSantis' 2024 presidential campaign primary, you cannot add them on the basis of donations or expressions of support. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Some donors "spread their bets", especially early in the United States' primary season, donating to more than one candidate. Or they donate to more than one because they change their mind.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Dexedream

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

The editor is engaging in persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND editing.

• Addition of unsourced material (in addition to POV-pushings) into biomedical articles:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cardioversion&diff=1168879391&oldid=1168016300
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudodementia&diff=1168653766&oldid=1168646810
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebound_effect&diff=prev&oldid=1157077808
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alprazolam&diff=prev&oldid=1168517952
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evil_laughter&diff=prev&oldid=1168311550
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medell%C3%ADn_Cartel&diff=prev&oldid=1168819245
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renal_colic&diff=prev&oldid=1168514558
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atherosclerosis&diff=prev&oldid=1164771170

• Persistent WP:DISRUPT:
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Methamphetamine#Methamphetamine_Hcl_=\=_Crystal_meth?_Also_physical_dependence
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cocaine#Cocaine_and_liability/degree_of_%E2%80%9Cdependence%E2%80%9D
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiLinuz&diff=prev&oldid=1159556266
• "Take your own advice"

They were previously blocked by 331dot for the same reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADexedream

They persist WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and addition of unsourced information into biomedical articles. Therefore I propose an indefinite topic ban from biomedical articles.

Their previous edits should also be reviewed since they engage in this style of editing for a long time. --WikiLinuz {talk} 06:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Incivility from User:BFDI2010

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.

---

Aside from edit-warring with no intention of initiating TP discussions to come up with a consensus, I'd like to report BFDI2010 for the following edit summary 1:

If you hate this map, then 🖕🏿 This map shows where Albanian is majority and minority. The other map is nonsense...

I am pretty certain such edit summaries come under some sort of violation of Wiki policy, particularly the middle finger emoji. It's uncivil and unproductive, and it indicates that the user in question has no desire to come to a consensus or compromise. Disruptive edits from such users are always an inconvenience. Botushali (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

While looking at the contributions for BFDI2010 (talk · contribs) I see they posted at User talk:Flyer22 Frozen in July 2023 (repeated) and just now. Regardless of how one views the target user, those comments are indistinguishable from trolling. I'm inclined to indef and have BFDI2010 explain why they should be unblocked. Johnuniq (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead, John. Bishonen | tålk 05:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC).

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Good block. Exceptionally creepy edits. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

BFDI attracts a crowd that is exceptionally... well, I'll put it in less blunt terms than someone affiliated with the show put it to me once in a private setting, and just say a bit euphemistically, a crowd that is exceptionally ill-suited to edit a wiki-based encyclopedia. I doubt this user meant harm—at a minimum, Flyer's page genuinely is the first suggestion for "User:" on Vector '22—they're just not someone cut out to edit, not now, maybe not ever. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:50, 9 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.

Cleanup help needed Ladyoftrees' contributions

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.

---

Ladyoftrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Account is blocked (thanks @PhilKnight and all who caught them quickly) and I went through and mass deleted the attack redirects, but her contributions could use some eyes in case there was more subtle vandalism. Thanks in advance for anyone who has bandwidth. Star Mississippi 15:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

CU indicates it is not a (recently) compromised account, for what that’s worth in deciding how far back to verify contributions. Courcelles (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This search is ones that she created and was the last editor on. None look harmful but they don't appear particularly necessary either.

Note there's an unformatted unblock request. I don't see any way to "apologize" for these creations. Star Mississippi 15:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi They seem to have been going through the List of nicknames used by Donald Trump and making redirects for all the nicknames in it. It was a really bad idea as without context these would be attack pages, but this seems more a case of "really poorly thought out" than "deliberate vandalism". 192.76.8.66 (talk) 12:14, 5 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.

User:Michael21107

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.

---

Michael21107 (talk · contribs) was blocked last week for a host of disruptive editing including blanking content without an adequate reason. After being unblocked, he's just gone back to the same behaviour - see the history of football in Slovakia. I'm obviously involved in the content dispute (I found it through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovak football league system) but I think the unblock needs to be reconsidered. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i gave adequete reasons for all my changes Michael H (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy pings @ferret and Z1720. Initial impression is very unimpressed with Michael and leaning toward reblock, but, just to get the easy bit of this out of the way, will give filelakeshoe the obligatory reminder of WP:NOTVANDALISM (in re this ES). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin can u please clarify what offense did i commit? Michael H (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

and obvisouly i shouldnt've used outdated as an reason for removal but there was other valid reason too Michael H (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm just not sure this is the project you should be editing. You wrote in an edit summary, The current article (that is obviously written in the past) is just taken stuff (obviously written in the past) from other articles (or that shouldve been in other articles at some point)). Now, I've spent a lot of my life around people whose first language was not English, and I'm still struggling to figure out what you mean by this. Looking at the AfD and your comments here, I think I get it from context, but then that's nonsensical. You removed content because it was outdated (not a thing we do), so that it could be merged to articles it was already summarizing? After being told that the solution to outdated content is to update it at a related AfD yesterday. If you want to continue editing here, you need to majorly slow down. You still haven't gotten the hang of the way we do things, and you're stumbling around and breaking things based on that misunderstanding. That can be fixed in time, of course—my own first edit was a horrible AfD—but again, you need to slow down. I would suggest gaining some more experience on your native-language wiki before editing here, but I see you're serving a one-week block there for repeated nonconstructive edits, so... Sounds like this is a moment for you to stop and reconsider how you're approaching collaborative editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i removed the content (even tho i gave other incorrect eplanation in the summary) cuz its in other articles already Michael H (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Right. That is not a reason to remove content from an article. No competent editor could ever think that it is. We have an entire guideline about summarizing articles in broader-scope articles. We even sometimes directly mirror content from one article on another article. You need to accept that you do not understand how this site works, and seek to learn rather than wasting others' time by rushing into things based on misunderstandings of policy. There is a point where bold edits cross into recklessness. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks, i understand now, gonna read Wikipedia:Summary style first thing in the morning Michael H (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i understand what u saying, but whats the reason why i should be blocked? Michael H (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin Not really surprised at this. I do not get in the way of most unblocks of this nature, if someone wants to take the time as Z1720 did. Reblock at your discretion, in my opinion. -- ferret (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Michael21107: My personal advice: stop editing articles that you think should be deleted, or removing content. This includes posting at WP:AfD and removing content from any page (even if you think that the content should be removed or on a different article). You do not know Wikipedia's deletion policies and guidelines well enough to participate in this area of the site and are causing a disruption. Instead, add information to articles that you think can be improved. If your edits continue to cause disruption on the site, I would support a re-block, and it will take a long time for an unblock appeal to be successful. Z1720 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

i understand now, gonna keep your advices in mind Michael H (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Michael21107: As I was going through Michael21107's edit just now, I noticed that he added a CSD tag on Los Angeles California diff. This is five days after I unblocked the user (as seen in this edit) with a restriction against using any speedy deletion tags. The user said that they agreed to the restriction in this edit. I think there is either a WP:CIR concern, and/or the user is pushing boundaries. Can other admins and editors give their thoughts on the matter, and determine if this action goes against the restriction placed on the editor in the unblock? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say, "Well, after his above comments I'm willing to give him a chance to prove he gets it", but wait, this was after that? No. Last straw. I have reblocked.

Thanks for pointing this out, Z1720. I know from experience it's never pleasant to go out on a limb for someone with an unblock and have them immediately return to past mistakes, so, thank you for giving this user the chance to prove themself, even if they then squandered that chance. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Thanks for your words. I would rather give a chance, in the hope that they remain productive on Wikipedia for years. In the grand scheme of things, this is a small disturbance to the site. Z1720 (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: they are now claiming they were never tbanned from adding speedy deletion tags despite it being on of the unblock conditions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Striking that part as it was their misunderstanding of the conditions being referred to as a topic ban not them denying the conditions. Although they are claiming that as it was once an indef block is not appropriate. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the update. I will leave this for the reviewing admin to consider. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:44, 8 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.

Dude.pls.verify.pls

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'm not sure this person is here to build the same encyclopedia as the rest of us:

• Dude.pls.verify.pls (talk · contribs)
• Mustafa Merko Balli Kombetar General followed by:
  • Mustafa Merko
    • edit summary: "I reuploaded this page beacuse the other page was a dumb version that i created this is a true one"

Subsequent AfDs underway now:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Merko
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustafa Merko Balli Kombetar General

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I forgot the great Battle of Gjinoqarit, now deleted.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S., selected article citations:

• "A genral framework for tropical differential equations"
• "Effectiveness of bio-insecticides and mass trapping based on population fluctuations for controlling Tuta absoluta under greenhouse conditions in Albania"
• '"2011 Prognostics and System Health Managment Confernece. IEEE."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Dude.pls.verify.pls: If your next edit is not to provide unambiguous proof that Mustafa Merko existed, I am going to block you from editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Update: User:Dude.pls.verify.pls is now indefinitely blocked by Materialscientist for creation of patent nonsense / inappropriate pages. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Since the two articles were duplicates of each other, I have redirected Mustafa Merko Balli Kombetar General to Mustafa Merko. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Tamzin: they created the hoax articles and have added Mustafa Merko links to several articles, obviously to spread the hoax. Other edits include addition of unsourced content or removal of sourced content (e.g. [12][13]). As such I do not see how this editor should be allowed to edit, spread a hoax and waste other editors' time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:36, 8 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.

Personal attack

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.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83#please_remove_comment

I think that user @ජපස is calling my actions (possible mistakes made in good faith) were uncouth.

Uncouth definition: (of a person or their appearance or behavior) lacking good manners, refinement, or grace.

I think it's important to keep conversations here as polite and constuctive as possible and avoid any words that can be considered rude or offensive. that's why I think the comment should be removed because it's not constructive and is not assuming good faith. it's also can be very easily interpreted as offensive and rude.

I asked the user to remove their comment but they refused. that's why I'm posting this here.

Westerosi456H (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Saying that a course of action may be looked upon as uncouth is about as far from a personal attack as you can get here. ජපස is describing how others may interpret your actions, not asserting anything directly, and is using rather polite language to do so at that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

1. I disagree. For example, is it very different to say someone is lying or to say what they said is a lie?

2. not sure how you asking for someone's comment is uncivilized.

3.the only people involved was me and jps, so others can't really interpret my actions as anything

4. regardless of all the above, you think it was absolutely necessary to call my action unciviziled? there was not other way? does it create a healthy environment? Westerosi456H (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

may be looked upon as uncouth is obviously not a personal attack. You were simply being notified you were acting in a way that is outside community norms. It's a bit old fashioned, but that is what that phrase means. I suggest you (Westerosi456H) simply apologize for the misunderstanding and move on, since right now it looks like you're trying to gain advantage in a content dispute on spurious grounds. MrOllie (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. your assumption that I'm trying to gain advantage may appear to some people as lacking good manners and credulous. but thanks. Westerosi456H (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid you're primarily demonstrating that you didn't understand what ජපස was telling you in the first place, and that you're not familiar with the actual text of our civility policy, or that you really don't understand how "uncouth" is used in modern English. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

ok Well now that I'm more familiar with what is the norm here. I'd like to say that I think that your comments right now may be ignorant and uncivilized to more intelligent people. Westerosi456H (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It is possible that there might be some looming familiarity with WP:BOOMERANG, too. Zaathras (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

well given that you probably don't know the whole story, it may appear to people involved that your opinion is clearly ignorant. I would suggest you make more educated comments after familiarzing yourself with the whole story to avoid that impression. Westerosi456H (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours for trolling, namely engaging in passive aggression in an attempt to prove a point. Haven't looked at the underlying dispute; no objection to a longer block if warranted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we really love those editors convinced that the proper way to protest a putative violation of WP:CIVIL is to hurl a barrage of insults. Good block. Ravenswing 04:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I tried removing this article as it seems to me no resolution is in sight and to avoid further arguments and being accused of all kinds of things. I wasn't able to removed this article so if someone can do it it's appreciated. Westerosi456H (talk) 03:01, 8 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.

User: Delfield not assuming good faith

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.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I was introduced to the Juan Branco article a few weeks ago via RfC and have attempted to use my experience on BLP to help. The article has been inundated with sock puppet, single purpose accounts, and even a person claiming to be Juan Branco. Delfield is an editor who has only been active on the Juan Branco article over the last six months and has strong opinions about the subject.

On July 17th Delfield accused me of POV pushing.[14]

At the time there were editors making tons of mass changes to the article. So I figured it was a mix up so I approached Delfield about the accusation on his TALK.[15] The editor never responded.

Over the last week, @Southdevonian made a few good faith changes to the article. Delfield undid most of them and when I asked for those changes to discussed in TALK there was another accusation of POV pushing,[16], gaslighting[17], siding with sockpuppets[18], lying[19], and not acting in good faith.[20]

Delfield has been asked multiple times to stop casting aspersions and apparently the advice is being ignored. The latest comment now accuses another good faith editor of POV pushing.[21] This editor apparently cannot edit this article and assume good faith with the others editors attempting to help. Nemov (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I came to this article about a week ago because it included a reference to Salah Abdeslam, an article I have been editing. I had never heard of Branco or Griveaux, etc. I thought it needed a clean-up, especially in the references section and some odd-sounding English ("intimate relation" for sex in the context of a rape accusation for example). It was obvious from the article history that there had been a lot of arguing between on the one hand Branco and his sockpuppets, who had just been banned, and on the other two single purpose - or almost single purpose - accounts Delfield, Ebtpmus, and one account that in the last six months, apart from approx 1,500 edits on mathematics, has only contributed to Juan Branco D.Lazard (I do not know if any of these accounts have been investigated for sockpuppetry). Branco was trying to promote himself while the 3 others were doing the opposite. Parts of the article appeared to have degenerated into slagging him off and I abridged those parts (although most of what I took out consisted of superflous refs). I have no POV to push. Obviously there has been some serious rift between the parties in the past but Branco's Wiki page is not the place to settle accounts. I have been knocked sideways by the venom on the Talk page and the unprovoked personal abuse aimed at me by Delfield because they did not understand the British/American English question [22] and again, accusing me of "neocolonialism" after I had asked them to stay civil.[23] [24] And I don't particularly like being called a POV pusher especially as I have been trying to inject a little neutrality into the article. Southdevonian (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked Delfield for 24 hours as a result of the ANEW report. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel CaseThanks for your response, but the edit warring was kind of s separate issue. I brought this here to address the continued WP:ASPERSIONS by this user that needs to be addressed as well. Since you've moved forward with a block I would like a warning to assume good faith. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

See what I just wrote at ANEW. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! That's perfect. Nemov (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure all this is anywhere productive and a good use of our time.

Yes @Delfield has been uttering accusations in an irritated tone and that is not really appropriate. And has openly accused @Nemov of not editing in good faith. While I have repeatedly called for keeping things civil, and genuinely believe all that ire isn't productive, I must also say that if find your position sometimes quite surprising @Nemov : there were multiple calls to refrain from edit wars, to align on the talk page etc. Including by you.

At the same you have never engaged on the content, reverted (or supported reversion) of what I find to be reasonable changes that were proposed and more or less aligned on the talk page, endorsed changes by @Southdevonian that were not discussed on the talk page. While many / most of these were useful, some others were less appropriate or even factually incorrect. (See discussions on the talk page). Yet as you have never engaged on the content nor explained your rationale for backing up / refusing specific changes, I also can understand the frustration of Delfield. Ebtpmus (talk) 18:31, 8 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.

user:Lion127890

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.

---

• (1)Lion127890 (talk · contribs) uploaded a huge number of images of unknown provenance to Wikipedia. A bot tagged them.
  • IMO they must be nuked by single admin decision. (As I see user:Explicit deleted half of them) Filing several dozen deletion requests is beyond by will.

• (2) Then they added irrelevant images to some pages (reverted):
  • here with false caption
  • Here a joke
  • They dis the same in Knucker and some others a while ago. - Altenmann >talk 14:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• (3)This account also edited the user page of another user. Sock?
  • 07:22, May 20, 2023 diff hist +42‎ User:Mitternacht90/Extinct/Fish ‎ →‎Selachimorpha thank
  • 07:21, May 20, 2023 diff hist −42‎ User:Mitternacht90/Extinct/Dinosaurs ‎ →‎Primitive Ornithischians thank Tag: Manual revert

Please do something with this frolicking. - Altenmann >talk 14:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Altenmann, you're required to notify the other party as soon as you make a report here. See the red-boxed notice at the top of this page. Use {{ANI-notice}} (talk) to do this.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S., great use of "frolicking".

Done. - Altenmann >talk 14:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Altenmann They are indeed a sock, see c:Category:Sockpuppets of Muzzonakhaled. The corresponding SPI here is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dranorter127, they're evading enwiki blocks on Dranorter127, Darkmoons127, Dinosaursroar127809 and Masonthetrex127 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

So?... - Altenmann >talk 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

They can be blocked as a sockpuppet and the mess of files can be G5'd when an admin has the chance to look at this. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:35, 8 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.

Luis Elizondo gross BLP violations

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 began editing with this account while following various rabbit holes. I have edited on and off for years--I cannot point to an IP, my home internet is dynamic and changes constantly. I finally made an account. Most of the policies are not exactly unfamiliar after reading this site for two decades, and there's nothing quick Googling can't teach.

Luis Elizondo had a bizarre line of text up front that said he "claimed" to work for some government department. I wasn't sure how someone would be labeled as a "claim" for employment, so I clicked on the article for NBC News. It (and other sources) outright say he worked for that department, AND a Pentagon/Department of Defense statement ALSO said he worked for them. Which is... authoritative?

So I made this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169289811&oldid=1167347555

I began then going out of curiosity source by source and sentence by sentence and found that almost everything was either a total fabrication or odd denigration of this person. I reread the BLP stuff (it had been years) and realized this article was out of bounds. I began methodically small edit by small edit fixing the article, referencing every single change and why:

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

User:Hemiauchenia then unilaterally began to "edit war" and undid ALL my edits, calling them ALL trash, and said my opinions do not matter because they have "more edits" than I do.

I did a BLP noticeboard here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo

Then another user came and restored the BLP violations a fourth time.

Finally, I clicked on "what links here" and found users organizing to do things to the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo

I don't care about whatever 'woo' UFO stuff. I edited the article to reflect JUST what the sources said and removed the odd criticisms that were not criticisms and random trivia about other people who were not the subject. The entire thing read like some sly "make this person look bad and/or crazy" spin and was totally not neutral and seemed to violate BLP.

They restored all the bad BLP violations and then refused to engage, leaving the disparaging version up instead of the stripped down neutral one I had made. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@My name is not Alexander Hamilton: How many different pages are you going to drag this to? Right now I see discussions, started by you, at Talk:Luis Elizondo, WP:BLP/N, WP:AN/I, WP:RFPP/I, User talk:Yoshi24517, and User talk:Hemiauchenia. Pick a venue and stick to it; don't throw everything, everywhere, all at once and expect anyone to actually make an effort to follow the conversation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 23:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I just know WP:BLP says to nuke violations from orbit and now multiple editors are fighting with me to keep BLP violations and negative tone on that article. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing at WP:BLPN: where it has become apparent that the issue is more complex than My name is not Alexander Hamilton suggests, and that their mass edits may have added problematic possibly-WP:BLP-violating content as well as removing it. I suspect it would probably be in everyone's best interests to close this WP:ANI discussion, and continue on the noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I must address claims I added "BLP violations". I cited NBC News who said he was in a certain role with the Pentagon. This is by two veteran NBC News reporters, stated by them as fact in print. Some editors here seem to dispute their reporting. I cited the source correctly and saw no reason to challenge two NBC reporters or perform additional validation of their reporting.

Is it within our scope to fact check news articles and reporters for minor details like "Mr. Smith worked at XYX?"

That's literally what the conflict is.

I welcome uninvolved parties moving this to whatever venue is appropriate. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No, you don't get to cherry-pick sources like that. And this isn't even remotely a 'minor detail'. That is an utterly absurd claim to make. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 9 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.

Report of disruptive user MrOllie

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 "MrOllie" is gatekeeping the editing process and harassing other users with excessive and unwarranted reverts, which could be seen as acts of vandalism in some cases.

See user edits and comments history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie

Please help contain this. Thanks!

RRR3MU5 (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yet another meritless complaint. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 9 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.

Jadidjw

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.

---

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

Jadidjw was recently blocked for edit warring at Hazaras (see the report here [25]), where they attempted to remove sourced information, and during an ongoing discussion a that ([26]). They failed to explain their actual reasons behind it, other than that they were fixing an "error", whatever that error is, they've yet to say. This attempt at justification can be seen in their unblock requests too [27] [28], where they bizarrely accused me of being the one to remove said sourced information, and not him. Though I assume that wasn't the intention (?) as they later contradicted themselves with even more confusing comments. In other words, probable WP:CIR issues at the very least.

Anyways, right after their block expired, they started removing sourced info at Hazaras right off the bat [29], even justifying their previous attempts here [30]. Note that back in 2021 they also got blocked for edit warring in yet another attempt at altering sourced information in the same article [31].

EDIT: They just attempted to remove it again, under a rather dishonest edit summary "Added information+source, fixed source errors, and modified the Gallery"

See also their ongoing SPI report that was created last month (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iampharzad.). --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Any chance they're also this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1135#HazaraHistorian 208.87.236.201 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but I doubt it - particularly due to their completely different English skills. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems I need glasses, they altered a quote from a source, not sourced info. While Jadidjw certainly not has been cooperative and vague regarding his edits, this one is on me, and they may actually be on to something time. Guess I'll find out in the talk page. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:00, 9 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.

Regular Vandalism by Marxist Economist

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 Marxist Economist is continuously vandalising pages and not paying any heed to warnings. I would request you all to kindly have a look at his contributions. Upon giving warning on his talk page he is blabbering. He says that I am senior, I joined Wikipedia before you, You are noone to serve me a warning and many things as you can see on his talk page. Despite repeated warnings the user continues to make biased edits. He continues to promote his own political stand on Wikipedia. Another fellow editors like CapnJackSp, XYZ 250706 and Dhruv edits have all served him notice before or after me. But he is not ready to act according to Wikipedia guidelines. I told him that if you don't stop I shall be forced to report your actions to admins. On this he said who are you to serve me a warning. I will warn against you. I would request the Wikipedia fraternity to kindly take due cognizance of this user. Warn him, serve him with a notice of block or whatever seems right to you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• When User:Chennai Super Kings Lover corrected a spelling in User:Marxist Economist's user page, Marxist Economist directly told the former person that who has given permission to edit his talk page. This does not maintain civility rule. Besides I saw him to say in User:Dhruv edits' talk page that he is former MLA and he has more experience. User Marxist Economist's mode of discussion and editing is combative in nature. XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Our political affliction being different you must be trying to harm me. Marxist Economist (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would like to bring it to the notice of Wikipedia fraternity that this user @Marxist Economist just tried to vandlise my user page by writing- "This user is a member of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and had been convicted for Demolition of the Babri Masjid." I would request the fraternity to kindly act on him ASAP. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Marxist Economist made an edit to Shaan Sengupta's user page claiming that the latter was a convicted criminal. That is unacceptable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• I just blocked Marxist Economist for 24 hours because they kept removing this report. If anyone feels that this should be extended, please feel free to do so without consulting me (I'll be AFK for a few hours shortly anyway). Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• This userpage editing and these blankings feel like they won't help. CMD (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd argue indef given their blatant political POV pushing, something sadly not uncommon in Indian articles and talk pages. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 14:07, 9 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.

Long term disruption at List of Celebrity Deathmatch episodes

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.

---

It looks like one IP range was blocked in April, and another has since carried the torch. May be ripe for page protection/further user sanctions. But the current status of constant revert, rinse and repeat is kind of silly. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have been constantly removing the vandalism on the page only for it to be back in 1-2 days. TheActualDamnPeterGriffin (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for 1 week. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:03, 9 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.

Repeated addition of unsourced content and general vandalism by Prabhash2513

User:Prabhash2513 has been warned numerous and even been blocked repetitive removal of content and more significantly the persistent behaviour of adding unsourced (likely WP:HOAX) content on articles as is very apparent from their Talk page and editing history. I think a perma block is now needed unless the user shows that they understand what their behaviour entails. Gotitbro (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Topic Ban evation by User:Johnsmith2116

Following a recent discussion here, now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1135#User:Wjemather (ended 29 July 2023), User:Johnsmith2116 was the subject of a Topic Ban relating to 'preparation'-type edits. He has now made some edits to 2023 FedEx Cup Playoffs, the "preparation" aspects of which were later removed by User:Wjemather. Soon afterwards Johnsmith2116 replaced his entire talk page (which included the notification by User:Girth Summit of his topic ban) with a cryptic hidden message including the text "Me 1, them 0". At this early stage it doesn't seem to me that Johnsmith2116 is taking this topic ban seriously. I know this is a first offence (and I've no idea what the normal procedure is in such cases) but I'm adding this note here for the record. Nigej (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Looking into this, but first, here's the composite diff for others' convenience. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  So, normally a first-offense TBAN violation is somewhere between a warning and a one-week block, but from the totality of [32] I really can't look at this as anything but a deliberate violation. This isn't like an AMPOL TBAN where someone can accidentally wander into a violation as they learn the boundaries. John clearly knew what he was doing. Between that and the history of DE blocks, I have blocked for a month, and would suggest that any future block under this TBAN should be indefinite. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Article hacking and unresponsive editor

Since around the beginning of this summer, MedRobo (talk · contribs) has been engaging in destructive behavior in articles which has, in some instances, gone unnoticed. GreenC has restored sections of content that was (surprisingly) removed, but was reverted in the process. The changes include mass removal of content, removal of citation details (many times it's the URLs), and removal of the further reading or external links sections.

Looking at the most recent 500 contributions shows some potentially eyebrow-raising removals, some of which have been restored by myself [33].

The editor has made one edit in the user talk space [34] since registering in May 2020 [35]. Less than 20 posts on talk pages [36] were made, but it's this one [37] at Talk:Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (consul 177 BC) that was made in June asking an editor to not post on their talk page after being approached with a request for an explanation of this series of edits, which are of the same type that I and GreenC have been noticing.

I did post on the person's talk page yesterday after making a similar inquiry and then they stopped editing for the day and have not responded. Affected articles (some of which have been cleaned up) include: Penang, East India Company, and Peacekeeping. Dawnseeker2000 19:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No comment about the unresponsiveness, but most of these edits are good, removing things like dumping grounds of external links and further reading sections, which you've put back (along with reverting a lot of other good, minor edits) with no explanation. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This user has been aggressive at removing content, and are prolific. Their user contribution page is a sea of red. Certainly not in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. They typically justify massive removals of sourced and useful content as "excessive detail" (when neither excessive, or overly detailed). External links as "commercial content" (when it's not corporate). Look I understand sometimes we need to do cleanup operations, but it's all this user does, over and over again, and in the few articles where I know something about the topic, it's a questionable job. I support Dawnseeker2000's restorations. -- GreenC 00:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Some sample diffs:

• "rm external links to paid-for publishing" - Cornell University Press, McGill-Queen's University Press, International Studies Quarterly, etc.. is "paid for"?
• "rm". Typical useless edit summary when removing entire sections.
• "rm external links to commercial content". Wikisource, two universities, LibriVox, Internet Archive .. are commercial content?

The above is a sample of their external links and further reading deletions. But there is much more deleting in the text of the articles. While I can see some value in some of their edits, the diffs are often so complex, and their rationales so incompetent, see above, I don't trust they know what they are doing (incompetent), or are moving too fast breaking things, making poor judgements, or a vandal in disguise. Others have similar concerns. -- GreenC 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Harry797

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.

---

Somebody smoosh this. Pretty obviously only here for promotion. GMG^talk 11:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 9 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.

IP vandal who brags about it

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 has warnings on its talk page going back a month and a half for vandalism. I'm thinking maybe they have a static IP. Last warning they received, they replied "Vandalise? Its obviously a joke, I've done it with conservative pages too". They've received a 31 hour block previously, but they appear to not be moving from their current IP address so something longer might be in order. AlanS^talk 14:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@AlanS: Blocked by Courcelles. Clear-cut stuff like this can be reported at WP:AIV, where it will generally be actioned more quickly. — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Yes, I blocked for a month. If similar disruption returns from that IP we can assume it is long term static and go longer. Courcelles (talk) 17:42, 9 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.

User:Kshatriya Yoddha comments on 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.

---

Hello, I want to file a report on User:Kshatriya Yoddha, who apparently called me a racial slur on his talkpage. Apparently I was in an edit war with the user before, but today was the day where they took the situation very far.

This is the comment the user made to me: "Cope harder sub-narmada pajeet... and sulk when you see a tall, fair, handsome north-Indian munda flex his muscles infront of mallu and tulu chicks... should i send u a fair&lovely... will help u :)"

This is the link to the user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kshatriya_Yoddha

The link to the comment is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kshatriya_Yoddha&diff=prev&oldid=1169306784 and I believe this is the current version of their talkpage. In case they made have edited it, this link will provide the evidence.

If this issue doesn't concern you, I would like to know who may it concern so I can proceed with my report. No2WesternImperialism (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Kshatriya Yoddha indefinitely blocked by Abecedare for WP:BATTLEGROUND + WP:IDHT + gross incivility [w/ link to the above-reported comments]. FWIW, in the future the correct board to report stuff like this is right here at WP:ANI, duplicate reports at WP:AN are unnecessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 8 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.

User:Pek repeatedly creating poor quality stubs

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.

---

Pek has been creating a long list of low-quality stub pages over a period of months, many of which have already been deleted as unfit for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and which tend to suffer from poor sourcing (occasionally falling afoul of WP:MEDRS), unencyclopedic content, or lack of content suitable for a standalone article. Pek does not tend to continue improving the pages long after creating them, leaving them as poor-quality stubs that other editors must then deal with.

I asked last month if they might consider a voluntary six month break from creating new pages, which they declined: User talk:Pek#Voluntary page creation restriction? As a result, and seeing how the behavior is continuing, I think it's worth considering an involuntary restriction. Here is a complete list of new pages created by Pek since June (excluding redirects):

• 8 August, Bodily weapon: Only just now created, probably ought to be redirected to Hand-to-hand combat or similar
• 9 July, Most effective tactics available: Deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most effective tactics available)
• 21 June, Caffeine-induced psychosis: Stub that likely ought to be merged to Stimulant psychosis
• 18 June, Okichitaw (martial arts): Draftified due to insufficient citations, not edited since
• 17 June, Aim trainer: Draftified by me, then G7 deleted at Pek's request
• 17 June, Height dysphoria: Transformed into a redirect due to serious WP:MEDRS issues, subsequently recreated by Pek, requiring substantial editing by Writ Keeper to address sourcing issues and apparent OR
• 17 June, Murder weapon: Deleted via PROD
• 17 June, Transmaxxing: Deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transmaxxing), serious sourcing issues
• 15 June, Fever dream (sleep physiology): Draftified by me, then G7 deleted at Pek's request

The behavior goes back further, but I'm stopping here for brevity's sake. Other articles Pek has created and which have required intervention by other editors to delete, draftify, or redirect include Study partner, Pineapple boat, Intercourse denial, Dye transfer inhibitor, Pureed diet, Thematic tournament, Ghost website, Monkey slavery, Trackside telephone, and Roof collapse. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. 1st I'm going to address this; "Pek does not tend to continue improving the pages long after creating them, leaving them as poor-quality stubs that other editors must then deal with." The whole point of me creating entry-level articles, is because I don't have the expertise of these topics, so I'm creating them in hope that someone who actually knows about the topic to come and edit them. I usually prefer to create completely new article in better hope, that it will be more detailed, than in situation where I would add content to already existing article, which I also do sometimes. You didn't include here that I also recently edited the Animal suicide article, where I added new subtitle, with content in it and references too. This list you made, seems like personal attack against me, and you are mainly focusing on most poorest articles. Why don't you mention here mental illness denial or perhaps plant blindness, or even Lost Ark. You are solely focusing on everything bad I'v done. I'v done a lot of good work too. This list of yours is very biased, and I'm not sure why you are attacking against me. --Pek (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, what was wrong with fever dream? I listed like 6 or 7 references to it, which all seemed like good sources. It just seems like someone doesn't like me and start deleting my creations. Fever dream should have never been deleted or even "draftified". --Pek (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no issue with simply creating stubs — the issue is when the stubs are so poor quality that they suck time from other editors who have to handle serious MEDRS and other concerns. As for the "biased" list, it is a complete list of all articles you created since the beginning of June (as I stated). I've linked to your full page creation log so that other editors can get a more complete view of your contributions. As I said above, many of the pages have been deleted, and they tend to suffer from poor sourcing — that is not to say that all of the pages are this way, it's just such a high percentage that I am concerned about the net benefit to the project.

Regarding fever dream, I only deleted it per your request, so it is weird that you now say it "should have never been deleted". As for why I draftified it, sources from multiple mattress companies, meditation apps, Healthline (deprecated as a MEDRS, see WP:RSP#Healthline), and popsci websites like MentalFloss are far below what is required for sourcing on medical topics, so I draftified it to allow you the opportunity to bring it up to those requirements. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

How exactly am I suppose to know which websites are acceptable and which not, there are literally billions of websites out there, and Google search gives results to all of them, without any way to only access "trusted" websites. I don't even understand why those websites that you listed aren't allowed. Fever dream maybe is somewhat a medical topic, but it is still important to write those articles in words that even child would understand, so why popsci websites aren't allowed? Because the writers don't have medical background, is that it? There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about somewhat medical topics that don't always have the best websites, yet mine are targeted for some reason. Also, isn't there a way to make a website banned, so that it's impossible to use that website as reference. Why aren't these websites banned then, if nobody is allowed to use them? --Pek (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Pek: How exactly am I suppose to know which websites are acceptable and which not there's WP:MEDRS right there. You can also find custom google searches that filter, but acting like you have no choice or discretion in how to research subjects properly is admitting you have a competence issue. People have been giving you tons of feedback for months now, judging by the your talk page—you simply haven't taken any of it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll also throw Penile dysmorphic disorder onto GW's list of things that required significant axing. I tried to redirect it to Body dysmorphic disorder, even using the one valid source to add a line to that article to forestall the inevitable complaint about the target not mentioning the redirect, but that didn't fly, with the expected and now-invalid complaint, so, having already dealt with this user's transmaxxing and height dysphoria, I gave up and at least chopped the article down to what the lone decent source actually says (i.e., that penile dysmorphic disorder isn't a thing on its own). Not to repeat what David Fuchs correctly says above, but if a user can't tell whether a source is good or not, they shouldn't be creating articles; Pek has gotten plenty of guidance on the subject, and I guess hasn't absorbed it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Pek: The issue from what I can gather here is not that you're creating stubs, it's that you're choosing topics that shouldn't have articles in the first place and creating stubs around that. Look, I get it, finding the truly important topics that don't already have articles is tough, but from what I can see reviewing the long list of articles you've created, fall almost entirely into two categories:

1. Topics that are best covered by expanding existing articles on very closely related topics rather than creating a new article about them, or even are simply alternative names for topics that already exist as articles
2. Topics that, frankly, seem like bullshit you (or someone else) just made up and are not even real things.

Seriously Pek, take this as a word of advice: Looking at the sheer number of now-deleted, redirected, and should-be-deleted-or-redirected articles you have created in the past few months, stop creating articles. Instead, when you find something interesting Wikipedia is missing, try to find an existing article that could be expanded with that information. Instead of asking yourself "Should I create a 1 or 2 sentence stub about this topic?", instead say "What article could most benefit from 1 or 2 additional sentences of information?". --Jayron32 17:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Beyond Jayron32's sound advice -- and the advice you've had from a number of other editors -- if, as you say, you don't have the expertise to gauge the difference between a good source and a bad one, and you don't have the expertise to expand articles with meaningful content, then the answer appears that you are not yet ready to edit Wikipedia at all. Ravenswing 22:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Pek, there are two ways this will possibly go. One, you voluntarily agree to stop creating articles for 6 months, contribute to article development, showcasing expertise in developing articles already created by others to some acceptable level of reading, or even Good Articles if you want to try your hand at it (if possible but not required, but will be a good way to prove the lot otherwise). The second way is that we initiate a community long term ban on you from any area of article creation, which will look off once it goes through (if it goes through). You seem to be a sensible editor, who is unfortunately off the track. Take the voluntary path, in my opinion, and we close this chapter here. What do you say? Lourdes 10:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, I agree. --Pek (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  But what about drafted articles? Am I allowed to do those? --Pek (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Only as long as you are not the one who has created them, you are allowed to add material that is reliably sourced (you have good pieces of advise above on how to understand both non-med and medrs. Feel free to reach out to any of us if there is still confusion on that. I am archiving this section more to save your tenure here than anything else. Thanks for your voluntary acceptance. Lourdes 11:00, 9 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.

MrOllie's open hostile behavior

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.

---

MrOllie waging an edit war on the D4DJ article, first deleting a section because it is based on a "crap source" and then thwarting attempts to recover the text to replace the disputed source with a source request, arguing that any information without a source must be deleted, ignoring any attempts to convey to him that I am restoring the text to try to find another source or give another opportunity to do so. The very first cancellation was generally made almost instantly, although I indicated the reason in the comment and did not even have time to remove the source due to the edit conflict. I just don't understand the user behavior pattern. I have no problem deleting a source if it's really bad, but the user seems to be pre-programmed for confrontation, not giving me even the slightest opportunity to put a source request or find another one. This is the first time I've seen him, but the nature of the topics on his talk page left me with the impression that this wasn't his first conflict, although he tried to taunt me with my bans when I pointed out that lightning-fast cancels and interfering with attempts to put in a source request created a conflict. where it could be done without. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

By way of response I'll just point out the final warning Solaire got last time they were at ANI, which you can find at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Civility_and_claims_of_harassment_by_User:Solaire_the_knight. - MrOllie (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that in this way you refuse in any way to justify the edit war you started and attempts to prevent me from putting a source request, arguing that information with a source request should be deleted instantly as unsoursed? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

To actually address the substance, the source was know your meme, which is considered generally unreliable at WP:RSP for being user generated; "crap source" appears to be correct. Without a usable source it was appropriate to remove it, per WP:V; Solaire should not have been trying to restore it without first finding a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

But I restored it just to put a source request while I'm looking for a better one. If the user really cared about this and explained to me the reasons for including the source in dubious and did not wage an edit war even for trying to put a source request while I was looking for a better one, then there would be no conflict at all. Without any context, "crap source" just sounded like a rude mentor tone. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

But MrOllie is correct. They removed something due to a bad and unreliable source, and per WP:BURDEN you need to provide an inline reliable source if you choose to reinstate it. You do not reinstate it with a Citation Needed, but only with an actual reliable source. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What then is the point of this source request? And what prevented the user from helping to resolve this issue, and not immediately starting an edit war with cold accusations and threats of blocking, if he could simply explain the rules? The first undo was done literally less than a minute after my edit. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You've been here 8 years now, that's more than enough time for you to be aware of the core policies of the site, especially when you've been informed of them on your talk page previously. All editors should be aware of our core policies. Additionally no you edit war when you reinstate an edit of yours after another user has removed it. You should be excruciatingly aware of what constitutes edit warring and how it's defined by now with the amount of warnings you've received about it, not to mention the blocks. This is starting to sound like WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Canterbury Tail talk 15:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You assume that all this time I was an active user of this section, while I worked in another language section, appearing here only occasionally. And I never even thought that sections could be THAT MUCH different in the most basic rules. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Then it is on you to learn the policies and guidelines of this language's Wikipedia and, when pointed to them, to read them, instead of claiming ignorance of them. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but how was I supposed to assume that the various language sections differ so much even in the most basic rules? Especially when such conflicts have not arisen before? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ignorance of the rules doesn't explain why you made one up to restore your edit. M.Bitton (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What rule have I made up here? The user removed the text due to the source by writing to me on the discussion page about the rules. I've restored the text, implying in the comment that if they don't like the source, they can delete it by putting in a source request instead of deleting it right away. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You just explained the rule that you made up (in order to ignore the rule that the editor has pointed out to you). M.Bitton (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What? I did not refer to any specific rules and simply suggested a possible solution to the situation. I didn't refer to any invented rules. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This diff speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

If you continue to plan to simply repeat the same diff several times to accuse me, ignoring my answers, then in the future I will simply ignore your remarks as persecution. I didn't create this thread to make it personal and dueling with anybody. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely intend to do just that, until you acknowledge what you did. M.Bitton (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

My first guess regarding the speed of the revert would be that an edit adding a citation of Know Your Meme popped up under one of the filters available on Recent Changes, such as Likely bad faith or likely has problems or such. I'm not terribly familiar with those filters but I also know that things popping up on those filters are some of the fastest reverted edits on this platform. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have any filters messages. Moreover, this text was in the article for a month or a half and no one had any problems with it, so I did not even think that removing it could be such a big problem. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight Saying MrOllie first delet[ed] a section is borderline deceptive. It was actually first deleted by Miraclepine, and then restored by you. You accuse them of waging an edit war when both of you have hit 3 reverts today by my count. Crap source is a pretty loud claim but Know your Meme is...well... a pretty crap source.

I would call this a content dispute or edit war but I think it actually is about you and MrOllie. The fact that you completely left out the part where someone else deleted the section first and you restored it, really makes me wonder where this is coming from. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mention them as they only made one edit and their whole stance was that the source is bad. I have no complaints about them. This was not a conflict until MrOllie interfered. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You didn't mention Miraclepine because you ignored what they said in their edit summary (about WP:KNOWYOURMEME). M.Bitton (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ignored? I literally removed the link to this source after restoring the text. In turn, you ignore that I have no problems with the sources, if it is bad, then it is bad. But I was not even allowed to put a source request. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You do know we can see the edit history of the article yes? Canterbury Tail talk 15:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

How is your question related to my answer? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You stated that you removed the source after you restored the revert by Miraclepine, when the edit history shows quite clearly you didn't do that until after restoring it again later from MrOllie's removal. Canterbury Tail talk 16:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you ignored what Miraclepine said to you. M.Bitton (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Despite Solaire's claim to the contrary above, we have crossed paths recently, notably at Talk:RationalWiki#Recent_edits_to_lead. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This dispute was a month ago and I even removed the article from my watchlist, but now I remember you. In that article, you also started a pointless edit war in a situation that could have been resolved much faster and in a much more peaceful way. If I remembered you, I wouldn't even touch your edit because of the potential for another pointless argument. Which is expected and happened. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Solaire the knight, I suggest that your best course of action at this point is to affirm that in the future you will not add content to articles without citing a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I even didn't mean to, I just wanted to TEMPORARILY restore the text with the source request so that either I find a good source myself, or another user did it after seeing the request before me. If I knew that even this would cause such a conflict, I would not even think about restoring the text, my nerves are dearer to me. But if it's needed, I promise. For all this time, I just found out today that there are some claims to this source. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a more serious problem here than just trying to use Know Your Meme as a source. Look at this edit in June, and compare it with the cited KYM source. There are many "facts" in that edit that are not verified by that KYM source (even if it was an RS, which it isn't): "catchy," "have become quite popular internet memes," "often known even to people outside of fans of the brand or anime viewers as such", and "due to the fact that users found the idea of ​​​​combining innocent animation with an added rude title funny." That's most of the paragraph, and it seems like WP:OR. Trying to use KYM as a source is bad enough, making stuff up is worse, edit warring to keep it in (1, 2, 3, 4) is even worse, and (at least) two more edit warring episodes since a final warning? Indef time. Levivich (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Because this is a pretty obvious fact for anyone who is a fan of this game or even knows something superficially about it. But then again, instead of dry references to the rules and threatening me with blocks, what prevented me from simply explaining how I can solve this situation if they or you think that I don’t know the rules? Solaire the knight (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm failing to understand why you need to restore the text before you have a source for it. That's the entire problem here. It was removed as having a poor source, therefore should not be restored "while you find a source." Flat-out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I temporarily restored the text, so that later I either replaced the request with a new source, or someone, having seen the request, did it himself. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN quite clearly says should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source, if you don't yet have a source leave it until you do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're spot on THTFY (that ok?) regarding the cause of the content dispute. {{cn}} is a finnicky tag with somewhat unclear use scenarios and I think the best option is to not use it outside of drafts. @Solaire the knight Especially after someone else re-removed the content, it would have been easier for everyone if you just copied the statement to your sandbox and worked to find the source. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't even know such a feature existed and no one even tried to advise me to solve it this way. Canceling with the word "crap" in a comment, which I know to be a rude word, completely distracted me and I got bogged down in an argument with a user whose behavior I thought was hostile for no reason. But if you think about it now, then yes, this is probably the most reasonable way to solve the problem. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This is your response to the editor who pointed out the rule to you. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Since this is the fourth time you've been repeating the same diff to pressure me and ignoring my attempts to respond (and you even openly admit that you are doing it on purpose to put pressure on me), I'm honoring my promise above and starting to ignore any of your lines as persecution and confrontational. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

They are factual (backed by diffs). M.Bitton (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Writing the statement first and then working to find a source is completely backwards. First find the source, then summarize it. Don't write what you think you know, or think is obvious, and then try to find a source that backs it up (or, worse, add a CN tag and hope someone else finds a source to back up what you think you know). Levivich (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not try to shift the burden of responsibility for the source to someone else in this way. Just temporarily restored with a request that the text not be removed as original research without a source, and also to show that I removed the source that was called problematic. My words about obviousness were a response to the statement that the request is supposedly used when the information is correct, but requires a source. Why are any of my words here interpreted against me, even when I try to politely explain the logic of my actions?! In any case, okay, I stopped returning text before even making the request here, certainly not restoring it without a new source, if those are the rules. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No, you restored the edit and the source and made up a rule in the process (shifting the burden on the editor to add a cn tag). M.Bitton (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Noting that I have indeffed for disruptive editing, edit warring, unacceptable sourcing, and refusing to heed warnings and earlier blocks. At this point, they'll have to convince the community or an administrator that they understand the issues with their editing and will remedy them before they can resume editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Boomerang

Is a WP:BOOMERANG applicable here? I don't think we are going to resolve anything here with more back-and-forthing in a 1vX discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I just noted above that I have indeffed. They have a history of blocks for edit warring, and a talk page full of warnings for disruptive editing. Combined with the lack of understanding shown here, I figured they need to demonstrate that they understand the problems with their editing and that their behavior will change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 8 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.

Persistent vandalism at Talk:Bill Gates

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.

---

Tried twice to report at page protection, but the reports would not publish. Recent vandalism is from multiple accounts in a single IP range. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have semiprotected that talk page for one week due to recent disruptive activity. Surprisingly, given Gates' high profile for decades, especially during the COVID pandemic, disruptive editing of that talk page has mostly been manageable. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 8 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.

Persistent disruption/vandalism by Aditya Greatest to WP:BLPs

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.

---

Most of Aditya Greatest (talk · contribs)'s edits have been properly reverted, though they continue to delete sourced content and edit disruptively, without explanation or edit summaries, after receiving a final warning a week ago. No action was taken at AIV at that time, so I'm trying here. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Please provide evidence in form of diffs if possible. In this case here, the edit warring was clear enough for me to take it as a block reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, ToBeFree. For starters, the edit warring you responded to was a persistent removal from the infobox of an actor's name--prominently included in the body of the article--without explanation at Udaariyaan. Prior to that, [38]; [39]; [40]; [41]; [42]; [43]; [44]; [45]; [46]; [47]; [48]; [49]; [50]; [51]; [52]; [53]; [54]; [55]; [56]; [57]; [58]; [59]; [60]; [61].

Many of the edits removed sourced content. Others removed content that was supported by subsequent text. A lot of it looks arbitrary, the fingerprints of someone who is just determined to mess about, indifferent to quality, so WP:CIR may apply. At any rate, thank you for blocking. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:47, 9 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.

Achar Sva editing restriction violation

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.

---

• Achar Sva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous ANI discussion permalink
• Logged editing restriction
• Initial notification of editing restriction

Editor Achar Sva has repeatedly violated their community-imposed editing restriction over several months without acknowledging these violations. The editing restriction is copied below:

When Achar Sva removes sourced text from an article (including edits which replace sourced text or move it to another place in the article) and that removal gets reverted, they may not remove it again without gaining consensus for the removal at the article talk page or any other appropriate venue. This restriction may be appealed at WP:AN after six months.

Despite repeated warnings that certain behaviors likely qualified as violations of their editing restrictions (prior warnings I left on Achar Sva's talk page on 28 May: 1 & 2), they again repeated this behavior on at least two occasions in the last two weeks. One occurred on Massacre of the Innocents on 20 July, removing sourced material that they had previously removed and been reverted on; there was no effort by Achar Sva to seek consensus before their reversion. Another violation occurred on Gospel of James on 27 July, reverting material that that was attributed to a source that they had previously altered and been reverted on.

An earlier, previously unnoticed violation occurred on Genesis 1:1 on 3 July, removing sourced material that they had already removed several times (1, 2, 3) and been reverted on by multiple editors (they had also further modified the in-article context of the sourced material in between the initial removals and most recent removal). This is the same article that had resulted in the 28 May warnings; they did not open a discussion or achieve any form of consensus to justify this latent reversion. Achar Sva appears to have no interest in following their editing restriction and has refused to alter their behavior despite repeated efforts to warn them of the potential ramifications of violating the terms of the restriction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note: I would have pinged Extraordinary Writ, the admin who formally notified Achar Sva of the sanction, but they went on a multi-week break back on 22 July. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I think some of this does violate the editing restriction. I don't see Achar Sva engaging in the talk pages on these pages you linked. There should be more consensus seeking by the editor who has the editing restriction and should be even more careful to not violate the restriction at all at this point. Perhaps it is a good idea to notify the admin too since they are familiar with this situation. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the implementing admin has not be notified since they are not on the project at present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So, I've been keeping an eye on this thread the past week. The latest ~violation seems marginal compared to the previous two. It's edit-warring, but the bit of sourced info it removed isn't actually the crux of the dispute. So I dunno. I'd really like to hear from Achar Sva, to confirm they understand the scope of their revert restriction. Otherwise I'm inclined to treat this more as a communication is required issue, where the remedy would be an indefinite block (albeit a relatively gentle one). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Thanks for commenting. Because of lack of initial admin response, I used the find-an-active-admin feature EW kindly linked on their talk to speak with Rosguill, a discussion that can be found at User talk:Rosguill#Request for admin action (note: Rosguill was the third admin I contacted personally, with no immediate response from the first two). I favor Rosguill's approach: wait until Monday because AS edits mostly on weekends and then implement a short block. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, any further thoughts? From a bureaucratic overhead perspective, I think that a wrist-slap remedy of 2 weeks block is the simplest way forward, signaling to Achar Sva that this pattern of editing will not be tolerated without adequate explanations on their part, without slamming the door on their face at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill I think both approaches have their merits—both gentle in some ways and harsh in others—so I'll defer to your judgment. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, blocked for 2 weeks as I suggested (comment several hours belated from the block placement). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:15, 8 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.

POV edits

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.

---

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

Portwoman made a change to the lead of Hindu Terrorism, where they removed the word "alleged" [62] and then edit warred over it [63][64] when I tried to revert to the status quo version.

When asked to explain their rationale, they refused to do so, and instead told me I had no consensus for my version. I found this behaviour weird, and upon checking, came across several problematic edits.

[65] - Inserted "Category:Hindutva Terrorism" when the page has no mention of either Hindutva or Terrorism.

[66] - Inserted "Category:Hindutva Terrorism" when the page has no mention of Terror/Terrorism of any kind.

[67] - Removed a large section of massacres that happened during the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide under the edit summary "miscellaneous".

[68] - Removed the same section of massacres that happened during the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide under the edit summary "WP:SPAM".

[69] - removed mention of a man converting away from Islam with the edit summary "false: Harilal Gandhi did not reconvert". The source cited in the article clearly mentions the reconversion.

[70] - Removed sourced material and citations and placed citation needed tags in their place without explanation under the edit summary "better source, reliable source tags where needed"

[71] - Removed mention of violence by Muslim Rohingyas with the edit summary "facebook not a reliable source"; The material was cited to the India Today newspaper, not Facebook.

[72] Deleted mention of a radical organisation that targeted atheists (well sourced) as "trimed out the unrelated part". Also removed a statement regarding radicals cited to a spanish website under "no spanish links for inline citations".

The above is limited to what I could find easily; There are over a thousand edits in the two months since they joined. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Blatant POV pushing. Pretty obviously they're not a new editor. Their edits should be carefully reviewed (and probably mostly reverted). --Cavarrone 07:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Since they seem to have caught a case of ANI flu, I have gone ahead and put a noarchive template for seven days. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding the repeated attempts by User:Portwoman to add defamatory claims about the son of a politician at Bandi Sanjay Kumar, from 22 - 23 July. Highlights:

[73], adds a subsection titled "Criminal activities", claiming multiple attacks on multiple students by the son

[74] reverts my move of this section about his family to the end, placing it up between the Early life and Career sections

[75], slaps an edit-warring warning on my talk page with Twinkle

[76], pads the section out with vague allegations about the subject of the article

[77], reverts my correction from references that the charges were about a single attack against a single student, with the edit summary "restored content"

[78], attempts for the second time to semi-protect the article.

The rather WP:UNDUE section about Kumar's son being charged (but not prosecuted) for a fight at college remains up near the top of the article. It's been a busy month for me on that article, having up to now been busy reverting attempts by IPs and a SPA to whitewash Kumar's involvement in a scandal. 2A00:23EE:16A8:C58:6836:22FF:FE30:62BD (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Can this please get dealt with, Portwoman is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Didnt want this to be archived without action for lack of interest, so here's another such edit, made after this ANI filing :
[79] - Added an "unreliable source" tag with reason a community website like think print.in is a reliable source. The Print is one of India's most reliable and objective news sites, not a community website.
It seems they wont reply here, can an admin close this now? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit removes The Commission later dropped the case at the request of the woman in question, who wrote that she and Surya were "good friends" and that the complaint against him by the Congress was "politically motivated", that is, it removes sourced content on the Karnataka State Commission for Women dropping a case of sexual harassment filed against Tejasvi Surya. The edit summary is "spacing and sentence format corrections". I agree this user should be blocked. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I can’t quite tie Portwoman to any blocked accounts, but I can say with conviction they are  Confirmed to Jewishblood. I need to do some more digging when I get in to the office. Courcelles (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't prove anything to my satisfaction for a block beyond NOTHERE and creating that Jewishblood account. Which, quite frankly, is enough. Indeffed. Courcelles (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged Jewishblood as a Portwoman sock, but I'd bet good money this is not the true first account. Portwoman is basically at the age CU ages out, so I'm not surprised my search didn't turn up anything definitive. Courcelles (talk) 14:39, 7 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.

Legal threat at Talk:The Rubettes

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 someone please look at the legal threat suggested in this edit. The article, on a 1970s English pop group, has for many years been the subject of conflicting edits by different factions associated with the group and its members, including many edits by Alan Williams, a group member. The latest threat by Mr Williams (self-identified) refers to a High Court order preventing the naming of several past members of the group (or another group trading under its name). Can someone experienced in such matters check it out? Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be in relation to this (non-RS but covers the lawsuit). Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a year for making legal threats (it's a static IP, posting similar in January). The court case bars Richardson, Etherington and Clarke from using the Rubettes name. There is nothing whatsover to stop Wikipedia reporting that those three people previously performed under that name. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to hide the January edit summaries threatening legal action, too. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:58, 9 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.

IP editor accusing editors of defamation

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:81.110.254.162 across Talk:The_Daily_Sceptic, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Daily_Sceptic and User_talk:81.110.254.162 has repeatedly accused editors of defamation, for example "Where a contributor has posted defamatory material it is a fact to state that they have done so. A contributor very clearly did so." and "Quite how drawing attention to actionable defamation is a threat is beyond me". Aside from the legal threats, they're clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaggedHamster (talk • contribs) 09:11, 10 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.

User:Eryk Wdowiak at WP:BLPN

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.

---

Eryk Wdowiak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shellyne Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shellyne Rodriguez. User:Eryk Wdowiak has been making repeated references to "legal action against Wikipedia", "defamation" and contributors potentially being "a defendant in a court of law" in an attempt to force particular content into an article. Regardless of whether this is an explicit legal threat or not (regarding which, Eryk Wdowiak has already been notified of policy [80]) it is a clear and unambiguous attempt to intimidate contributors, in a context where careful consideration of a sensitive issue, rather than pseudo-legalistic bludgeoning is needed.

At minimum, I think Eryk Wdowiak needs an explicit warning that any further attempts to force through content in such a manner, and any further intimation that Wikipedia and/or its contributors may face legal action over this issue will result in a block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As every mother teaches her child: "If you cannot say anything nice, then don't say anything at all."

Through his inclusion of defamatory material from the NYPost and his exclusion of beneficial material from other sources, DMacks has not said anything nice at all about Shellyne Rodriguez.

He has presented a narrative that he knows to be false. That is "defamation."

I suggest adherence to the biographies of living persons policy, which directs us to delete contentious materials. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That and your quotes are taken completely out of context. I am not threatening you. I am simply looking back to my experience in journalism and remembering the advice that my editors gave me. It's very simple: "If you damage someone's reputation in the court of public opinion, you will soon find yourself a defendant in a court of law." Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the above comments, combined with article blanking, [81], I'd have to suggest that a block is now essential. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As every mother teaches her child: "If you cannot say anything nice, then don't say anything at all." Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Further attempt at intimidation through legal jargon. [82]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Once again, please quote me properly. That was journalism jargon. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Has also just broken WP:3RR. A Block appears unavoidable. MrOllie (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked them from the article for disruptive editing, edit warring, and borderline legal threats. A site block may be warranted, but I'll leave that decision to someone else. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User has now been issued an additional final warning for NLT pending a site indef w/o TPA. For future reference, this is a fairly standard NLT site block scenario. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm involved. This editor takes every warning about behavior or content, such as edit-warring, NPOV/RGW, and RS, as either a personal attack, or saying they read the policies and guidelines the way they wish, and IDHT/discussion-bludgeoning, and bad-faith responses (including pasting a warning by me onto my talkpage several times). If I weren't originally editorially involved, in an attempt to solve content/sourcing problems and help them get back on a better track, I would have page-blocked them days ago for edit-warring, and then later site-blocked them for threats and such, and equally for NOTHERE. DMacks (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I have left a blunt warning on their talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

They persisted with making barely veiled legal threats and so I blocked them indefinitely and revoked their talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 10 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.

Well, as my mother once said: "If you cannot say anything nice, then by God, at least make sure it's cited to a reliable source." Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Requesting advice and suitable resolution

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.

---

• Non-co-operative user:

Darshan Kavadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Contesting user:

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

• Article under discussion Harapanahalli, article history, Talk:Harapanahalli

• Dif's of re addition of contested MOS:PUFFERY content in infobox without providing WP:RS sources: 1, 2, Removed even citation needed template.
• Slow but continued edit warring and WP:STONEWALLING contesting user without providing WP:RS, did not join to resolve dispute in spite of messages at Talk:Harapanahalli, User talk:Darshan Kavadi, WT:INB#Harapanahalli - Karnataka - requesting attention

• Failure to provide WP:RS for contested MOS:PUFFERY content though WP:Onus is @Darshan Kavadi's responsibility, also fails WP:NOINDICSCRIPT consensus which states ".. Avoid the use of Indic scripts (non-Latin scripts) in lead sections or infoboxes. Instead, use International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides, which are more international. ..".

Content dispute details

@Darshan Kavadi (almost single purpose account) adds Kannada language words "ವಿದ್ಯಾಸಿರಿ ನಾಡು" (Transliteration: Vidyasiri Nadu (Land of rich education/Best Education etc) According to contesting user SJanakiPSusheela It's actually local media sobrequet, hence undue) to the article Harapanahalli in info box 'other_name' without providing reliable source as per WP requirement plus has slow edit warred with contesting user almost since June 24th. @ WP:RPPI contesting user requested increase in page protection but got declined with either AIV or ANI solution. Since I came across the message @ WP:RPPI attempted to mediate with @Darshan Kavadi at article talk then at user talk page asking to support the change with reliable source. Not only there is a lack of expected response, but Kavadi reinserted contested change and removed citation needed template put by me. @SJanakiPSusheela is technically correct in following MOS:PUFFERY and deleting unsourced content. Though the route of AIV or ANI is always available; I was not sure to do the same for relatively small issue with a relatively novice user. After lack of response @ WT:INB too raising the issue here.

Requesting advice and suitable resolution

Bookku (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely until they are able to convince us that their repeated addition of unsourced material will stop and also that they understand V/RS issues. Thanks, Lourdes 10:44, 9 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.

User:Dzkk9

I've been advised by an admin to bring this here - User:Dzkk9 appears to be a new user with (at best) a shaky understanding of what is expected and wanted here. The (now reverted to redirect) page they created was unencyclopedic, unreferenced and looked like vandalism. Their userpage is a bit worrying in my opinion (in the sense of what they appear to think they can do on en.wiki). I'm not sure the best course of action but perhaps someone could give some relevant advice to them. JMWt (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Why did my page that i edited is down? you could tell me something is wrong and correct me not delete everything that i wrote on this website randomly with no reason?!?? You deleted my page because of VANDALISM??? For just editing a page about a micronation that has been put on wikipedia randomly by a user like 4 years ago. reply about this! Dzkk9 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

as a point of information, I didn't delete anything. JMWt (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

and where is the "edited" page that ive done. even my user info? Dzkk9 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@JMWt This isn't a very helpful comment - new editors almost universally refer to "removing the words I wrote" as deletion, and the article the editor wrote was redirected and indeed deleted for copyvio. -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@JMWt, FYI, you should have notified Dzkk9 on their talkpage as stated at the top of this page. However, it seems moot at this point – robertsky (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies I misread what I was supposed to do. I have belatedly rectified this. JMWt (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@JMWt: Have you tried discussing anything with them at all? CityOfSilver 17:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Also FYI, this version of the article is largely a copyvio of this Daily Mail article. Woodroar (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added a {{copyvio-revdel}} template to the page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done without comment on the rest of this Star Mississippi 01:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@JMWt: Isn't all the stuff in that article true, or at least plausibly true? The fact that it's poorly written aside. jp×g 21:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It's plausibly true, but we don't deal with "truth", we deal with verfiability, and the Daily Mail is no longer considered to be a reliable source. Aside from that, the article was not really about the "Kingdom of North Sudan" as a geographical entity, it was about the guy who declared Bir Tawil to be that, and his family. If someone wants to write an article about them, and take the chance that it would pass notability, using non-Daily Mail sources, they should do that, under that person's name as the article title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a not-even-with-an-extra-long-bargepole source. Narky Blert (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, well, I am not the one who wrote the article, nor do I really give a hoot either way -- I am saying that, given we have a long newspaper article that confirm all the stuff it says, it was probably not a bad-faith attempt to vandalize, even if we think the newspaper sux0rz (and indeed even if it DOES sux0rz). jp×g 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree there was probably no BF involved, more like CIR issues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I too AGF; looks no more than a beginner's mistake. Narky Blert (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User Yaujj13: systematical POV pushing

Yaujj13 keeps POV pushing systematically across several articles with mass copy pasting of pre-prepared content. For example, they added human cannibalism (especially on Japanese) to Liver (food), which is WP:COATRACK: Special:Diff/1153777435. They also added misleading material or WP:SYNTH: Special:Diff/1166222240. Some of his edits are either not pertinent to the article subject (Special:Diff/1166205921 Special:Diff/1166205620) or not written in a suitable tone. Besides, their edits are mess structurally and WP:CITEBOMB. All their articles have been draftified for these problems. See the former discussion on Special:PermanentLink/1149954015, Talk:Jambi Sultanate and User_talk:Johnuniq#User_Hounding_Me_Problem. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with user NmWTfs85lXusaybq. Although the sources are valid, Yaujj13 likes to overcite and engage in original research, completely misleading the reader.

examples: the user made the same original research edit in three different articles.

1. [83] and [84] and [85]

user wrote: "General Ishii Shirō's mistress recruited Japanese girls as prostitutes for the Recreation and Amusement Association where up to 70,000 Japanese girls were forced to serve US soldiers in brothels.

source: "Of course, prostitution on a large scale continued but as a privte business activity." and "At is peak more than 70,000 women worked for the organization. As the demand for women to staff the organization outstripped the supply of professional prositutes, geishas and the like, other groups of women were drafted..." (it was a mix of professional prostitutes and forced girls, not all 70,000 of them were forced, and it was the japanese government, not the general's mistress, who organized and implemented the system.)

2. [86]

user wrote: members were forced by USA to conduct live experiments on humans.

source: members were funded. american coercion was never mentioned in source.

i rewrote the information to reflect what was in the article. [87] LilAhok (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@LilAhok can you provide the diff where they wrote that members were "forced" to conduct experiments? This[88] just talks about funding which seems consistent with the Guardian article.

Also, the claim about prostitutes isn't that far off, is it? @Yaujj13 claimed (1) the general's mistress recruited girls, and (2) there were "up to" 70K at the brothels. Source says the mistress ran a brothel, and says "more than" 70K worked at the brothels. Consistent, certainly not "completely misleading."

The "liver" thing was added in May but reverted in July (some potential WP:BOOMARANG drawing attention to the hounding accusation?).

I'm not taking sides here, at least not for now, but there is a history on both sides of harsh words and failing to discuss. The worst seems to have been in April when @Yaujj13 was a new account - I called out @Yaujj13 out for their editing behavior and @NmWTfs85lXusaybq for harshly worded edit summaries and pro-China POV accusations. The next time @NmWTfs85lXusaybq posted anything to @Yaujj13's talk page was the ANI notice. If you think I'm misunderstanding what's been happening feel free to explain. Oblivy (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

See this diff: The US military forced Japanese members of Unit 731 to conduct experiments on Japanese people in Japan in 1952.

The claim about prostitutes is pre-prepared material copy-pasted to several articles including United States war crimes, Unit 731, Japanese war crimes and Shirō Ishii, which could be a type of POV pushing regardless of its sourcing.

Besides, I'm asking @Oblivy to focus on POV pushing and mass copy-pasting material added by Yaujj13, not the interaction between Yaujj13 and me. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

On "forced", fair enough, that was wrong, although there was factual material in the paragraph which you just reverted when a change of wording would have fixed the problem.

I think your history of interactions is relevant, and you yourself added links to the April talk page discussion and their allegations against you of hounding. The closing admin can disregard but I think it belongs in the mix. Oblivy (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You're still misleading this discussion. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially in the situation of POV pushing and mass copy-pasting. My accusation is contesting NPOV of their material, not verifiability.

I added these links to help others learn the background and the scope of articles affected by Yaujj13's edits. However, I see you're just complaining about your mediation, which is unhelpful to this discussion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am here to address my case on my actions and the accusations against me.

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq, I believe your argument is in bad faith here as the edits you kept reverting has an agenda. I believe you are a pro Japanese vandal who target my edits for anything anti Japan. The reverts you do wasn't because it was breaching the neutral POV. It is because it conflict with your view in the world.

You also edit articles relating to China vs USA and Japan and edit articles of China dealing with Hong Kong, Taiwan etc in the Chinese Wiki on his other account. All the articles he reverted on me was barely or never about China government with focus on the Asian people and its history (all before the CCP) like Filipino Chinese, Peranakan, Battle of West Hunan, Jambi Sultanate, Persecution of Muslims, Japanese migration to Indonesia, China Marines, Alawites etc.

@LilAhok While you are also a player in this edit mess, I think you are just a victim in the mess (I think you are just a PRC nationalist and putting your own POV in the Japanese war crimes page).

You thought NmW is an anti Japan editor for deleting excerpt that paint Japan in a bad light. However, he just deleting the facts that Japan have instance of incompetence that exist for every nation that happened in history, like poisoning their own men with the ineffective cholera and prostituting their own people. Not because he want to paint Japan as the belligerent aggressor.

You are kind of no better as you try to mix two contradicting sources by original research on the comfort women rape and the rape in Nanking.

For the liver food article, it wasn't just Japanese doing the cannibalising, I also mention other instance of cannibalisim who are not Japanese and especially the Moro who cannibalise the Japanese.

My edits may be a mess but I always try to edit according to the sources. I would never add my own bias into the edits even in my Fandom account (plus I mostly done cleaning and organizing in the Fandom wikis), in short, his accusation back in Jambi Sultanate talk is just straw argument. Whereas the two users who accuse me for inserting my own POV, those two revert my edits because it contradict their narrative. I never had been pro CCP or current China government, in fact I do not like them for reason diggressing the topic.

I also noticed the very pro Japan and west POV by NmW along with another user Rastinition pushing in Japan related articles and especially Japanese war crimes. These users delete all Japanese war crimes against non Chinese people and like people in Quora, are hired to propagate their own view and disguise themselves as neutral. While in Quora are pro China, in Wikipedia, I believe some users are pro Japan and USA due to a Cold War between China and USA & Japan. Yaujj13 (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Most of my contribution to English Wikipedia is anti-vandalism. I was attracted to Yaujj13's edits on Peranakans by multiple CS1 errors and tried to solve them here before I realized his editing behavior is actually systematical POV pushing starting from 30 March 2023 and the contravention of his claim on user page: I will not edit any Wikipedia pages unless there are minor error. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I also like to add my further suspicion on users like NmW and Rastinition. Like knowing how to fix template errors or editing for their POV. It might not be suspicious for an average user but the user I accused started doing those when their account are brand new along with the fact they are using bots or script to remove content farms and fix template errors. While it can be excused by saying they read the Wikipedia rules, but that implicated them in planning their editing before starting their account. A new users would not immediately do editing that only experienced editor would know. I believe that NmW account is only a single purpose for the China Japan Western political topics and using template fixing as a disguise for his malicious actions.

Also these type of users have been removing kknews.cc sources

Rastinition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PL-12&diff=prev&oldid=1062345056 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T-34_variants&diff=prev&oldid=1054956976 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aerial_engagements_of_the_Second_Sino-Japanese_War&diff=prev&oldid=1055041072 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jin_Ying&diff=prev&oldid=1054956666 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kunming_Changshui_International_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=1054956582 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donegi_Abena&diff=prev&oldid=1054955633 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wang_Wenfeng&diff=prev&oldid=1054412851

EpJjgOa8rVvvsRmZL:

https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E9%98%BF%E5%AF%AC&diff=prev&oldid=77138842 https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%B4%85%E9%B8%9E&diff=prev&oldid=77138839 https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%A5%AD%E5%A4%A9&diff=prev&oldid=77138837 https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%BA%AB%E6%9F%94%E7%9A%84%E5%AD%90%E5%BD%88&diff=prev&oldid=77138835 https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%9D%8E%E5%AE%97%E5%90%BE&diff=prev&oldid=77138833 Yaujj13 (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read this entire dispute, but from what I have seen, I agree with Yaujj13 that users here are assuming some bad faith of each other that doesn't exist. I saw one of the most problematic things Yaujj13 did was something over 4 months old. I think users here are just very testy about their policing of articles related to WW2 era Japan. Maybe you all should back up a bit, take a break, and make sure to utilize the talk page when there's a problem, instead of telling each other to use the talk page and then not doing it yourselves. We want to work together, not again each other. Otherwise, we're creating personal frustrations for each other that aren't even going to matter in the long run. This is Wikipedia. It's all subject to change long after you lose interest. Also, Yaujj, you are free to edit your personal talk page as you like, but it's not against the rules for a non-moderator to add a notice about an edit war (although discouraged if the user adding the notice is involved in the edit war) or to give you notice of an ANI. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I also want to add that LilAhok seems prone to seeking and threatening "litigation" and using aggressive language that 1. makes users not want to deal with them 2. foments conflict. They've also characterized Yaujj13's two replies here as "arguing with users in the administrative board" as a defense for their own aggressive and non-consensus-driven policing of the Japanese War Crimes article. Yaujj13 has a right to defend themself, and responding to an ANI doesn't mean that they are in the wrong. Now I want to amend my opinion that, although still at cursory inspection, it looks to me like users who are proficient in metagaming Wikipedia are trying to force out someone they marginally disagree with to not have to deal with them. I don't know for sure, I just got involved because I wanted help finding a reliable and meaningful source for the upper limit on Japanese war crime casualties -- but it looks like the WW2 eastern theatre portal has a few serious community issues. And one last thing, I've gone through LilAhok's profile and I feel pretty confident that, as Oblivy said of the user with the random letters for a name, they seem to be following a pro-Chinese slant. For example, last year they deleted someone's comment for claiming that an article of clothing was Korean in origin, not Chinese, and that the article was heavily biased by Chinese sources. Reading Yaujj13's comment from the start, they seem to also be saying that they themselves are implicitly also pro-Chinese. I don't fully understand what's happening here, but it seems like it'll be difficult for all these users to stop letting their biases run rampantly into ill-considered action. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I also want to add that IronMaidenRocks is engaging in WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. User engaged in direct rudeness by making ill-considered accusations of dishonesty, being rude, and now, through this dispute page, engaging in personal attacks WP:NPA. Also, user is quoting me out of context to give the impression I said or did something I didn't say nor do.

User created a subheader under a talk page of an article titled Edit War [89] and made weird, groundless accusations against me, after I reverted one of the user's edits. I reverted it once and stopped. rationale is in the link. [90]

(if there is proof of my misconduct, feel free to share it.)

user accused me of the following:

1. "LilAhok is approaching edit war with myself and several other editors in the history." [91]

I decided to ignore this, as there is no evidence for this. I was not in an edit with IronMaidenRocks or with "several other editors." It was not even close to approaching an edit war.

2. "For me, I'm just trying to get them to explain the context of the extraordinary claim mentioned in the above section of discussion (death toll related to japanese war crimes), but they've so far refused to do so or to enter the talk page. Instead, these users are fighting in the edit summaries."[92]

this one confused me because not all of my edits were related to the death toll. editors aren't limited to edits about the death toll in the article. I provided rationale for my edits about something unrelated to IronMaidenRocks and encouraged users to take disagreements to talk page. [93][94][95]

3. roughly three days later, user used weasel words to accuse me of using a sock puppet to revert one of user's edits, and posted the compliant on the article's talk page.[96]

I did not do this. it was after this allegation that I defended myself (sock puppetry is a bannable offence) and told the user to take disputes with me to the appropriate forums, and to follow wikipedia guidelines by avoiding uncivil behavior.[97] it was only then did user decide to take their grievances with me here.

Posting accusations on the article's talk page was unnecessary and overly aggressive. All of user's grievances against me could've been avoided if user reverted the edit, told me to take it to the talk page in the edit summary, and moved on. Instead, user began uncivil conduct by posting unfounded accusations against me on article's talk page.

In fact, I had an interaction with a user who reverted one of my edits, and politely told me to take a look at the talk page.[98] [99] I read the talk page of that article and moved on. LilAhok (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps User:LilAhok, who has requested that I not use the "you" pronoun in refering to them, was confused by my language. From looking at the logs, they had reverted Yaujj13's edit 4 times in 2 days, which seemed to be "approaching" edit war, which seemed to be spilling out into other edits. I had been reverted 4 times on the page in the last month for editing with consensus. LilAhok in particular reverted me even after I asked in my edit summary for users to engage me on the talk page. Instead, they ignored 2/3rds of my comment's reasoning and totally ignored the request to engage on the talk page, and violated a 6/1 consensus. The user deleted part of the talk page discussion, which I restored per WP:Talk. I also never accused the user of creating a sock puppet account, I asked that if they had made a recent edit reinforcing their previous edit while logged out to please not do so. In any case, I'm ready to move passed this, but I was not happy with my first few days of engaging with User:Ahok and I am not confident in their accusations of Yaujj13. I feel like we need to understand that all users have their biases, some more than others, and that's a reason for behavioral adjustment and not a ban. I also ask that User:LilAhok not wikilawyer me with policies that, by and by, are not rules but policy guidelines which we should kindly help each other follow, and not use as a method of 'throwing the book at someone' or to suppress directly addressing user concerns. I have done no similar nitpicking with them, my concerns have been general; I expect similar consideration. I also request User:LilAhok refamiliarize themselves with talk page rules not related to behavioral concerns and recommit to allowing users to freely express themselves within reason, without significant (or exclusively) tone policing or discussion deletion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

References

New RGW Ukrainian 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.

---

Belcher.Jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One more user who, while trying to convince us to write that Kazimir Malevich was Ukrainian artist, starts teaching me Wikipedia policies: "You have a political bias and a clear conflict of interest. therefore, discussing this topic with you is not interesting to me and is contradictory from the point of view of Wikipedia's rules" [100]. ALL edits of this user are on the same page, Talk:Kazimir Malevich, and all but one are at the bottom on the page. Could somebody please have a look whether the continued participation of this user in the English Wikipedia is beneficial for the project. Thank you. (For the record, I am now less active in Wikipedia user space, and I spend more time on purely technical work and on articles, but I still get attacked like this almost daily, which is tbh tiring). Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Expressing one's viewpoint on a talk page is not a violation of any Wikipedia rules that I know of. Having an unpopular viewpoint, and even saying things that are objectively wrong are not violations of any rules I know of. Have they edit warred in the article space? Have they personally attacked other users? If not, let them be. If they have, please provide diffs as evidence. --Jayron32 12:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Casting aspersions that I am biased (and have COI) because my mothertongue is Russian is a violation though. Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

They sound very combatative. Secretlondon (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I have looked at the matter in a little more depth. Using someones race, ethnicity, language, or other personal traits as an insult or means to discount their contributions is a clear personal attack. That being said, Ymblanter, before they did so, you obliquely referred to people with his POV as "Ukrainian trolls", painting your interlocutor with that brush before he ever called out your Russian language heritage. If they are casting aspersions, perhaps they thought it was normal to do so because they learned it from you. I'm just saying, pots should not make commentary on the color of kettles... --Jayron32 12:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

For the record, they started with a personal attack (referring to me as a "Russian administrator", in a clearly negative context). I agree though the "Ukrainian trolls" was too much, even though most of these users were blocked as socks or just as trolls. Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do think that the nationalist rhetoric can be tuned way the f down on that article talk page. Honestly, if I had my druthers, we'd make a new Wikipedia rule that nationality adjectives were eliminated from Wikipedia entirely; it would stop all this stupid shit right away. But that's probably not realistic. In the meantime, I think that this discussion should serve as a formal warning towards Belcher.Jr is warranted here, (and a mild trouting to Ymblanter for a milder example of same) and if Belcher.Jr continues to use nationality/ethnicity/language/etc. of others as a weapon in discussions, a WP:NPA block would be in order. --Jayron32 12:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I would certainly support such policy on nationalistic rhetoric if ever proposed. Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed -- to an extent. It's not okay to refer to your other editor as a "Russian bot" in the collaborative discourse that goes into making an article. However, a blanket rule would be problematic much in the same way that making something like WP:NOCONFED or WP:NORACISTS a policy would be, which is that it's partially redundant but could also be abused to "win" an argument against an editor you don't like. Most of the time, if an editor is continually misbehaving in such a manner in a way that is evidently uncivil, it's generally a WP:NOTHERE matter. But you both already know this, I'm sure! Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I only asserted a conflict of interest and did not assess it subjectively in any way. Although really sometimes too sharp. However, he offended me, pay attention to that Belcher.Jr (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Or, better to say, you casted a COI aspersion, because it is pretty clear that WP:COI does not describe anything related to my activities on Wikipedia (with a couple of exceptions where I declared COI and which are unrelated to Malevich). Ymblanter (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This is my assumption to which I have the right. I did not accuse or insult, unlike you. Belcher.Jr (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Right. These "assumptions" are exactly the reason I believe your account should not be allowed to edit here. Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, you continue to provoke me. You wrote a complaint against me and expressed your opinion, I did not comment on you. You immediately came to my position on the situation and continue to prove something. You have very destructive behavior as an administrator. Belcher.Jr (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Your combative tone is really not helping your case here. NM 14:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked Belcher.Jr as NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 10 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.

User:Sunilroy24, IP address and problematic 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.

---

We have Sunilroy24 and what would have to say is an associated IP address undertaking problematic editing that looks to be paid editing, though could just be excessive conflict of interest. The editor's commentary at User talk:Sunilroy24 seems to indicate that they are part of a nest of domains and editors. The user is blocked as we simply don't need that level of engagement when reasonable means of resolution are attempted.

I have blacklisted the domain thebengalichronicles.com as part of the prevention process. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:25, 10 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.

Editors behavior at Potter's House Christian Fellowship

Editors involved:

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

Long story short: A content dispute over including a short summary of prominent controversies in the lead of article (diff). Brief edit war. Discussion opened on talk page (diff). I questioned user's status as a potential WP:SPA + potential WP:COI since roughly 84% of their mainspace edits have been to this one article (diff). Another editor, JohnnyBflat, questioned if the user had a WP:COI, the user said they were indeed a member of the church, and they were editing the article as a subject matter expert (diff). Now the user is casting aspersions about my sexual orientation (LGBTQ bias) (diff) + (diff). I don't appreciate these unfounded allegations about my sexual orientation in relation to my editing at this article/talk page and am asking for administrator intervention. I am assuming their quotes in the aforementioned diff is from this article (from 2023), which is an in-depth analysis of the organization. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Truth be told, none of my comments have been "casting aspersions" or formed "unfounded allegations". Isaidnoway has clearly self-identified their orientations on their user homepage.

User JohnnyBflat represents 5.42% of the total edits made to the page in question and most of his edits are adding negative allegations or reverting other's edits. Requests for clarrification of his potential COI and bias have gone unanswered to date.

I strive for a better quality Wikipedia and follow the spirit and letter of all rules and guidelines. Wcwarren (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence in the form of diffs that demonstrate a LGBTQ bias in my editing in relation to the article in question or the article's talk page. And you have not provided any evidence that shows my research from reliable sources into this organization would certainly latch on to claims that "Same-sex relationships are classed as “sexual sin” and “perverted behaviour”; nor have you provided any evidence to support this assertion about me — an organisation you in principle oppose, or this assertion about me — your perspective on these issues is strongly contrasted with the conservative Christian values portrayed in the media for the Potter's House. Do you have any evidence at all to support your unfounded claims that I have a LGBTQ bias, or that I latched onto specific claims about this organization, or that I oppose in principle this organization, or about my perspective on these issues?

Making an ad hominem attack on an editor's sexual orientation as a means of dismissing or trying to discredit their arguments in a discussion is forbidden. Not a single editor in that discussion related to the disputed content has brought up the subject of the organization's stance on homosexuality, nor is it relevant to that discussion, and it is not relevant to me. Furthermore, those type of comments you made can have a chilling effect on an LGBT editor's ability to participate in discussions and/or edit articles that you deem are out of scope for LGBT editors, see this diff, where you asked — Why be here at all?— Isaidnoway (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The last week of discussion at Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship casts Wcwarren's behavior in a very poor light -- I see what looks like a lot of personalization, failures of WP:AGF, and obvious WP:RGW/POV-pushing activity. That's been accompanied by repeated edit-warring on the article itself. --JBL (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Wcwarren failed to assume good faith with me straight out of the starting block on my talk page at User talk:Willondon#Potters House Edits. Further battleground mentality led me to post two cautions on their talk page regarding rearranging the order of the article's talk page discussion to their liking (User talk:Wcwarren#Please stop rearranging talk page sections). After reaching what I feel is consensus achieved on the talk page, I restored the status quo, and they immediately reasserted their edit [101], with the edit summary "This issue is far from resolved and the edit should not have been reversed". They seem to interpret WP:BRD as meaning their edit cannot be reverted without discussion (which was initiated on the talk page by another editor), and that "consensus" means lengthy debate until everybody agrees that they are correct. I still have not received an answer as to whether their initial post on my talk page [102] was a mistake or not. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment:This isn’t the first time Wcwarren has used homophobia and racism. He removed reliably sourced information from Rick Ross on the basis that he was Jewish and a homosexual and therefore unreliable [103] [104] and called Ross’ material “Christian hate speech and propaganda” [105]. He also failed to assume good faith with me on my talk page simultaneously with Willondon [106]. When I tried to engage in discussion with him, he accused me of being “oppositional to this organisation and its correct representation on Wiki” and not making correct and useful changes [107]. He noted that I had acknowledged something in a discussion I lodged, then immediately stated no discussion had been made [108]. He has accused others of creating a hostile environment, when all editors appear to get along fine, with the exception of wcwarren [109]. He has accused me of deleting reliably sourced information that he has provided, yet will not show what the RS’s are [110]. He is attempting to remove criticisms of the organisation from the lead and hand-waving them away as insignificant [111] [112] [113] while at the same time claiming the organisation does “tremendous good” without providing RS to support his claims [114]. Historically, he has edited disruptively on this page [115] and others [116] [117]. He has deleted reliably sourced information that criticised the organisation [118] [119] [120] [121] [122], added personal opinion [123] [124], and attacked editors who opposed him [125] [126] [127] [128].𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 ^{𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮} 03:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Has this account done anything in the past 12 years other than promote this organization? Shocked they made it this far. Blocked indefinitely—part for tendentious editing, part because hate is disruptive. Editors are welcome to have whatever personal views they have, including homophobia, but once they start accusing others of things based on their sexual orientation, that creates an unhealthy environment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, those comments about Rick Ross explains a lot. I wondered why he brought up my sexual orientation all of a sudden, when none of us hadn't mentioned the churches stance on homosexuality, and the disputed content in the lead didn't mention it either. Those comments are over a decade old, but some things just never change. Now I get it, he did the same thing to me he did to Ross, trying to discredit me and my editing because I'm gay. Thanks for digging those comments up. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No problems. I'm very sorry that you had to go through that. Have a great rest of the day. :) 𝄞: JohnnyB𝄬 ^{𝅘𝅥𝅮 Sing with me𝅘𝅥𝅮} 04:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination

Hello,

I request from the administrators to block the account Queenofboston because according to my analysis and an RCU, this user violated Wikipedia policies and has been requested to delete their content by other users. However, action on this user is not done yet. Kindly check and take action on this user.

• Requested for:Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Polish journalist
• Reason:This user's account falls multiple times under the nomination of speedy deletion.
• Reference link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Queenofboston#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Category:Polish_journalist

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas098 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nicolas098: That looks like a boring, procedural speedy deletion nomination, which was actioned by Liz in June. Speedy deletion nominations do not necessarily mean a user did anything wrong. I've had one or two pages speedy-deleted over the years, for similar boring and procedural reasons. What user conduct policy do you feel has been violated? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Nicolas098, creating "Category: Polish journalist" does not look like any sort of major offense to me. Can you please clarify? You are obligated to notify the other editor of this discussion. Since you have not done so, I have informed them myself. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

While I'm in the neighborhood, Checkuser needed ( Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention) for:

• filer Nicolas098 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• vs. Shanghaisun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

See Special:PageHistory/Abu Dhabi Secrets and obvious article-type overlaps in contribs. Guessing neither is the first account, but I'm rusty on the Gulf state sockfarms. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Inconclusive. There is no IP overlap, but they are bouncing around on a ton of IPs, many of which are Spur-flagged (i.e. they could be proxies). Mz7 (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe my account respects all Wikipedia policies. I take time to read and implement policies, especially if flagged to me. The user who suggested a speedy deletion did not indicate which policy my account would have infringed. Proposing pages or categories for speedy deletion is not an offense. I have proposed page(s) for speedy deletion myself. I made over 800 edits and explain every edit in the comment. I take time to improve pages if they lack citations or need updates. I believe I am a valuable contributor to Wikipedia and I act in full respect of Wikipedia policies. Queenofboston (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• So, I was a bit confused by Nicolas098's motive here, until I found [129] and [130], which explained why they would target Queenofboston. There is a history of stealth paid editing by Gulf states, including Qatar, and Nicolas and Shanghaisun's behavior is consistent with that. I've blocked both for UPE. If another admin or SPI clerk recognizes the farm, feel free to tag. Something should probably also be done about Abu Dhabi Secrets and Ahmad Al-Sayed. They were essentially created in violation of a block (any of many against various Qatar state actors), but don't meet the letter of CSD G5 unless a master is identified. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Zionism, race and genetics

At Zionism, race and genetics, discussion seems to have bogged down to the point that administrative assistance and advice is now necessary as to how to proceed.

The article was created by Onceinawhile on 8 July. It was immediately tagged for NPOV issues by Tombah (permabanned a week later from I/P articles) and. Drsmoo added a synth, followed by another factual accuracy tag two days later, and finally as an attack article and one that claimed it was essay-like. On 11 July jps proposed the article be deleted. After a week, this was closed as ‘no consensus’. Within a day, QuickQuokka opened a second AfD, which was immediately closed by Rosguill as a ‘blatantly disruptive’ re-nomination.

To address these issues, after the 18 bulleted objections raised by Drsmoo on 11 July had been answered (drsmoo admitted it had been significantly improved on 15 July), I asked the page permission to thoroughly rewrite, and expand the(in my view) stub, in order to make it conform to the strongest criteria for a wp article. Permission was conceded. Both I and the originator, Onceinawhile, have a record of writing GA/FA articles up from articles that had a long history of edit-warring and claims of POV-pushing. The title, which appears to upset many, remained as it was. It is based on an article written by the foremost Israeli historian of genetics, a geneticist himself, the late Raphael Falk Zionism, race and eugenics 2006 137–162

All tags were removed, as the rewrite progressed, save one regarding NPOV. On 7 August, the review had been completed. Onceinawhile removed the last remaining tag, and was immediately reverted by Drsmoo for what he called a tendentious removal. Selfstudier in turn reverted Drsmoo, removing the tag on the basis there was no longer any evidence of NPOV problems. Later Bobfrombrockley restored the tag, claiming that the talk page shows that several editors dispute the neutrality of the article. To avoid further edit-warring, both Drsmoo and Bobfrom Brockley were asked to list with bulleted examples the issues regarding NPOV which they still consider outstanding, individually here and . here. Drsmoo also made a threat of AE action unless the tags remained, twice accused (see also here) Onceinawhile of a WP:COI problem, an insidiously obscure allusion to private interests motivating the former’s work, and asserted editors were engaged in bludgeoning behaviour for insisting (in the context of that thread) that remaining issues be listed so that the article might be finished. .

Though I personally consider much of this a serious case of stonewalling and much of the thread negotiations an example of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, I am not interested in sanctions here. I simply ask that the two editors, Drsmoo and BobfromBrockley, who insist on the tag remaining, do editors the courtesy of providing a bulleted list of issues regarding NPOV they consider unaddressed, even after a month's intensive reworking to fix such issues. The talk page is stalled on this, no requests are answered, and administrative guidance is the only remaining option. Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Is there a reason you linked to me for this discussion? I'm not sure there is much I can add. I still think that the article title and proposed scope is problematic and stand by my evaluation that AfD was an appropriate response to an article that should have been (and, in my quick glance judgement right now, still should be) workshopped in draft space. While I am a little disappointed that more hasn't been done to address that concern, this does not seem to be the focus of this complaint. jps (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No. I mentioned you en passant to help admins with an overview of how this issue came about, mentioning key points. I'm only interested in resolving the impasse as it exists now.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Right off the bat, no I did not make an “insidiously obscure allusion to private interests”. I called out Onceinawhile for removing a tag from an article he created, and cited the relevant essay that said those with conflicts of interest should not remove tags. As he created the article, I considered him to have a conflict of interest. This was clarified for Nishidani on the article’s talk page, and was also clarified to not be an issue by an admin on my talk page. That Nishidani persists in calling my edit “insidious”, imo, is highly unacceptable and should be sanctioned. Incidentally, my restoration of the tag was reverted by a different editor within seconds (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169175788) Which I consider highly questionable and indicative of the pointy sticks environment in this talk page.

Another recent example where Nishidani has personally attacked editors who disagree with him on the talk page is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169058818, where Nishidani writes “It's extremnely embarrassing to have to tutor anyone in the abcs of how to read, write and quote.”

Elsewhere Nishidani has bludgeoned the talk page with constant WP:Forum non sequiturs, (including meta comments on his own comments) which have bloated the talk page and made coalescing information and moving forward on resolving issues almost impossible. For an example from yesterday: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169352168 “ Whoops, there I go again, making a classical allusion that no one will understand. (Wilamowitz once berated Lachmann for treating the Iliad as if it were "ein übles Flickwerk", a 'wretched patchwork'. There's nothing epic about this article, as opposed to the epical length of the talk page discussion. Just a banausic summary of an infra-Jewish controversy the broader public might be interested in.” Drsmoo (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

If you think my work consistently reeks of personal attacks and other varieties of abuse, AE is the place. Here, input is required on a technical problem: the inability of constructive editors to ascertain why the article is an NPOV violation. I won't allow my desire for a solution to be distracted by bickering to personalise this problem.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not all that written there, it is the stonewalling, repeated requests by multiple editors that the supposed neutrality issues be spelled out and a failure to do so. Nor is this just a recent thing, I first raised this behavior on your talk page a month ago here.

When pressed, a couple of days ago, Here your response was You were specifically asked to show how multiple sources indicate that genetic studies on Jews inherit from race science which is just nonsense since no such assertion has been made and As was stated before, there is no subject here is a ridiculous restatement of a failed AfD argument, given the sourcing.

I get that you don't like the article but the need is to translate that dislike into something concrete, either by editing the article or else simply list out the concerns that justify maintaining a POV tag so that they can be dealt with, that's it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• I've been having the mostly unpleasant experience of watching what's going on at the page, and trying to help where I can. There's a lot that I could say here, but I'll focus on the issue of resolving what Nishidani expresses concern about. I think that, especially in light of how fraught the topic area is, most of the editors there are actually trying very hard to act in good faith. Most of the conflict is coming from, on the one hand, Drsmoo being heavy-handed in expressing dissatisfaction with the overall thrust of the page, and not really answering questions in a way that other editors can be sure of what his concerns are, and, on the other hand, Nishidani taking everything personally and responding to any criticism of the page with personalized criticisms of the critic, and objections to any effort by other good-faith editors to brainstorm about things like renaming the page. At the same time, it's Nishidani who is doing most of the work in actually improving the page itself.

Nishidani asked recently, and quite reasonably, to have some time to work on fixing up the page, and it's been coming along nicely. I'm not sure, but it looks to me like the revisions are still ongoing. It seems to me to be reasonable to allow that editing to play out, with a healthy respect for WP:There is no deadline, before making decisions about things like a possible page rename. That being the case, I think that should be a two-way street. If it's too soon to evaluate a page move, then it's too soon to demand that the POV tag be removed from the page. (On the other hand, if it's time to remove the tag, then it's time to start a rename discussion. But I don't think that's where we are, right now.) Let the tag stay for a while longer. As a Contentious Topic where there's 1RR, take anyone who edit wars over the tag to AE. And at some point, Nishidani needs to say that the revisions are mostly done, and then allow other editors to evaluate where things are at without getting all WP:OWN about it. In the mean time, if Drsmoo or anyone else can articulate unaddressed concerns over POV, then editors should try to address them, and if no one understands what the concerns currently are, then just don't act on them now and don't argue about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't take things personally. I took a personal responsibility before all other editors to fix the page by a comprehensive rewrite. I announced my rewrite and review would end by Saturday 6th.August, four days ago. I keep tweaking, but the article is done. Save for the continuing insistence that a POV problem remains. That is why I think those who consider this is the case, should allow me and other editors to sight the putative issues, and fix them. These requests have been met with a refusal to collaborate. The tag must remain, who knows how long, regardless. Ergo this. The 'topic area is not fraught'. It hasn't been for some years, and this is not strictly I/P but an article surveying an infra-Jewish/Israeli debate, using overwhelmingly sources from that world. I don't own the article. Wikipedia does.Nishidani (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

When you choose to open an ANI thread, you also open yourself up to editors looking at your conduct. I sincerely do appreciate the content work that you are doing on that page. I'll say to uninvolved editors reading here, that this response is very typical of the responses that I see on the article talk page: it's everyone else's fault. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

'It's everyone else's fault'. Diffs please.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

[131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm flummoxed. I can't see any evidence there that I think everyone else is at fault, that I have a blame mentality. Perhaps arbs can. I leave it to them. You did mention Drsmoo 'being heavy-handed in expressing dissatisfaction with the overall thrust of the page'. Perhaps you could, as a reflection of neutrality, illustrate what you consider to be examples of that with an equivalent set of diffs.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless Nishidani thinks that I'm unfairly criticizing Drsmoo, which I doubt because Nishidani started this thread in part to object to Drsmoo's conduct, I'm not going to do an in-depth diff hunt, but I will show these two diffs to illustrate what I was thinking of in the specific context of heavy-handedness: [143], [144]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Those are not examples of heavyhandedness. They are legitimate edits by Drsmoo to the article, which others disagreed with. This is absolutely normal, and any disagreements arising from them are sorted out by discussion on the talk page. Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Well it's an awful article. What are these Zionists that they talk of? Introductory stuff seems to start half way down. There probably is need for an article on race and genetics in Israeli identity, or something. This is a long way from anything decent though. Secretlondon (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: whilst harsh, your comment feels fresh and constructive. Is your main point that it is written in a technical way with a lot of assumed knowledge? If so, that is probably because - given the sensitivity here around such a topic - we have tried to keep very close to how the sources talk about it, and most of the sources are academics whose works are mostly read by other academics. We can start the process of making it more user-friendly, perhaps by following the style of something like Tanny, Jarrod (20 May 2013). "What 'Jews a Race' Debate Means for Israel". The Forward., an article by an academic writing for a popular audience, and in this case from a practical and pro-Israel stance. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The page is laid under three impossible conditions, all of which reveal a catch-22 logic.

• (1)The cry went up. 'This is all synth!' So for a gruelling month, every single phrase or sentence was anchored rigorously in wording taken from nearly 90 academic sources that deal with Zionism, race and genetics in various combinations, with source notes for most statements provided to allow the reader ready access to immediate verifiability (WP:V). Result? It's awful(ly) hard to read. Well all technical articles are difficult from DNA, to Particle physics. Wikipedia doesn't dumb down. It provides comprehensive articles even on difficult topics which paraphrase the conversation in the academic world in the simplest terms the topic allows. Many general readers will find them hard-going. The point is, would an academic familiar with the article find faults in it. I was emailed by an Israeli academic and told that it was a 'very impressive' summary of the state of the art. That's just one viewpoint, of course. The catch-22 is, if you write it to cover fully the complexities of a very contentious academic controversy, many readers may find it hard to follow. But if you make it easy to grasp (Tanny's article) you would have to gut the article of 90% of its content, and therefore leave the reader with a very superficial impression, and relatively uninformed (the technicalities of the difference in statistical models -Cavilli-Sfroza vs the Israeli school).
• (2)At the end, a tag remained. It can't be removed, we are told, because the article is still being tweaked, and therefore labile - the focus and scope in so far as it is being touched here and there, are not stable. That means every article on wiki should wear a POV tag, because, apart from FAs, article are always under revision for updating and improvements. It also means that the very act of editing further renders it POV. This means improving the article is a barrier to removing the tag. Go figure.
• (3) Since two editors insisted it has POV problems of synth, they were asked to provide concrete examples, so the problems could be addressed. Until they are addressed, the suspicion remains that it has synth problems, ergo the tag. But then the two editors have refused to come forth with the evidence asked of them. So their silence ensures that the 'issues' cannot be fixed. That, again, places wikipedian editors who are striving to fix the article in an impossible position. Ergo this request. We should not be creating extraordinary conditions each creating impossible dilemmas, for what is just an article that gives an overview of a little known but intensely analysed (in academia) infra-Jewish historical controversy. Nishidani (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I object to the accusation of stonewalling against me. I see this is defined as repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution. "The community" does not clearly disagree with the viewpoint that the article is not neutral; three or four very active editors clearly disagree (while around 9, mostly less active, editors agree). It is true that I took hours to reply to the personal request to me Nishidani mentioned to me; I was not online, rather than stonewalling. I think the editors who have authored most of the article and are therefore understandably highly invested in it need to step back a bit from flooding the talk page, and actually listen to the concerns raised, namely that the article is not framed as a Wikipedia article but as an original essay with a thesis. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The concerns raised are essentially the same as those raised at the AfD, synth, blah blah. If it were an original essay with a thesis (polite way of saying synth/OR) it would have been deleted at AfD. The AfD did not yield the desired outcome, either get over it or file another AfD if that is what y'all actually believe. Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the AfD closed with no consensus, not with a consensus to keep. If the concerns raised are indeed essentially the same as those raised at the AfD, then those concerns have not been put to bed by a no consensus close. Roughly half the participants made points you're deriding as "blah, blah". (I myself didn't come out definitively for delete, as I remain hopeful there could be a viable version of the article, but in its current form I believe it is an original essay with a thesis, i.e. not NPOV.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the courtesy of replying, Bob. Essentially you are saying the entire article is flawed, therefore you are under no obligation to point out problems, because the article itself is the problem. Had you said that earlier, I wouldn't have listed you here. Could you at least tell me and others what the 'thesis' is? Because if there is a thesis, - as opposed to my aim to sum up the history and various positions within it of the concept of race as they are studied by, mainly Israeli and diaspora scholarship on the intertwined issues of 'Zionism, race and genetics' - and if I am driven by one, I am utterly unaware of it, and it must have slipped under my guard, i.e. the kind of self-monitoring one uses in writing on wikipedia to avoid pushing a POV. Thank you in anticipation. Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A list of issues has emerged. Bonne chance to progress! Iskandar323 (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Gorrrillla5 repeatedly violating WP:SD40

Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly violated WP:SD40 since mid June ([145], [146], [147], [148], [149]). I might think that they weren't seeing the multiple messages I've left for them at their Talk page, but they've blanked their Talk page since I've left notices for them without otherwise interacting with my (or any other editor's) notifications[150], and recently blanked their page after I left them a final warning.[151]

While I acknowledge that it can be argued whether violating SD40 is a "big deal", simply disregarding multiple requests to adhere to it without any engagement on the matter doesn't seem especially appropriate. As such, I'm forced to ask that this user be blocked until they exhibit awareness that their behavior of not engaging with notifications while repeatedly engaging in the behavior that prompted the notifications is disruptive. Thank you for your time. DonIago (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Doniago (talk · contribs) talk page, I have been doing these types of edits for a very long while and I've never had any complaints before and have even been thanked for a couple of the edits. So I didn't really read these recent complaints as I didn't even realise what the problem was or how it was considered disruptive as it's the same thing I had been doing since the function to edit article descriptions was introduced. I will add that I NEVER make any contribution without a reliable source and only really add minor information, fix grammatical errors and add dates, I realise that these edits have only been deemed as "disruptive" only recently and so I won't do it anymore and I apologise that it had to come to this in the first place. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 04:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Gorrrillla5, can you please explain the connection between short descriptions and things like reliable sources, grammatical errors and dates? Do you understand the function of short descriptions? Cullen328 (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I was just mentioning my general editing contributions, and I thought the changes I was making to article descriptions was not disruptive at the time. In my understanding article descriptions are meant to be a very brief summary of the article's contents, I have seen many lengthy descriptions on various articles that in comparison mine are just adding very minor information, so I didn't really see what I was doing wrong. However I reiterate that I won't do it again, and again I apologise that it has come to this situation. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 06:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Gorrrillla5, please fix the typo in your signature that means your talk page is not accessible. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 17:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed it now. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 10:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gorrrillla5: Just to be clear, the content issue is not a big deal at all, we don't punish good faith mistakes. However, communication is required, and those warnings are designed to escalate to a block if they are ignored. Also in general, users who appear unable or unwilling to engage in communication are blocked indefinitely even if they have not received warnings. I see you haven't been particularly talkative during your time here, but any time there is an issue, you need to communicate to resolve it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Swarm (talk · contribs) I completely understand and I'll communicate properly from now on, I wont let any situation come to this anymore. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other parties in this chat, but as you seem to have indicated that you'll be more mindful of SD40 (and there is room to debate it if you feel strongly that your edit is an improvement; it's not a bright-line rule) and that you'll be more communicative when editors express concerns to you, I think that sufficiently addresses my concerns. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I honestly promise that I will be properly communicative from now on, I didn't mean for any misunderstanding or to cause any problems. I'm genuinely glad that this situation has been sorted, thank you very much. Gorrrillla5 (talk · contribs) 02:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Euglenos sandara WP:HATEDISRUPT, 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.

---

Courtesy links:

• Euglenos sandara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Euglenos sandara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed this user's user page contained blatantly WP:POLEMIC, racist and genocide denialist content and the user appeared not to be around (last edits were on ltwiki 3 or so months ago AFAIK) I took it to MfD. This user than commented on their talk page calling the MfD participants "likeminded justice warriors" and stating that the MfD was made "purely on personal beliefs" [152]. They also posted more genocide denialist and racist soapboxing and accusing me of "tyranny" and "majority privilege" here [153]. Based on these comments I believe that a WP:NOTHERE indef block for hateful, racist, genocide denialist and disruptive editing may be necessary here. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 02:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE, and even if they were, their virulently and vocally racist perspectives would prevent them from competently engaging for any productive work anywhere on this project. There are maybe forty things on that page that would qualify them for action at ANI, but here is a highlight: "I believe miscegenation should be prevented by federal law." SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:00, 12 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.

User:Sorry20 adding unsupported categories of descent to BLPs

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.

---

Sorry20 (talk · contribs)

Sorry20 caught my attention when I noticed some category edits on my watchlist. I checked their contributions: they've been adding unsourced and unsupported "of X descent" categories to multiple BLPs. Samples: Amber Heard, Stephen Root, Jeremy Renner, Billy Corgan, Tom Hanks.

They'd been warned previously in Sep 22, Oct 22, and twice in July 23, and I gave two more warnings (including a final) this month. Their responses on their talk have been "sorry" and "sorry again". After the final warning on 3 Aug, they made the same type of edit today to Victoria Moroles. Schazjmd (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Sorry20 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry too, but I have blocked Sorry20 for two weeks and advised the editor to improve their understanding of how categorization works. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 12 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.

User:Bgsu98 and the mass removal of information

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'm reporting User:Bgsu98 as I have serious concerns as to this account's mass removal of information, and masking clear vandalism as WP:MOS, or WP:FANCRUFT. This user consistently deletes reliably sourced information from all the Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) pages and claims it's per "Manual of Style" but I have read WP:MOS and nowhere does it say these tables should have random symbols placed next to scores, and the removal of average tables that contribute to the shows in question.

I believe this user is a vandal, and suggest an administrator keeps an eye on them as they're now doing the same to Dancing on Ice and Strictly Come Dancing. Removing information and adding tags but not adding references to support information.

thank you. 2A00:23EE:12D8:1ACD:A96C:1785:B94B:55CA (talk) 21:47, 11 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.

Promotional 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.

---

Hello,

I am new to adding to your website.

I am puzzled at the issues are with….

• The additions I made to the Girona Spain Article concerned the legend of kissing the lion. Please feel free to look at the numerous sites which refer to this subject.

• I also added one museum in Tarragona Spain to visit. Again, just like Girona mentioned in several travel websites, and even travel shows. I found the addition totally appropriate based upon the first entry from the Tarragona Article. Especially so since the article names privately held (for profit) restaurants in the second example.

1. Tarragona is one of the World Heritage Journeys in the European Union.[24] Tourism is focused on the key sites of Mercat Central de Tarragona (Central Market of Tarragona), La Rambla Nova (the main shopping street), El Serrallo fishing village, the surrounding beaches of the golden coast, the key plazas (Plaça de la Font, Plaça del Fòrum, Plaça del Rei), Balcó del Mediterrani, Praetorium and Roman Circus, Roman Amphitheatre, Model of Roman Tarraco, and the cathedral.[25

2. 2.Tarragona is home to two Michelin Guide recommended restaurants: El Terrat and Barquet.[30] In addition, El Terrat and AQ were awarded one "Sol" each in the 2022 Guía Repsol.[31]

I received this nice message from Joyous: and the other from Tommi. I appreciate Joyouis’ thoughts. Tommi, however, is way off base.

‪Joyous!‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪August 2023‬". Hello, I'm Joyous!. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Girona, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelABlank1 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Your edits, MichaelABlank1, are unsourced and promotional. They've been properly reverted, and I've requested your account be blocked. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Newby welcomed and advice given. Surely I can't be the only person who thought, "El Cul de la Lleona", does that mean what I think it does? - oops, yes it does. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:42, 11 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.

Persistent copyright issues at Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, involving multiple accounts

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.

---

My last report of the evening.

• Thewikizoomer (talk · contribs)
• 106.78.85.130 (talk · contribs)
• 106.78.85.182 (talk · contribs)

Registered account appears to be using the IPs to edit war, so there may be cause for user sanctions, as well as more rev/deletion cleanup. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ayup, seems like it, as they're removing the copyright violation template and re-adding the copyright content. The revisions will need to be updated accordingly, but I'm going to have to refrain from reverting further. Also, I've reported the third IP to AIV but that's getting increasingly moot at this point. Tails Wx (they/them) 05:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 and 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63: You must notify all the involved users, including IPs, because they might not be related. I've done for the two IPs involved here. I've also reverted copyvio template removal and re-additions. The edit summary on this diff Data taken from Gazette of India is not copyrighted and can be used for non commercial pupose (emphasis mine) shows it's not compatible with Wikipedia as it must allow unlimited commercial use. --Stylez995 (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC) (Edit: autocorrect fix --Stylez995 (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC))

Another note that I'd like to add is that one of the IPs listed above is following my edits and reverting a copyright violation tag I placed on a different article here. Tails Wx (they/them) 06:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me and also just disruptive. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thewikizoomer, can you confirm that you have read our policy on copyright violations and that you will take this into consideration for all your edits? Can you also confirm that you have read BRD and would follow this as far as possible? Thank you, Lourdes 13:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I confirm Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Thewikizoomer. I am closing this report here. Please do take care so the situation doesn't escalate to fellow editors coming here to complain. Do not copy-paste Gazette of India material or any other government website material. Happy editing and hope we don't see you here again. Lourdes 14:27, 12 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.

Inappropriate behavior and removal of AfD by User:Cool90630

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:Cool90630 has been on a rapid disruptive and inappropriate rampage recently. They created List of former Foothill Transit Bus Lines, which I then nominated for PROD. They removed the PROD. Ok, fine. However, I received this nasty combination of messages on my talk page, with things like how embarrassing are you, You better to stop trolling my page, and What is wrong with you?. Clearly, they don't assume good faith in other people, as per WP:AGF asks. I then proceeded to nominate the above article for deletion, which they responded to by removing the AfD template from the article. I reverted their edit, because they can't do that. They then proceeded to remove the discussion on my talk page in which I also contributed to (so it's not like they were removing their AGF edits), leaving the edit summary I am done with you. Farewell and join the rest of your life.. I reverted that, of course, and they then proceeded to blank their article. They then again removed content from my talk page without authorization, which I had to revert again.
I think that just for this behavior alone, something should be done administratively. I'm not sure how to warn them as they will most likely just ignore it and delete the message, as they seem to do with discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If by the time you see this message List of former Foothill Transit Bus Lines is no longer an article, it's because I tagged it with {{Db-blanked}} on behalf on Cool90630. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

User: Paul Vaurie

Hello everyone, I already give up as for now tell him don't suspended of my Wikipedia page and I do accept as his own opinions. I am no longer to created the former public transportation that are discontinued anymore. I do understand what he is asked for it. Message to Paul Vaurie, I do apologize for misunderstanding and inappropriate behavior of AFD. Trust me, I won't do anymore to create former public transit on this page as leave of the behalf reasons. Is not too late and don't get me wrong so I am not sure he will accept with my apology or not but I am not tried to be rude on Paul Vaurie. Do not suspended with my Wikipedia page account. Thank you! Cool90630 (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I've merged this into the previous section - we don't need two separate sections. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Well said I have just here to make apologies on Paul Vaurie for wrongdoing. Cool90630 (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cool90630: Creating an article is not inherently wrong-doing, Cool90630. There is nothing wrong with creating an article. However, a non-notable article will be usually taken to AfD and deleted there. What is a problem is that you deleted the AfD template from the page and that you left a disrespectful comment on my talk page. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure totally agreed, you ask for it don't get me wrong and I don't have a time to complain. I have to ask your permission just delete disrespectful comment of your talk page by me then nothing happens ever again. Cool90630 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Paul, are you okay with the apology provided by Cool and if so, might we close this section? You can come back if there is further disruption. Let us know. Thanks, Lourdes 13:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes:, alright, let’s close the section, thanks for the apology Cool90630. No need to go back and delete the talk page message, I’ve already archived it, though. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:37, 12 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.

Persistent WP:BLP violations at Mamoudou Athie and other articles

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.

---

Mostly adding unsourced birthdays, over and over, despite reversions by multiple editors. Looks to be one user, changing IPs over a period of weeks, if not longer. I've also asked for increased page protection and posted to AIV, but blocking one IP won't be sufficient. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Other disrupted WP:BLPs include:
• Fred Tatasciore
• Austin Madison
• Joe Pera
• Leah Lewis
• Robbie Ryan (cinematographer) 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:42, 11 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.

User:Roxane Thais

A new account (<7 days, <20 edits) Roxane Thais moved a draft (Draft:Stefan Ytterborn) past AfC into the main space. I moved it back, because there was no evidence of notability, and subsequently its SPA creator Samwalker22 turned out to be UPE. Now Roxane Thais has done the same with Draft:Markus H.-P. Müller, again non-notable, and again created by a SPA account Drmirror. Something doesn't quite stack up – why does such a new account move drafts to the main space (in both cases with a comment "Article reviewed", as if they're an article reviewer), and how do they even find these drafts? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not quite understand the issue, as well as why the article got declined. I renewed almost all sources to reliable sources and tried to source almost every sentence. There are articles published which have more content but a fraction of the sources. Can you help me or tell me where to get assistance on the issue? Drmirror (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drmirror, if you look at the message at the top of Draft:Markus H.-P. Müller, it has a link to the Articles for Creation Help desk where you can ask for advice. Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Drmirror (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It's concerning that Roxane Thais's only response to DoubleGrazing's polite messages on their talk was "He is notable, he must be on Wikipedia". Schazjmd (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Spj345

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.

---

• Spj345 (talk · contribs)

I have been concerned about this user's edits for some time. Initially I had thought WP:CIR was relevant, but their disruptive editing (including removal of sourced content and introducing factual errors) has persisted after numerous warnings. Some examples: [154] [155] [156] [157].

They have received nine warnings, eight over the last month. In response, Spj345 has claimed to not understand or not remember their edits, or of making mistakes. They have implied their "rights" have been infringed. They claim Wikipedia is full of errors, and they "won't stop". Their combative response to each warning suggests they are not interested in learning from their mistakes.

Spj345 has now taken to making personal attacks ([158] [159] [160] [161]) and vandalising user pages ([162]) in response to receiving warnings.

Unfortunately it seems this user is WP:NOTHERE. — Manticore 11:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

User notified on their talk page. — Manticore 11:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Even as a CIR issue they've received enough warnings that action would be warranted, but with the newfound wave of PAs on top, an indef is the appropriate option. Even pre-PA, their behaviour was not just "not getting it". Variations of blaming the other side for it, or demanding apologies everytime anyone pointed out an issue. Support indef (I'm open to it being specified as not a ban (which I encourage for CIR cases), but the PAs would suggest agains that). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  A CBAN would be bureaucratic overkill for a 199 edit account. I’ve given a standard NOTHERE block given the laundry list of issues. Courcelles (talk) 13:14, 11 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.

Disruptive editing on regional power

Long-term disruptive editor, Collebud88 (check their talk page) keeps listing its own country, Colombia, into the regional power article. Looking at the user's contributions it is clear that they are a single-purpose account with a long history of disruptive editing due to their nationalistic bias. The user has already made three reverts on the page ([163], [164], [165]) and isn't being responsive in the talk page. Collebud88 is also removing sourced content ([166]), behaviour which has occurred in another recent incident ([167], [168]) on the very same article. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 23:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think they should be given an opportunity to respond but I note they have accumulated a lot of messages and outright warnings on their talk over a long period of time, without ever responding to any of them. That's not a good sign. And they have been blocked three times for edit warring. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I already pinged Collebud88 in the talk page of the article before his last revert, the user made a choice to ignore the message. Furthermore, 99,7% of their edits are in main, the user will most certainly not engage in a discussion. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 08:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a tool to fix that. Partially blocked from main space until they engage in discussion. Courcelles (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I think that is a reasonable measure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

User:98.159.142.162

Clearly WP:NOTHERE in any of their edits. GnocchiFan (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

They've not edited since 20:38 UTC last night, so this report is stale. — Trey Maturin™ 13:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks: User talk:98.159.142.162#Block. It is not stale. Look at the recent contributions timeline, where we got disruption on Aug 4, Aug 8, Aug 11, and finally, Aug 12. El_C 13:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a hard time myself imagining how a report of edits less than 24 hours ago could be considered "stale." Ravenswing 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

86.31.225.29

86.31.225.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has a long history of updating sports stats but not updating the date, essentially introducing repeatedly factual errors to BLPs. They have been repeatedly warned, and blocked recently for this, and have come off the block and simply continued. I suggest a longer block. GiantSnowman 12:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 10 days: User talk:86.31.225.29#Block 2. El_C 13:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! GiantSnowman 13:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Keremmaarda

• Night Attack at Târgoviște

Go away. In this Wikipedia, you are powerful if you are a moderator, not knowledgeable. Keep deceiving people

• User talk:Beshogur

Mr. Besogur, I am asking very seriously, do you have a tail pain against Fatih? Why are you pointlessly deleting the resources I gave you? Are you high-headed?

This user constantly attacks me. Beshogur (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week: User talk:Keremmaarda#Block. El_C 13:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

User spamming attack subpages

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.

---

Urgent adming action required Um cant think of username doh (talk · contribs) is mass creating attack pages for users who have reverted his vandalism or csd tagged the attack pages. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:07, 12 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.

What to do about the socks spamming SOCIALDEMÓCRATA DE HONDURAS?

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 latest of many tonight, GOBIERNO SOCIALDEMÓCRATA DE HONDURAS (talk · contribs). 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piermark/Archive It's annoying. Admins have been protecting articles so they keep moving on. Knitsey (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

All of these accounts should also be reported to WP:SRG. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:22, 12 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.

User:Maha Sainik

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.

---

tldr territory... Went through the whole pool though. Lourdes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi everyone, Please refer to User talk:Maha Sainik#August 2023. Maha Sainik has continuously been making personal comments and attacks. He has aruged the complete day about what he thinks should be added. Though he is not ready to read and understand the rules. He has been citing YouTube videos and small regional news agencies to support his claims. There has been a very long discussion on this between him, me and some comments by another user. I would request the fraternity to do what is right. Because even after warning him he made another personal comment and attack. When I said that I am making last comment on this discussion he said - "You couldn't make any valuable contributions anywhere else because I've seen your contribution. Lakhs of people saved today from reading misinformation. Whenever anybody will read this page He'll see one has lost it infront of bright truth and ran away." These are his exact words. He has also made many other personal attacks in the same discussion earlier too. For a moment Even if I am wrong how correct is it to make personal attacks and pass comments like this? This should not be accepted. Shaan SenguptaTalk 17:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Some of his comments are:- Don't put a piece of clothe on your eyes just to show something that you want. Only due to you, Maharashtra is reading wrong information day by day. You have added BJP on your page just to do all these (anti) activities. You also know it in your mind that your ego is stopping you from doing the corrections. Your common sense should have sensed you that whenever one visits a marathi article, the first option he or she sees is that translate it to ENGLISH. Your common sense should sense you that English people can't ever know Maharashtra politics than regional marathi newspapers. You couldn't make any valuable contributions anywhere else because I've seen your contribution. Lakhs of people saved today from reading misinformation. Whenever anybody will read this page He'll see one has lost it infront of bright truth and ran away. Shaan SenguptaTalk 17:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC) After every comment made by him I initially advised him not to make and after repeated connected I warned him too but in no vain. I don't think that just reporting a account for sock investigation makes someone mentally ill. Wikipedia rules say that investigation can be done, it is not wrong. Shaan SenguptaTalk 17:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Hello everyone, I am a genuine user and this guy @Shaan Sengupta is constantly accusing me for being a sockpuppet. He has attacked me personally & mentally by calling me a sockpuppet a lot of times. Please chech my account details & my IP Address. @Shaan Sengupta is constantly sharing false information on Maharashtra legislative assembly page & other related pages . I provided dozens of references for the true information but he don't want the page to be corrected. I request the admins to look in to this and check my details too . Thank you Maha Sainik (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC) @Shaan Sengupta is spreading misinformation on very important Maharashtra government pages . I provided him more than 12 references . @Shaan Sengupta doesn't have a single reference to prove the information he wants to showcase. He attacked me personally by asking about my common sense. His words were. "Don't you have a common sense. Your common sense is so low" .. He has allegedly edited & deleted the words used by him to attack me mentally. I request admins to look into this, @Shaan Sengupta quoted me as a guy with low common sense and it is mentally disturbing for a genuine user like me Maha Sainik (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Wow! Now he has stooped so low just to prove himself innocent that he has started misquoting me and spreading misinformation? What does he think people here are mad? They won't get his manipulating tactics. My exact words are - Please apply some common sense before saying something Have some common sense He says that I have allegedly deleted my comment. Here he has used the word "allegedly" very smartly. I just want to tell you @Maha Sainik that there is a thing called edit history. Please show me where have I written or deleted the words you said. If you show me I shall myself retire from Wikipedia. If not then accept that you are the one spreading misinformation and misquoting. Shaan SenguptaTalk 17:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Yes @Shaan Sengupta I am a sensitive guy & I am mentally disturbed due to @Shaan Sengupta for showcasing that I don't have any common sense. You don't need to get retire, I shall retire from wikipedia If you provide me a single source for the MLAs you are claiming. Dear admins, this guy @Shaan Sengupta is constantly spreading misinformation on very important government pages and whenever some genuine guy tries to correct it, @Shaan Sengupta files sockpuppetry & then he warns the users for reporting them. There must be some regulations for these important pages or people like @Shaan Sengupta will keep spreading the misinformation and will keep pushing back true people having true and genuine information. I request admins to check the activities by him and how he pushes genuine people back smartly Maha Sainik (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Keep making baseless allegations. By the way, just to get the facts right. You are the first one I reported for sock investigation. I never said you don't have common sense. I don't want to change what's already there in the article. It's you who want to change. So you have to provide reliable source not me. Had I wanted to make a change I would have given a reliable source. I just want it to be as it is until a change is supported by established reliable source. My edits have been reviewed and many editors have also thanked me for my edits. This is not a place of dumb people that someone can easily bypass by vandalising. And every reader can see who is trying to push back whom. You just are not able to admit that you can't provide what's needed. Shaan SenguptaTalk 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC) You don't keep making baseless allegations on me as your words are mentally disturbing for a genuine user like me. You showcased that I don't have common sense. I would request admins to look into this. Many people have tried to correct the misinformation on these Maharashtra government pages but @Shaan Sengupta reverts the information . @Shaan Sengupta seems always in a hurry to promote a political party by showcasing their numbers high. Using words like common sense & dumb, disturbs a genuine user personally. I request Admins to stop @Shaan Sengupta from spreading the misinformation on Government pages. Maha Sainik (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This guy is master at misquoting. Shaan SenguptaTalk 18:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Good evening, so I saw this on mobile and basically @Maha Sainik added more than five citations, some which required translation from Marathi which took long because the shortcut to translate somehow broke requiring to go to Google Translate. Otherwise, the user also added a citation on the very top of the lead for some reason, just to state. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 18:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC) @ToadetteEdit Thank you for adding. I have all the references for the correct information but I didn't know how to site them yesterday. I learned to site them today by watching videos still @Shaan Sengupta is reverting my edits without adding any references. He don't have proper references still he wants to showcase the information he want to. @ToadetteEdit I could see the translate to english option on marathi websites thats why I cited them Maha Sainik (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC) I didn't want to get into so deep. Let me clarify how this guy is a habitual/regular offender. He has also engaged in edit war. He first edited Maharashtra Legislative Assembly at 7 Aug 2023. Since then his edits have been reverted by three users. Me @ToadetteEdit and @Chennai Super Kings Lover. In a span of just two days i.e. 7th and 8th we three users reverted his edits nearly 7 Times. Personal attacks, Adding non-established sources, Not following instructions, Misquoting, Making false allegations, spaming same links, and the list goes on..... After all this I am yet not able to understand although I have told this thrice. Why should I add a reference to something that's already there in the article. I am not adding anything new. It's him who want to add/change the content. So he is the one who needs to cite reliable references. Citing any random references doesn't help. Why should I watch a YouTube video. Are YouTube videos reliable source? Shaan SenguptaTalk 18:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC) only this guy @Shaan Sengupta is engaging in edit war as he wants to showcase the wrong information infront of people of our state. He claims to support one political party on his page and shows favourable edits for some political parties. @ToadetteEdit just corrected my citing mistake and I was not engaged in an edit war with @ToadetteEdit . This guy @Shaan Sengupta is lying and @ToadetteEdit can easily see it . Even @Chennai Super Kings Lover and me had a fruitful discussion and in the end He certified my references. Only @Shaan Sengupta is warning me & making mentally disturbing attacks on me just because I have provided a dozen of references against the misinformation spread by him on such an important government page. Maha Sainik (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Stop pinging too much (one ping for each user, each comment is enough). ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 19:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Though we had fruitful conversation but your quote [169]-"It is sad that how some people are showing their propaganda here even after giving proper articles with proofs." is against WP:Civility and also hurt my sentiments. Thank You✨ Chennai Super Kings LoverTalk 00:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC) @Chennai Super Kings Lover Is this comment for me? When you and me were engaged in similar dispute we too solved this in just a day without an issue. You were the only one who was against increasing seat tally for AP. Now the user want to do the same by citing small regional news agencies and YouTube videos which aren't considered reliable and you want me to accept that and do what he says? Putting my personal political will aside I have always done what's right. And he you are accusing me of propaganda. Please explain this what propaganda have I run? And please don't play safe by not naming users. Shaan SenguptaTalk 01:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Not you Mr.Sengupta, I'm talking about Maha Sainik, who used (propoganda) word against me here[170] which is totally uncivilized and against WP:Civility! Chennai Super Kings LoverTalk Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying. This is why I said to take names. Shaan SenguptaTalk 01:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) your comments on their talk page suggest that you believe that you are who dictates how and what edits are made to the page in question. that's not how Wikipedia works. A type of cabinet (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC) @Chennai Super Kings Lover It is not in our one to one conversation. I don't or didn't want to comment it for you. I didn't tagged you so you don't have to worry about it. Maha Sainik (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Sorry to bother, I saw you in recently active admins. Can you please help in resolving this? Bearcat or Pbsouthwood or Lourdes. It would be of great help. Shaan SenguptaTalk 14:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Shaan Sengupta, thank you for the report.

1. Please showcase diffs with clear personal attacks pointed out (Please do remember, the benchmark of PAs on this noticeboard are very high; so point out the diffs only if you feel there has been an egregious personal attack).
2. What prompted you to reject reliable sources such as Loksatta flatly?
3. What is the reason you have avoided discussing article issues on any of the article talk pages? Lourdes 10:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Lourdes, Thanks for this. Let me explain from 3 to 1.

Answer to 3. - There was already a discussion going on under notice of Maha Sainik's talk page so I didn't start a new discussion on article talk page. I never knew that this would come this far.

Answer to 2. - I am somewhat wrong here. The MLA Kiran Lahamate had been jumping ships every couple of days. Though he said that he is with Ajit he continues to sit on opposition bench in Legislative Assembly along with Sharad's faction leaders. The user had already given so many unreliable source and kept on arguing to admit those sources like he still is doing. Got a bit frustrated. I was wrong here and so I decided not to edit that page until this is resolved. Although he still wants his YouTube videos to be considered for changes as can be seen in his reply.

Answer to 1. - I quoted him word to word. But let me give links of the revision where he has made PA's. I would also want you to consider that he has misquoted me a couples of times. He wrote things I never said.

• Misquote & Self-made Harrasment Charges:- Revision as of 17:49, 10 August 2023 Here he says that I told him "Don't you have a common sense. Your common sense is so low". I never did. He goes on to say that I have allegedly edited & deleted the words to attack him mentally. I asked him to prove that I said. And if he does I shall myself retire. He is yet to do so.
• Personal attacks:-

• Revision as of 04:20, 10 August 2023 Only due to you, Maharashtra is reading wrong information day by day.
• Revision as of 16:45, 10 August 2023 You have added BJP on your page just to do all these (anti) activities. You also know it in your mind that your ego is stopping you from doing the corrections.
• Revision as of 17:02, 10 August 2023 Your common sense should have sensed you that whenever one visits a marathi article, the first option he or she sees is that translate it to ENGLISH. Your common sense should sense you that English people can't ever know Maharashtra politics than regional marathi newspapers.
• Revision as of 17:17, 10 August 2023 You couldn't make any valuable contributions anywhere else because I've seen your contribution. Lakhs of people saved today from reading misinformation. Whenever anybody will read this page He'll see one has lost it infront of bright truth and ran away.

And the latest is here in the reply he has given to you. He says that "he is sorry to say that all this rejection of references is done because my ego didn't permitme to accept that my information is wrong".

Please let me know if I need to add anything. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Please see this also. I am not the only one. The user has also accused @Chennai Super Kings Lover of running propaganda. Although he has not taken name but it looks obvious whom he is addressing. See the edit description.[171] Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Shaan Sengupta, by rejecting reliable sources being added by a new user, there is a possibility this may have antagonised the editor. When was the point where you accepted that Loksatta is an acceptable reliable source? If you did it right now at ANI, then you've let it hang for a long time (again, I may be wrong; but if this is the case, then you are not here with clean hands either). To be honest, I find both of you having the capacity to edit well, and I find Maha Sainik's comments against you very uncivil. I will ask them to not repeat these statements (and hopefully to apologise for these statements). But you need to extend a friendly arm to him, and handhold him rather than antagonise him going forward, initiating discussions on article talk pages when the issue relates to the article. The editor has no basis of accusing you the way he has; yet, if you take the higher ground here, it will benefit the situation. Are you okay with this as a possible remedy (Maha Sainik's confirmation of good behaviour/your extending an olive branch/and handholding him from hereon/discussing on article talk pages). Let me know, Lourdes 12:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes I am always ready to extend a friendly arm. I don't have any hard feelings for @Shaan Sengupta Maha Sainik (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes I am sorry for that Loksatta issue. And I ready to accept your proposal. But while typing I see the user's new comment. He says that he stands with his statements and he never crossed beyond the permissible benchmarks. I am worried about this. And even if we let go his words. He also falsely accused me of saying things I never said. Still I am wholeheartedly ready to do what you say. Because it's getting really lengthy for me. I know you won't do any wrong. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Maha Sainik, what is the genesis of your user name? I am enquiring as you are editing Maharashtra government articles and Maha Sainik is the name attributed both to organisations related to defence forces as well as a particular political party. Do let me know as I might be wrong. Thank you, Lourdes 10:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Dear sir @Lourdes I am engaged in social work and our group consider ourself as Maharashtra Sainiks means we are here for help & protection of the people.

tldr territory again... Lourdes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sir, I was observing since some days that wrong information is being shared on Maharashtra legislative assembly page & some other related pages. So, one day I decided to start a new account & edit this wrong information but there were two people who was continuously reverting the information provided by me as I was unable to add resources. Because sir, I didn't knew how to cite the resources. Then I learned to site the resources by watching youtube videos. I re edited the count of MLAs with Mr.Ajit Pawar & gave the references for the MLAs who had switched towards him recently. Firstly, I & Chennai Super Kings Lover was editing this page again and again but after some conversation with him, he confirmed my resources and he himself edited this page exactly like me. Then this guy @Shaan Sengupta arrived. I am saying this very responsibly sir that this guy is driving these pages like his private property. He was editing my references again and again. He told me to stop my DESRUPTIVE EDITING. I though I should resolve this conflict by making a conversation with him. But before that he files SOCKPUPPETRY against me. Then I tried to convince him through a dozen of resources. But sadly, he was rejecting my resources again and again by giving different reasons. I shared youtube videos with him, In these videos these MLAs were directly saying that I am with Mr. Ajit Pawar But @Shaan Sengupta said youtube resources are not accepted. Then I found more resources in the form of articles by doing research of 5 to 6 hours. But this guy rejected every reference provided by me by telling different reasons like Marathi newspapers are not trustworthy. I provided a lof of references again and again and asked @Shaan Sengupta to just provide one updated reference for the information he wanted to showcase but sadly, all my efforts were failed. Sir, I am deeply saddened by seeing that wrong information is provided infront of the people of our state. Sir, I am sorry to say this but all this rejection of references is done for just that their ego didn't permitted them to accept their information is wrong. Thank you sir for giving me a chance to put my side infront of you. Maha Sainik (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Maha Sainik, thank you for your detailed reply. Please don't answer with such long texts on a question that I have not asked you. I have read everything there is to. Would you consider changing your name to some other username? Please read our username policy, which does not permit names representing groups. You can go to CHU and initiate your request. For the rest, I'll wait for Shan to respond. Thank you. Lourdes 11:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Maha Sainik Don't ping multiple times in one reply.(one ping for each user, each comment is enough) @ToadetteEdit also told this to you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Shaan, my suggestion is to add a "please" before you advise newbies around. Otherwise, you sound affronting (akin to ordering people around). Please handhold newbies, not push them around. Thanks, Lourdes 12:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Okay @Lourdes . In that case, I'll decide a new username & would change it. In my heart, there are no hard feelings for @Shaan Sengupta . But my battle is against this way of thinking ie. treating a public's important page like their private property & not letting someone edit it whose resources are not in their favour. I stand with the statements made by me and I never crossed beyond the permissible benchmarks. I genuinely feel this monopoly over these pages should be stopped somewhere. Maha Sainik (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Maha Sainik, I would suggest reading WP:PILLARS, WP:V and WP:RS before proceeding on editing. If you face any editing issues over content, use the procedure listed at dispute resolution. Reach out to us if you need any assistance. Thanks, Lourdes 12:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you so much @Lourdes Maha Sainik (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. I will surely work on this. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your generous response Shaan, here and above. Much appreciated. Lourdes 12:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Maha Sainik, thank you for the time you've taken to explain. I will request you to first read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA before you read ahead. I can understand the background which drove you to write what you did, but honestly, we don't support your kind of communication on Wikipedia. Yes, your reliable sources have been rejected, you are a newbie who should have been listened to calmly, but your editing the contents on the articles was very aggressive (expectable, given that you are new). Worse, the statements you have said above to Shaan were/are not acceptable. Therefore, going forward, I would want you to give the following confirmations so we can close this section:

1. Please confirm that you have read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and would ensure that whenever you talk to other editors, you will do so in a friendly and supportive manner. Do not consider everyone as your enemy. It doesn't help. Shaan is only trying to implement Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your interpretations on the page, at least some of them, are wrong -- which is what Shaan was trying to correct. He has confirmed he will extend a friendly hand to you from hereon. You need to do so too, and not repeat statements about egos and stuff.
2. Please confirm that you agree to retract in principle the past negative statements you have made against him (all listed above). This is absolutely required that you convince us that you do not stand by the uncivil commentary you made till date against Shaan. He will also attempt to be friendlier; but you need to get your house in order first. Please confirm, and we close this section. Thanks, Lourdes 12:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Maha Sainik Please consider Wikipedia:Civility#Removing uncivil comments if you are willing as per the advice by @Lourdes. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 12:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes @Shaan Sengupta I am willing to remove the uncivil comments. Maha Sainik (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Maha Sainik please use "<s>" at start and "</s>" at end of your comments to strike through it. It will show publicly that you have withdrawn your comments. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

1. I confirm that I have read WP:CIVIL & WP:NPA and I would ensure you that I will talk in friendly manner to other editors.

2. I agree to retract my past negative statements I have made against him. I will be friendly and supportive to Shaan and other editors. Thank you @Lourdes Maha Sainik (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you both Maha Sainik and Shaan Sengupta. Happy editing. Lourdes 14:09, 13 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.

Disruptive IP editor

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.

---

104.226.30.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:104.226.30.18#August_2023

As you can see from the Contribs page, this IP has a history of "revert and run" w/o engaging other editors or seeking consensus. Comments left in edit summaries suggest a working knowledge of policy, which leads me to believe this may be a sockpuppet. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be the same person from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1126#Revenge Edits by an IP, who was already blocked once for harassing/stalking you. Same topic, same articles, same behaviour. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

And it's just made a last minute vote in an RfC in which I'm involved. I wonder how it found me there. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Just Another Cringy Username, thanks for raising the issue. For now, as the IP has been quiet for a couple of days, I would suggest wait and watch. If there is continuation of hounding, do please come back. Thanks, Lourdes 10:45, 13 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.

Extremely uncouth and rude behavior by User :84.71.180.129

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.

---

Special:Contributions/84.71.180.129 made disruptive edits and unprofessional remarks in 2023 Nigerien crisis. See User talk:84.71.180.129 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Nigerien_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1169311713

Borgenland (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

H 84.71.180.129 (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Borgenland, I have blocked the IP for edit warring and warned another editor likewise. Thanks, Lourdes 10:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I’d like to clarify though that User:Clyde H. Mapping was the one who first spotted the other user’s shenanigans and corrected them based on what was the consensus. As such I believe warning them was a misunderstanding Borgenland (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Would also like to warn everyone of a possible sockpuppet User:Thiswaybd. Made the same edits as the same time with the blocked IP. See: User talk:Thiswaybd. Borgenland (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biafra&diff=prev&oldid=1169313669 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biafra&diff=prev&oldid=1166648691 Borgenland (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Obvious persistent vandalism by User:Thiswaybd

This is to urgently notify revered Adminatrators that obvious persistent vandalism has been going on the following article pages: 2023 Nigerien crisis, Biafra and Indigenous People of Biafra by User:Thiswaybd. I have previously warned them on their talk page to stop but they insisted with recent vandalism on Biafra article page which l reverted and it's occurs to me that they will continue to remove contents from other Wikipedia pages without clarifications or reasons as they did to 2023 Nigerien crisis only if they are not appropriately and adequately sanctioned.

Thanks for your swift actions. 1st Contributor (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There's clearly sock/meatpuppetry going on right now with these articles. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to compile a SPI report, but a CU does need to have a look to see if these accounts are connected. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, @RickinBaltimore, you closely right. That may be a sock. I can't do them anything. 1st Contributor (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@1st Contributor, you're required to notify the other party as soon as you make a report here. See the red-boxed notice at the top of this page. Use {{ANI-notice}} (talk) to do this.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Already done, I also filed a separate complaint Borgenland (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland Thanks for helping out. It was a mistake on my part for not notifying them. @A. B. It's done already! 1st Contributor (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, 1st Contributor turned out to be a sock themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That's weird, they had been reverting bad edits over the past few days in Biafra made by the accounts they reported. Borgenland (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Read his case and it doesn't seem to make sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/UniBrill/Archive Borgenland (talk) 00:26, 10 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.

Nyovuu

• Arvind Kejriwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nyovuu (talk · contribs)
• Kridha (talk · contribs)

For the past 3 months, Nyovuu has been trying to add or restore a "Controversies" section with various allegations of misdeeds to the article on Indian politician Arvind Kejriwal. More than half the text of Talk:Arvind Kejriwal is discussion about this proposed section; everyone there has disagreed with Nyovuu (and their IP) and opposed adding or restoring the section for one reason or another. Much of Nyovuu's disagreements have been with another editor, Kridha.

Because they got no traction on the article talk page, Nyovuu has forum-shopped the issue (and their complaints about Kridha) to

• DRN, where it was closed as no response, with the note that Nyovuu should use the Talk page, edit boldly but not edit-war, and try an RFC.
• NPOVN (the first time), Noticeboard for India-related topics, and ANI, where each time the thread was auto-archived without a response.
• NPOVN (the second time), where I gave my opinion that all of Kridha's edits appeared to be justified, and User:Bookku gave some general thoughts but ultimately didn't have the time to devote to it.
• BLPN, which I closed as redundant to the above NPOVN discussion.

Nyovuu has now escalated to edit warring the "Controversies" section and allegations into the article. I've explained that they need to gain consensus for their addition and attempted to direct them back to Talk:Arvind Kejriwal, going so far as to create a new topic for them. Their edit summaries display a great deal of WP:IDHT, like "There was no outcome in consesus & user also didn't participate in...neutral point of view noticeboard" and "no proper reason given". There's also this subpage that suggests they have a COI with the article subject.

At this point, I think that Nyovuu should to be page-blocked from Arvind Kejriwal, along with a restriction on forum-shopping issues to multiple venues at the same time or in quick succession. I'm hopeful that their suggestions at Talk:Arvind Kejriwal might lead to some of their content getting added, as long as there's a consensus to do so. Woodroar (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked Nyovuu from Arvind Kejriwal, and given them an additional warning to refrain from any more disruptive behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Woodroar (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I observed @Nyovuu have been receptive to some advice and missing on some and making usual mistakes new users make in first couple of years on Wikipedia. On their talk page I have noted to take Woodroar's advice seriously and work accordingly.

On side note: As far as Nyovuu's moving from forum to forum was not for canvassing but seem to have resulted from failure of experienced Wikipedians to read into genuine part of issue raised by them and help out new user who may not know how to raise issue, how to differentiate reliable sources and get concurrence at WP:RSN how to write neutral WP:RFC. I know users get these things eventually after initial faltering, but experienced users too can do more and better to help out uninitiated users. Bookku (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There's only so much that we, as volunteers, can do in cases like this. Nyovuu had a Welcome message, they were given friendly advice and pointed to policies and guidelines, and I broke down each of the edits they had an issue with. But it was clear that they weren't willing to listen.

The fundamental problem is that they wanted to put a "Controversies" section with paragraphs of allegations in a BLP article. No amount of reading into their issue would have allowed that. Kridha was also concerned that their sources provided an UNDUE or one-sided POV of the issues, which is why NPOV was brought up. To be honest, I'm not sure that directing Nyovuu to RSN was a good idea. Yes, RSN could have determined if the sources were reliable in context. But they likely wouldn't have looked for other reliable sources that perhaps gave a more DUE POV of the issues. Judging from their last few comments, it appears that Nyovuu believes they can write whatever they want if they can cite a reliable source, but it's not that simple. The weight of sources (including contrary sources) and our BLP policy need to be considered as well. Woodroar (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The material they put was mostly fine, the only issue was them edit warring over it, and perhaps some WP:CIR issues. The BLP, POV and UNDUE claim about the material is inaccurate. Ive raised this on the T/P. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editor

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.

---

Registered only 10 days ago, Imaginie appears to be using wikipedia for WP:SOAPBOX.

Here he called protestors (mostly Muslims) a "garbage" in edit summary.

On his userpage, he says that he "when it comes to critiquing the customs of Hinduism, I feel embraced by acceptance and affection" but when he is "questioning aspects of Islam" then "The echoes of "Sar Tan Se Juda" ring the alarm of death."

He is clearly spreading fear against Muslims by saying that any criticism on Islam will be met with "Sar Tan Se Juda" i.e. beheading.[172]

One user attempted to inquire about his userpage but this user has been offering misleading answers.[173] This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Editorkamran (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a few socks here. I’ll clean house. Courcelles (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Found four, all blocked now. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of 火热毁灭. Courcelles (talk) 22:51, 12 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.

Accusations of bad faith; POV pushing; refusal to observe neutral RfC text

At Republics of Russia, Kwamikagami has made quite explicit accusations of bad faith [174][175]. They have also started an RfC with not even a pretension of neutral wording.

Not only is most of the wording a statement, Kwamikagami makes claims in it that are directly and explicitly contradicted by the source they allude to in the statement. [for example, they claim in the RfC "question": "In addition, Russia does occupy all the territory it claims for Luhansk and Donetsk."; the source reads "under the terms decreed by Russia upon their annexation in 2022, these territories were designated as including the entire expanse of the Donetsk and Luhansk (Lugansk) Oblasts of Ukraine, despite substantial proportions of both territories, and in particular of Donetsk Oblast, remaining under Ukrainian control."]

Is there a process for dealing with a RfC question which fails to observe WP:RFCNEUTRAL? My request to Kwamikagami to word appropriately was met with dismissal. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Cambial caught a typo (a missing "not"), and of course assumed bad faith. I just corrected it. Other than that, I don't see what could be argued to be non-neutral wording. I don't think I said anything in my summary that's disputed. The dispute is the count: since a source lists 24 republics but numbers them as 22, we must also number them as 22. The long wording is because a previous edition of that source listed 22 republics and numbered them as 22; the count didn't change when they added 2 newly annexed republics in an update. I thought that was pertinent background. — kwami (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No, Kwamikagami, that RfC is not viable in its present form (unrelated to any typos), which is why I delisted and closed it accordingly (diff). You should be aware that from the contents of this complaint alone, it looks like a topic ban (WP:TBAN) from the topic area (WP:ARBEE) is a likely outcome if you continue down this path. The path of treating the editorial process as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please heed this warning. El_C 12:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I made the RfC so that others could handle the dispute and it wouldn't be a battleground. Anyway, I redid the RfC with a much shorter summary.

As for being a battleground, I'm not pushing a particular agenda, just arguing that we should follow sources. We have numerous sources that that Russia claims 24 republics, something that Cambial admits. They argue that some of the 24 count and some do not, and that some sources count and some do not. Since I find their arguments unintelligible, I'd prefer for others to handle the issue. Thus the RfC. — kwami (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I just would have expected that someone with your experience already knew how to correctly formulate RfC questions. But obviously you seem not to have known, as evident by your response to CY's valid criticism. A response which was also unduly combative. But if civil discourse (which does not preclude robust debate) is maintained from now on, then it can be overlooked. I'd recommend, though, that both of you not engage with one another so much on this, if at all, but rather let others opine and go from there. Thanks. El_C 12:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's been a very long time since I filed a RfC. I don't remember the last time I did.

I think that's a good idea. I don't have anything more to add -- it's pretty straightforward. — kwami (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, refrain from claiming I make an argument I've never made: "that some of the 24 count and some do not, and that some sources count and some do not - this is a complete fabrication. No-one on the article talk has disputed the number claimed by the Russian government - ever, as far as I know. The issue, as we've discussed in several comments previously, is the difference between that number and those under de facto control. The sources, including that which you've quoted, say only 22 are under de facto control. Acting like the argument is really about something else, or that editors are denying the obvious - when they are not - does not advance your position. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We've been over this. You've repeatedly denied what you now say you've never denied. Anyway, I agree with El C -- I don't see any point in us continuing to debate this. Let others handle it. — kwami (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

We have indeed been over it. I've never said what you claim, as you already know. If otherwise, you would be able to provide a diff in which I make such a "denial" of the Russian government making such a claim: but you can't. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend my time going over your re-re-repeated claims to find a diff that won't make any difference to the discussion anyway. Let it go.

(I'm unsubscribing from this thread so I won't see your response on the off chance that you can't let it go.) — kwami (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing please leave Kwamikagami be for now. As I said, others can opine as to both of your reasonings at the new RfC. El_C 13:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Report on user @Zocdoclesson

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 @Zocdoclesson had insulted one of the Hindu Gods Indra. See here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169953409 He said he did that because i did the same for "Francis Xavier" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169959138 See my comment on him which he is saying Insult: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169951810 I just said what is mentioned in that article(see last paragraph of aftermath section of that article which also has marked source for it) & also not understood that the statement "they fled to the tomb of Fransis Xavier and wished that Sambhaji(Maratha king) should go back" insulting Francis Xavier?

This user is also doing unconstructive edits on various pages by mostly having Pro Christian intention. he was warned many times by different users & Administrators on his talk page 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1168526349 2.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1168520419 3.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1162695381 4.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1166708024 5.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1167752206 6.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1168528060 7.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1168525999 8. This user not talk politely to other users and always use harsh and insulting words by defaming them.These are some of the examples: 1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169959138 (Stop scapegoating)

2.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169954389 (Don't be a hypocrite) 3.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169920515 (that were maliciously removed)

Pinging @Rosguill, @DSP2092,@Haoreima & @Kautilya3

This User Should be blocked. Ignore my grammer mistakes,I am improving it & will be perfect within some day Thank you Aryan330 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged, I'm going to repeat the comment I made when previously pinged to this issue by Aryan330 at User talk:Courcelles: This primarily looks like a content dispute. The tit-for-tat invocations of St. Xavier and Indra should stop right now, but provided that they do, I don't see a need for sanctions at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Aryan330, you are required to notify Zocdoclesson of this discussion on their talk page. Simply pinging them is not considered sufficient. Please see the instructions at the top of this page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comments. I am one of the users who previously warned Zocdoclesson about their conduct, specifically as related to moving pages. That behaviour has improved, so a history of past warnings should not be a factor in the current situation unless the warnings were for the same behaviour. I don't see anything in this report about page moves.
  As far as the last three diffs, where Aryan330 asserts that Zocdoclesson has been uncivil in edit summaries, I don't see anything that warrants administrative intervention. I don't even think that invoking Indra and Francis Xavier in their respective messages should generate sanctions for either editor.
  Given that the page that started the edit war, Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684), is now under extended-confirmed protection, I don't think there's anything further that needs done here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, Fred Zocdoclesson (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comments. He has bias for Portuguese empire related articles. In article Christianization of Goa, he twisted the words by reason saying anti-christian [180] from original sources. He mostly try to defend Portuguese empire article or try to redirect or give alternative Portuguese names to Indian previously conquered territories even though Portuguese is not the official language of that territory now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.241.225.127 (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I happen to have been involved in that discussion and I'd like to point out that the only time @Zocdoclesson ever mentioned any deity is "Heavy rains also prevented Sambhaji from coming close to the captial city of Goa. So was the Viceroy aided by Indra too?" How is this an insult? @Zocdoclesson actually accepted some of @Aryan330 proposals, yet he was still reported and for blasphemy of all things! This isn't responsible and reasonable use of the report function, by a user who has already been blocked from participating in another page due to disruptive editing. Wareno (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  @C.Fred & @CapnJackSp the thing here to be noted that this user @Wareno is nothing to do with this discussion, neither I pinged him nor mentioned him.

  He is here only to defend @Zocdoclesson because he matches the idiology of @Zocdoclesson as both of the users were constantly reverted the same type of edits.

  Both are Pro Portuguese.

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169992630

  Thank you. Aryan330 (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  While a casual review of Talk:Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684) does show edits by Wareno that could be viewed as pro-Portuguese, it also shows that they were active in discussion on the page on 10 August and have been active at the article since at least June. It does not follow that they have "nothing to do with this discussion". —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  The user @Aryan330 has engaged in such editing as removing other users content but keeping their sources to support his own changes [181]. I kept both pieces of information, he insists on only keeping his. He removes other users content and threatens to bring up sources, but never does. He accuses others of being pro-this and pro-that, but doesn't discuss the content and seems to think he is immune from accusations of obvious pro-Indian bias. He has already been blocked from editing Mughal–Maratha Wars for disruptive editing [182], considering this whole controversy started because he reported a user for "blasphemy", which wasn't even the case, I recommend he be the one blocked from this one as well. Wareno (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Wareno First of all this discussion is about @Zocdoclesson not about me.

  He has already been blocked from editing Mughal–Maratha Wars for disruptive editing, considering this whole controversy I recommend he be the one blocked from this one as well. I was blocked for edit wars there & even I blocked that doesn't mean I can't edit other pages & discuss at anywhere! I mean Wikipedia had given rights for it man!so stop continuously reminding that I was blocked because that statement wouldn't prove anything nor anyone going to take it seriously.

  & on page Maratha Portugese 1683-84 I just made 1 edit in last month while you edited that page atleast 4 times in last 72 hours. I atleast discuss more in talk page,while you edit article directly without discussing about it on talk page.It seems like you didn't even have a clarity of basic meaning of "status quo ante bellum" if not then you can see talk page of that where I explained.

  For talking in talk page about sources,I don't think anyone was blocked in entire history of Wikipedia & it looks like a funny statement & even if you think that then you can start a new discussion about me & there I can explain all but not here.

  next time do comment on relevant topic. Aryan330 (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  You don't seem to know that when you report a user you're not immune from having your own conduct analyzed. The other user agreed to some of your edits yet you went ahead and pressed with a report for an invalid case of blasphemy (!) and then kept bringing up another users edits across Wikipedia, and accusing them of being pro-this and pro-that yet you don't want the same to be done to you. Your edits, attitude and accusations are in no way Wikipedia standard. Wareno (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @C.Fred This user @Wareno was warned me by falsely accusing me for being engaged in edit war on the page of Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684). See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169992909.

  While I edited that page only Single time since last one month you can crosscheck it.

  So how much seriously It should be taken about that user who only engaged in this discussion for Personal attack is up to you.thank you Aryan330 (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Im going to disagree with others here. Perhaps its because the "evidence" produced here has been rather poor at describing the issues.
  Their edits show a long and consistent pattern of POV pushing;
  [183]
  [184]
  [185]
  [186]
  [187]
  Theres a bunch of stuff I didnt bother looking into, regarding removal or addition of material they did with inadequate explanation; I have not bothered to read through the sources to check if their claims are true, or if the sources are reliable.
  @C.Fred, you said that their behavior regarding moving pages has improved. However, these two pages were moved clearly against WP:COMMONNAME, which simple google searches show by a absurd margin -
  [188] - Google searches about 200:1 against their page move (yeah, two hundred to one. Not a typo.)
  [189] - about 7:1 against their move.
  on 11th August, well after your warnings.
  Their disruptions have been reverted to some extent, but a large number of them still remain as is. IMO, all of their disruption is centered around Portuguese colonial holdings in India and religion; A TBAN from these is likely to resolve these issues. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Having previously looked primarily at the accusations of personal attacks and dismissed them, I agree that this set of diffs is much more concerning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks to CapnJackSp for finding those diffs. I am concerned about them also, and I think there may be merit in a topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with @CapnJackSp. Aryan330 (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @C.Fred I didn't think he improved his editing.

  Even after this discussion started,see his latest edit(13th August). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1167755686.

  Even his same edit was reverted https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1167755686 previously by a user for removing the content without explaining them(most of the times he don't use talk page for that as he explains on edit summary page of respective article that too by just telling not providing sources).He not only removes content but also removes the sources which were marked at there. as he did on his recent edit also.

  He is continuously targeting those pages with similar pattern.

  As i don't see anything different than Religion & battles which related to Portuguese Empire in his whole edits.

  Thank you

Adding his another recent edit,that too edited without providing sources on that Sensitive or controversial topic by having same Pro religion based view in similar pattern https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1170126964 .CapnJackSp can you convert this link also to look easier?Thank you Aryan330 (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• I think the diff given here is [190] , will be easier as a normal diff than mobile diff.

  IMO, from reading their edit summary, them putting their own OR above RS is quite concerning. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  There no menion of a Jain Temple inside the fort. The paragraph is therefore factually incorrect.

  The Fort is located at 20.4133216, 72.8322677 coordinates. No Jain temple can be seen within its Zocdoclesson (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Zocdoclesson is topic banned from Portuguese colonial holdings in India, broadly construed, for 3 months

I'm going to formally put it on the table. Due to continued disruption to the project, I propose that Zocdoclesson be topic banned from Portuguese colonial holdings in India, including geographic features within those (former) holdings and broadly construed, for three months.

What got me to the tipping point was the creation of Goa Island (India). In the ensuing AfD on the article, they suggested that I search Google Maps to verify that the island exists.[191] I did, and Google Maps shows the name "Divar Island"...and we already have an article on Divar. Thus, this is yet another situation where an article has been moved or recreated under a different name, but in this case, rather than going back to a historic Portuguese name, they appear to have done original research to translate the Portuguese name to English.

I am hopeful that a topic ban, rather than a sitewide block, will give the user the opportunity to participate in editing other topics and get a better mastery of how Wikipedia operates, including guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME. However, their continued editing in this area is now at odds with the objectives and smooth functioning of the project, so administrative action is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred What about his statement on Indra?

As i am totally disagree with @Rosguill as he said The tit-for-tat invocations of St. Xavier and Indra as Francis Xavier was having a connection with that article & that thing is mentioned in last paragraph of Aftermath section of that article with marked source(Portugese source added not Maratha for your general clarity).

But Indra has nothing to do with that article.

I again mentioning that statement : "Heavy rains also prevented Sambhaji from coming close to the captial city of Goa. So was the Viceroy aided by Indra too?".

1) I had not mentioned that viceroy was aided by Francis Xavier.

This is my comment about it :"viceroy had fled to the tomb of Fransis Xavier with a wish that Sambhaji should go back."

(Sambhaji was the Maratha king)

Now I am quoting the same statement from that article with marked source: the viceroy went to see the body of Francis Xavier, in the Bom Jesus shrine in the Velha Goa city, placed his sceptre on the dead saint's relic and prayed for his grace to avert the Maratha threat.[12](present in last paragraph of aftermath section of that article)

2)Indra is first of all a Hindu God & Sambhaji (Maratha king) greatly admired him and his devotee also.(check the Literature section of Sambhaji's page where it is mentioned that he was a devotee of him & praised him in his own written Budhbhushansm)

So,why Indra would help Portugese who's religion was non Hindu and go against Sambhaji is itself a confusing statement if we read it carefully.

Indra had nothing to do with this whole conflict for your personal clarity & you can crosscheck.

Now the question is why he used that statement about Indra?

As explained by himself that just because I mentioned Francis Xavier that's why he made that statement while if we took the help of the sources then we can find out that the statement about Francis Xavier which I mentioned is completely historical as I explained above & I hadn't seem to be insulted him in whole statement.

While the statement about Indra is completely imaginary as it has no source neither had logic & user himself confirmed it.

& This is an insult of one of Hindu deity & shouldn't be ignored.

He should be blocked permanently.

Thank you Aryan330 (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears you are fixated on this comment, and believe both that it is an insult of one of Hindu deity and warrants a permanent block. I would suggest you drop the topic before a WP:BOOMERANG occurs; we don't block editors for blasphemy (although personally I cannot see any blasphemy in that comment), and advocating for such blocks to be imposed comes dangerously close to WP:NOTHERE behavior. I have no comment on the proposed topic ban; I have not looked enough into the situation to see if there are valid concerns with this editors conduct. BilledMammal (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Being snarky is not really sanctionable. I dont see his comment that used Indra to be egregious enough for sanctions, though it may be seen slightly more seriously due to his other POV edits wrt religion in India than it would standalone.

I think sanctions are needed, but for CIR and POV stuff, less so for the snarky comments on gods. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The pages of Divar and Goa Island (India) have almost nothing in common.

The only similar content is the list of islands within the Tiswadi subdistrict. Zocdoclesson (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Support TBAN for three months from Portugese holdings in India and Religion in India, especially as in the section above they double down on their OR. 3 months should be a decent amount of time for them to improve vis a vis CIR and POV issues that currently exist.

Adding Religion in India since some of their unsourced POV additions are to religion articles outside of portugese holdings as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the behavior of User:Aryan330

Merged by Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) at 15:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention fellow users User:Aryan330 and IP user Special:Contributions/103.241.225.127 Their account is only 3 months old, and yet managed to create a toxic environment here on Wikipedia. They have a clear anti-European and pro-Indian bias and is willing to launch online witchhunts to silence those who disagree with them. They falsely accuse their fellow users of blasphemy, manipulation and personal attacks. The also insist that people with differing views should be banned. Even though those views are backed by reliable sources. Zocdoclesson (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Rosguill and User:C.Fred

Do you believe the militant behavior of User:Aryan330 is warranted?

Personally, I feel silencing those with differing (and well-sourced) views is tyrannical. Zocdoclesson (talk) 15:04, 13 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.

User:Cornucopiaa has received numerous warnings that they haven't heeded.

User:Cornucopiaa has been engaged in various forms of disruptive editing in the past month. Most recently, they have taken to adding excessive details to short descriptions that need not be there. I think this should be addressed. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the entire Short Description system is that it's called Short Description. It should really be overhauled completely to be "scope" or "disambiguator". While it's called short description we'll continue to have these issues continually as people thing it should be populated with a short description or summary of the article instead of its intended purpose. Canterbury Tail talk 17:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

User: Betty Logan - poor conduct, disruptive editing and personalising debates about my work

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 keep this very brief as it is founded upon observations and encounters of a user over a one week period. Their latest behaviour I am sure is against policy. I have arrived at a consensus position on an article Talk page - namely Millennials. When signs of a consensus were starting to form, I am certain that the user Betty Logan is disrupting the process and threatening to edit war if proposed changes are implemented. She is also now asking the Talk page to compare three proposed versions of an article - using my username as the header and another editor's username thereby personalising the debate in the eyes of other editors and turning it in to a popularity contest and about taking sides. This is unacceptable.

Please see diffs:

[192]

[193]

[194]

[195]

[196]

[197]

Can someone please take action.

Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You haven't notified Betty, as per the rules. Secretlondon (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I have just done that thank you. First time ever that I have reported someone - after 15 years as well. My bad! Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The user has now resorted to moving my comments around the Talk page of Millennials - thereby disrupting my work.

Please see diff:

[198]

[199]

Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable change on her part; might I suggest that you reverse yourself? Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

So, after I worked for one week to gain consensus for my change it's OK for another editor to come along and ask people to vote on 'Richie Wright's work'? It's ok to personalise other people's work? She also moved my comment around on the page. I forgive you for not knowing much about my encounter with this user. As I say I wanted to keep this brief. I would rather you took the time to fully understand my concerns rather than judge me after 10 minutes. I thought the ANI process was supposed to be thorough.

Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

So, after I worked for one week to gain consensus for my change it's OK for another editor to come along and ask people to vote on 'Richie Wright's work'? It's ok to personalise other people's work? (emphasis added) Richie, there's an internal contradiction here. Proposing a straw poll distinguishing choices by the people who proposed them isn't a policy violation; and clerking a single comment isn't evidence of disruptive intent. In most contexts it's normal. I'm not seeking to judge you; I'm telling you that this feels like a tempest in a teapot and that you and the project would be best served by focusing on the content. Mackensen (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely I would like to do that. But it is impossible when someone is disruptive. Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears that Betty Logan accepted your request to re-title the sections. I don't see that administrator intervention is necessary or useful; this request was premature at best. Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you please point me to where she said that - she has threated to revert changes after I have gained consensus for the change after one week of intensive community engagement.

She has also resorted to moving my comments around the page - see this diff.

[200]

Is this allowed on Wikipedia - moving other people's comments around?

[201] Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

She re-wrote her comment to reference "Version A" and "Version B"; surely that constitutes acceptance? Regarding the moving of someone's comments; if it's simple clerking that doesn't change the meaning or context, then yes, that's fine. If it's truly disruptive that's a different matter, but simply moving it from one section to another isn't disruptive in itself. In this case, moving it to where the rest of the discussion is, and out of the voting section, seems reasonable. Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No I re-wrote them. Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It is very disruptive - I re-named the sections to Version A and B - the fact is she labelled both versions with people's usernames - as I say you have judged this after 10 minutes. Not the full week I have encountered this user. Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and she changed her vote to follow your renaming, indicating acceptance. Mackensen (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

She changed her vote precisely because she has been reported to ANI. Iyt is obvious that she is being watched. It is perfectly obvious. To make it appear like the edit is reasonable. I hasve followed her comments for a week! A reasonable person would not introduce a poll using another editor's username in the first place. This was not done by mistake.

Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to invest my time in the project - I have reached out to administrators several times - only to be completely ignored - with a disruptive editor it is impossible for this project to go any further. Do you think I would seriously waste my time on this drama? I have told administrators I am not interested in ANI but have bee left to the last straw. Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment by Betty Logan The sequence of edits above are select edits taken out of context. You can view them in there entirety here: [202]. Richie and I disagree with the wording in one of the sections at the Millennials article. After some lengthy discussions we have ended up with three competing versions: the current version in the article, Richie's preferred version, and a version negotiated by another editor. Although the third version appears to be acceptable to both myself and Richie, only the three of us have yet commented on it. That does not constitute a consensus, as other editors have been involved in the discussion over its course. I have clearly stated that if there is no opposition to the third version then I would not stand in its way. I have established a straw poll mainly because it is a common practise after a protracted discussion, but also because of Richie's tendency to dismiss opinions that do not favor his position.

Richie's grievance here seems to be rooted in the fact that I named the competing versions after the principal authors (Richie wright1980's version) and the other editor (Some1's version). I did not realise this was discouraged. Richie preferred to call them "Version A" and "Version B", and as you can see here I did not object and was willing to oblige his request. If any admin would like to query anything specific will they please ping me back to the discussion please. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Her first vote was:

Prefer' current version.

Support Some1 version.

Oppose Richie wright1980 version

She personalised the debate after she has been difficult with me for the past week.

[203]

Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Betty - it is not my preferred version - this version - now named version A has been arrived at through intense community feedback with edits made from that feedback. It isn't Richie-wright's version and never was. I have sought from day one to gain consensus. You have followed from day one you should know that. Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It was me that labelled them VERSION A and VERSION B. You did not do that. From the first day you encountered me - you made this personal. See your very first comment about me to the community.

See diff:

[204]

Notice your turn of phrase - 'Richie Wright repeatedly did this', 'Richie Wright repeatedly did that'. From moment one you mischaracterised me to the community to discredit my contributions from moment one. I had to change your section heading to not make this personal. Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

In her latest question to the community - notice how she asks editors to:

"Please only enter your OWN position. Please state your preferred version, whether the others are acceptable or unacceptable to you."

Why out OWN in block capitals? As if people haven't been commenting in their own opinion for the past week. What else does she think people have been doing? This is just one example of disruptive behaviour. There is absolutely no need to ask editors to comment in their own opinion - that is self explanatory - certainly not in bold capitals. She has done this because she knows the consensus has not gone her way and is drawing the discussion out. Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Why out OWN in block capitals? As if people haven't been commenting in their own opinion for the past week. What else does she think people have been doing? @Richie wright1980, weren't you summarizing the opinions of others? Valereee (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. Yes, to show what way the consensus is going - I also summarised their contributions to each version. How else do people follow the conversation? It is to make it easier to follow or you get get lost in an entire book of writing Betty followed the discussion but still insisted on calling it Richie_wright's version - it has nothing to do with me what people wanted to contribute. If I wanted to be my contributon I would have bold edited and ignored everyone else! This is completely obtuse. Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You asked why. I told you what it looked like to me: she was asking that instead of summarizing other people's opinions, you simply state your own. Valereee (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It might seem that simple but she has also led the community to believe that this is my problem and not come about through community engagement. In other words, either I am the bad guy for pushing my own opinion or the bad guy for leading and taking responsibility for my own proposal. How is that supposed to be in good faith? For anyone to tolerate? Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

See her comment here:

[205]

After consensus was building for version A and version B, she told the page that she would not revert edits - in itself threatening to edit war.

Who decides when consensus has been gained? Is it Betty Logan? Is it me? Who? there wss alreasy consensus for a change since we many of us conttibuted to an updated version - there was no need to compare that to the original - this is clearly obtuse.

If it would have been changed at that point she would have engaged in an edit war. So what she has done is introduce a new poll to stall any changes from taking place - despite there being no substantive objections to any change. Therefore, guiding the community back to dispute. Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

What she said was the exact opposite of threatening to edit war?

While I still have a preference for the existing version and think that adding the sub-headings is largely unnecessary for such a short section, I am not opposed to Some1's re-write directly below. It addresses most of my concerns. However, I don't think there is any pressing urge to install it straight away. If you are happy to leave it 3 days for further feedback and there are no more opposes, then I will not revert if Some1's version is installed in the article. (Emphasis mine). Valereee (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I will not revert - why would she revert when the consensus was going the way to change?

Why say that?

"If you are happy to leave it 3 days"

Since when is 3 days a rule? Whose rules? This is moving the goal posts of the discussion thereby leading the community back to dispute. After a week of intensive talks. Also, the difference between version A and version B is EXTREMELY minor. There is absolutely no acknowledgement for the work that I have put in not only to lead the change but to garner support - bad faith.

Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Richie wright1980, there are no deadlines. Waiting three days is a reasonable compromise, IMO.

You're bludgeoning here, and frankly it looks like you are bludgeoning there. Please also try to write shorter. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

When do you suggest consensus is reached if there are no deadlines? After all the work that I have put in I am bludgeoning? Betty made absolutely no contribution to ether version - she has opposed it every step of the way. She has put to the vote work conducted by other editors. And I am bludgeoning? So I can take your work from another noticeboard and put it to a public vote? Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

When do you suggest consensus is reached if there are no deadlines? Three days from now? Yes, you're bludgeoning. You are not only replying to literally every other person in this thread, you are making multiple replies to your own replies. I'm not big on WP:BOOMERANG, but you're making it hard for me to avoid it.

Not sure what you mean by So I can take your work from another noticeboard and put it to a public vote? That's a direct question, not bludgeoning to answer it. Valereee (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Also can she please clarify - after 3 days if nobody votes on her poll? Which version goes ahead since we are all clearly now following her rules? Is it version A or B? Thank you wikilawyer, we can all play that game but clearly you have made your mind up so I am out. I knew this was a complete waste of time. It's just as well I am thick skineed because this is disgusting. Moving people's comments around, personalising their work, obfuscating the consensus process. Wikilawyering selectively. You are supposed to encourage good faith editors not force them away. Seen as my sincere concerns are not being listened to by anyone - I am out. And look at your policy book. If an editor has genuine concerns they are supposed to be helped. Goodbye. Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, you can exit if you like, but I'll go ahead and answer, FWIW.

1. Yes, after 3 days, she's said she'll accept Some1's version as the consensus version.
2. Yes, if an editor has a genuine concern about another editor's behavior, we do want to help. I am having a hard time seeing the concern other than you disagree with her and seem to have decided she's acting in bad faith, which I'm not sure I'm seeing. I understand this is your first time here, but FFR the most important thing to do is persuade us, as briefly as possible.
3. Insulting the people here who are trying to understand the situation and simply aren't persuaded by your arguments is not helpful to your cause.
4. You didn't answer my question about what you meant by So I can take your work from another noticeboard and put it to a public vote?, so I guess I'm forced to assume you don't want to explain.

Valereee (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to leave sincerelty - trust me I've invested 15 years on this encyclopedia and never reported anyone - we've got better things to do! I actually do care which is why it was me that opened the RfC on the talk page, read the room and tried extensively to take on board people's comments - Betty Logan has accused me throughout the whole process of pushing my own point of view. It's called taking responsibility. It was me that attempted to garner consensus for my proposal - and as far as I can tell am getting there. trust me I know how desparate it looks when someone threatens to walk but I serously feel that her work has been nothing but disruptive throughout. We first came across eachother through an edit war and her reporting me to ANI - something I have now tried extensively to resolve. And something she clearly still has bad faith over. Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I will clarify this explicitly: you, Some1 and I have all tacitly accepted Version B, as it is now called. So far no other editor besides the three of us has voiced an opinion on Version B. If no other editor opposes Version B then I will not stand in the way of it being installed in the article. I have suggested 3 days as a reasonable period of time for anyone who has participated in the discussion or is watching the article to express an opinion. If anyone does oppose Version B, then we will then have to ascertain to what extent they oppose it and what can be done to accommodate their concerns. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's funny how you haven't been that reasonable with me for an entire week. It's only because an administrator is overseeing this. It is nor usually in my nature to go snitch to the mods, it genuinely isn't but this has been completely overblown. For inserting 1980 into the millenial talk page. Seriously? Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Richie wright1980, I've been overlooking the repeated castings of aspersions, because you don't have much experience here at ANI (and not really that much on the encyclopedia). But you need to immediately stop attributing motives to other editors without extremely convincing diffs accompanying those accusations. Talk about the edits, not the editors. Valereee (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I am only telling you whay she has said about me. Continually posting that I am pushing my own point of view. That is not me casting aspersions but telling you what she has said about me. Give me a moment. I will collect the diffs...

Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"Richie needs to appreciate that he alone does not get to determine the consensus," This is when I have reached out to a admistrator for help and ignored.

So, let me understand - Betty Logan is the arbitrer?

this is casting aspersions is it not? After me opening an Rfc, gathering consensus on the talk page for a week and taking on board everyone - it is me determining? If it was why would I reach out to an adminstrator's help?

[206]

Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Richie wright1980, this is what constitutes casting of aspersions:

1. She changed her vote precisely because she has been reported to ANI. Iyt is obvious that she is being watched. It is perfectly obvious. To make it appear like the edit is reasonable.
2. This was not done by mistake.
3. ...you mischaracterised me to the community to discredit my contributions from moment one.
4. She has done this because she knows the consensus has not gone her way and is drawing the discussion out.
5. It's funny how you haven't been that reasonable with me for an entire week. It's only because an administrator is overseeing this.

These are all comments on another editor's motivations. That is what I am asking you not to do. Valereee (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Another example of Betty Logan casting aspersions about me..

"Richie is just a bit miffed that they didn't take his side; I have established a straw poll partly because of Richie's tendency to dismiss dissenting opinion"

[207]

Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Richie needs to appreciate that he alone does not get to determine the consensus is not discussing your motivations. It's discussing your understanding of policy.

Richie is just a bit miffed that they didn't take his side is, I'd agree, commenting on motivations. @Betty Logan, please watch that. Valereee (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok I will find more because there are more... Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

But like I said I really do not want this drama - I just want Betty to stop the bad faith and to accept that there have been good faith edits by numerous editors to make a change. Of course I am persuaded by consensus or I wouldn't have engaged in the process! Most of her aspersions are about my motivation for engaging in that said consensus process. Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't need more. I've already warned Betty, who I feel probably gets it as they've been here a while. I want you to understand this issue. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I certainly do. Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but there was some context to that. I felt that there was an insinuation that Wikiboo02 was my sockpuppet, or meatpuppet, which is not true. Please see [208] followed by [209]. While there may be some common articles between myself and Wikiboo02, you can see we have very different editing histories overall and I don't ever recall interacting with this editor before today. While I shouldn't have made that comment I was getting a bit exasperated by that stage. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad, I didn't try to examine context. I'm starting to feel like I need a glass of wine. :D Valereee (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

My bad - I am a Wikipedian - we examine the facts! If I am wrong I apologise. I asked an adinistrator to look in to it, not to suggest it was a fact. This user also casted an asperison about me. It sounded very similar to you. Will someone pass me the wine! Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I made it crystal clear at the discussion that Some1's redraft (Version B) was acceptable to me, and I would not stand in its way if nobody else opposed it. Was this not reasonable when I wrote it, several hours before you brought the case to ANI? Also, when you asked me to change the names of the draft versions in my vote, I acceded to this requested just 6 minutes later, and not because you had filed a case at ANI as you suggested above. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The very forst encounter you had with me you opened a talk page discussion about me - with my username. You should not open informal discussions on talk pages using people's usernames.

Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I shorthand all the time "X's suggestion" or whatever. It's not necessarily personalizing the discussion unless it's "X's absurd suggestion". Valereee (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Betty in actual fact I think you have probably helped to fine tune the section. I just think this has been unnecesarrily drawn out. But I do believe that version B should just about please everyone. Of course if you feel that it is necessarry to prolong any discussions then let us do so. We have obvoulsy got off on the wrong foot and I do wish we could move on and put off any bad attitudes towards one another. If I have engaged in that then I apologise but please know your part in this and let us enjoy what we have created. For whatever reason I have found the user Some1 easier to work with. Put a lot of clever people in a room there will always be a clash. And all clever people khave the gift or persuasion - or should have. I do feel that I have used mine to make an improvement in good faith so I would just like to leave it there. Richie wright1980 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Than you Richie, I appreciate that. I also do appreciate how you shifted your position in the discussion to a version that was acceptable to me. I think Version B will be adopted and installed into the article, we just have to give other editors an opportunity to review it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's hope so now pass me the bloody wine! I like white. And let's drink to the occasion. Richie wright1980 (talk) 21:00, 13 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.

User:Austria10

A potential threat has been made by user Austria10 on the Articles for Creation Helpdesk. I do not believe it is a serious threat of violence so have not followed the emergency procedure, which is why I am bringing it to the attention of this noticeboard. Qcne (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That is just someone being a bit overdramatic. No sense of violence there at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not just someone being overdramatic; it may not be a real threat of violence, but it's certainly not at all WP:CIVIL. I'd hope that the admins wouldn't feel that that's the level of interaction we should accept in our community. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I have warned the editor further behavior like that can result in a block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Qcne (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The user is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE: [210][211][212][213][214][215][216] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Just came from User talk:Austria10. I think the problem is not NOTHERE so much as being on the deep end of a steep learning curve. Gave 'm some education. Maybe some other issues too. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Tools 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.

---

Reywas92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reywas92 is clearly using the page mover tools to gain the upper hand. After they moved the MENA article without discussion, I asked for it to be reverted as such. The move was eventually reverted by SilverLocust.

Reywas92 moved it again and left a comment on the talk page (in that order). I asked them to self-revert and start a RM and SilverLocust left a comment on their talk page to remind them of the responsibilities that come with the tools. They ignored both and are now editing the article. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, you're jumping to ANI *that* quickly? Undone, but full disclosure, I had opened an edit, took a break, and got back to finish it, so I didn't see the request util after it was saved. Maybe share a reason why it shouldn't be moved instead of jumping to making reports? Reywas92^Talk 23:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't jump to anything and I certainly don't appreciate this personal comment and this nonsense that ignores the fact that you abused the tools (this is what this ANI report is about). I explained why I made the report and left the supporting diffs. Now it's for you to explain why you used the tools to gain the upper hand and ignored the ping and the comment that was left on your talk page. There was plenty of time between these saved edits of yours (see Diff and Diff), made after the ping and the comment on your talk page, and when I filed the report. M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Question - @Reywas92: from what I'm seeing, when your initial move was reverted, you moved the page back again with this edit summary that says Per talk page, the common name is "Middle East and North Africa" but if there's a clear consensus concerning that on the talk page I don't immediately see it. What the diffs show is you making a bold page move, and it was reverted, therefore showing the page move was contentious. The next step should have been to open an RM, but instead you moved the page again using a WP:ROUNDROBIN move which means only editors with the page mover right would be able to revert this move. Once this ANI discussion was opened you moved it back but not without incivility in your edit summaries. The quit whining and start discussing edit summary is particularly concerning because once your move was contested you should have started a page move discussion to get a consensus for a move, I don't see how going to the proper forum to contest a move that they literally cannot revert is whining. Would you mind explaining or apologizing for the incivility in the "whining" edit summary and in your move back? Also do you believe this second move, once it was shown to be a contentious move, was a correct use of the page mover user right, on a contentious topic article, no less? - Aoidh (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Echoing Aoidh concerns, Reywas92, unless you're trying to say you made a move, got busy, came back and somehow forgot you had already made a move; then what you did or did not notice is largely irrelevant. You made a bold move and it was reverted. With very few exceptions e.g. fixing a blatant BLP violation or where the reversion of your bold move was made by an editor in violation of their block or ban or other cases where WP:3RRNO applies, there is no real excuse for making a bold move a second time. There is especially no excuse for doing so when you are using special user rights to do so. Note a move made in accordance to a recently closed RM is not an RM, but a weak or non existent talk page consensus based on unadvertised comments on the talk page should be treated more or less like an RM. Unless you quickly learn about your responsibilities are a page mover, I think it's clear you should lose access to the tool since you clearly cannot be trusted to use it appropriately as you apparently do not understand the most basics of how to handle move disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne: I agree with most of this, but is your penultimate sentence missing a "not" or several? Otherwise I can't figure out how it squares with the rest of your comment. Or maybe I just need more caffeine. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: It's a little clunky but reads correct to me. I'll reword it as: You need to to quickly learn your responsibilities as a page mover, or the user right should be taken away from you. Going solely by this episode and your initial response, I feel you cannot be trusted to with the user right at the current time, as you don't understand the basics of handling move disputes. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Nil Einne That's the ultimate sentence. :) I mean the one before it. "A recently closed RM is not an RM"? "non existent talk page consensus ... should be treated more or less like an RM"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support removing page mover tool, quite incorrect to use that perm to perform contentious moves. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have looked through Reywas92's move log and as far as I can tell this is the only instance of this behavior. Though the use of that tool and the incivility that followed are both very concerning, let's give them a chance to respond so that we have a more complete understanding of things before acting. - Aoidh (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Remove pagemover right. The editor's tendentious behaviour continued in his multiple forced moves, with no sign of an apology or repentance. Further, this editor accuses others of complaining without realising the mistake they themselves have committed. [217] Reywas92 even blanked/reverted M.Bitton's and SilverLocust's posts on the RM page just to protect themselves, and that too with a flagrantly dismissive edit summary.[218] This is definitely a pattern of tendentious behaviour to force one's page move decisions, behaviour that is inconsistent with the pagemover right. An editor with such behaviour should not be allowed to have this right. Lourdes 11:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I cleared their posts on the RM page because I completed the undo and it was not necessary leave it as an open request, not to "protect myself." Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

1. I agree that it was correct of Reywas92 to remove M.Bitton's technical request and my replies once the self-revert was done. Requests at WP:RMTR are promptly removed upon completion so that two movers don't both execute the TR.
2. Personally, I am satisfied with the apology below (though the pointed edit summaries were not directed at me). The WP:PMR violation was evidently a matter of not having the expectations fresh in mind. A lot of users with pagemover use it upon occasion for things like draftifying. Reywas92 has done pretty few round-robin swaps since getting the right in 2021. SilverLocust 💬 00:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) I have the WP:PAGEMOVER right. IMO, it should only be used without WP:DISCUSSION and WP:CONSENSUS in cases which are completely uncontroversial; such as WP:MALPLACED, WP:PRECISE, and typos. Using the tool a second and a third time to make a move against objections is to me an abuse of the privilege. Narky Blert (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• I really don't like the fact we're now losing trust in experienced users over one mistake, a pattern which I've seen recently. That being said, this was a compounded mistake: marking the moves as minor, the second move after being reverted by someone with page mover access, and the edit summary on the self-revert. I don't think any of WP:PMRR apply here, though #4 comes very close, and we're getting into "demonstrated a pattern" territory with the other ones. Reywas92, if you keep this privilege, please, please exercise more caution in the future. SportingFlyer T·C 16:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @SportingFlyer: marking the moves as minor: How does one not mark a move as minor? I see no option at Special:MovePage/MENA for example. AFAIK, all moves are marked as minor edits, which is stupid, but in no way Reywas92's fault. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose removing page mover tool. If any formal sanction is put forth here consider me an oppose and feel free to move my ivote. Lightburst (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Back from out hiking all day, I sincerely apologize for my revert and comment. I made one revert but I understand this is not an appropriate use of the tool and I should go to discussion first. I have had page mover a few years, making regular use of it, and this is very first issue I have had and have gotten used to fixing things and forgetting round-robin is an additional permission with special rules. In this case it seemed obvious to me that the title should be the full name rather than the abbreviation, and I was surprised to be reverted without an explanation. I started a discussion right away when I moved it again, but it was not my intention to stifle discussion and was further surprised that the first response was not to the discussion points made. I apologize to M.Bitton and hope we can have a constructive conversion on the topic. I hope I can keep page mover and will only use it when there is not any opposition or as a reversion. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is enough to just close this, move on from the dramaboard, and let the RM play out. No need for sanctions or right removal, since you’ve clearly understood what was wrong. Courcelles (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, especially since this is an isolated incident and assurance has been made that it will not be repeated. - Aoidh (talk) 00:43, 14 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.

Disruptive IP

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.

---

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

The IP in question has been generally disruptive across a multitude of articles within the past month, which has already lead to multiple blocks within the past week, including an ongoing block for edit warring on Keith Chapman. Their talk page has many warnings from multiple users already, and it seems that the IP either cannot see others' edit summaries, or they are simply ignoring them, as they continue to be generally disruptive across articles (including unsourced additions/changes, changes against MOS, edit warring, original research, etc.)

I had reported the IP earlier today at WP:AIV, however the report was later dismissed. Another user reported the IP at AIV later on, which was dismissed as well. As I type this, the IP continues with their problematic/disruptive editing, and is also now reported at WP:AN3 as well (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:72.212.64.192 reported by User:Equine-man (Result: )).

It is quite clear there is a continuing disruptive history with this IP, and does not appear to be changing anytime soon. Any reports at AIV are only being dismissed, so it seems that (hopefully) this ANI thread may come to a solution with this. Magitroopa (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked sitewide for a month. Procedural notification to Materialscientist, Discospinster, ToBeFree, admins who have (partially in some case) blocked the IP in the past week. Thanks, Lourdes 05:27, 14 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.

Edit warring, disruptive editing, assuming bad faith, and incivility

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.

---

Sequel5 has recently joined in an AFD discussion for an article they've worked on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIME ENCRYPTION. Their tone was initially collegial even if somewhat misunderstanding the issues with the article. That tone has shifted toward being uncivil and making accusations toward myself and other editors.

Here are some comments added on the user talk page: [219][220]. Here's an edit summary accusing an editor of bullying [221]. Here's an accusation of bias and meddling [222] (the word "meddling" also suggests a bit of a violation of pillar 3/WP:OWN). Other editors have noted this editor has either canvassed or reached out to them somewhat out of the blue. The editor has referred to themself as "we" in the AfD discussion as well, potentially signalling other issues.

Cannot be sure, but I want to note that this account may be a WP:SPA based on editing history, as well.

This editor is unfortunately causing issues for several editors now, myself included. —siroχo 03:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's another edit summary that came later, uncivil and borderline WP:NLT [223] —siroχo 05:33, 14 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.

Transfer data to Russia

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.

---

A user created the page Шталаг XVIII-D in the wrong wikipedia. Next some Russians noticed that and asked to transfer the page into ru:Шталаг XVIII-D. Unfortunately, the page Шталаг XVIII-D is already deleted. Would you mind temporarily restoring it and transferring it to Russia? 129.194.85.132 (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello IP user,

I understand your concern, and I believe that WP:Teahouse will assist you better than this page. I have put your request at the teahouse: see Wikipedia:Teahouse#From_AN/I:_An_IP_user_needs_assistance_to_access_the_content_of_a_deleted_page.

Cheers, TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:30, 14 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.

Sundayclose

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.

---

Sundayclose keeps restoring questionably sourced and potentially WP:BLP-sensitive content, keeps demanding consensus for exclusion of content (in an obvious violation of WP:ONUS, which I have pointed out to them several times and which they have ignored), keeps restoring WP:FORUM posts on talk pages, and refuses to engage in talk page discussions:

• "If you disagree, get consensus on the talk page" after I reverted content in a WP:BLP sourced to an opinion talk show of unclear reliability and WP:DUEness
• "Wait for consensus on the talk page"
• "If you disagree, wait for consensus here" (this is the only time they've engaged on the talk page)
• [224] demanding that I restore said potentially BLP-sensitive, questionably sourced content, for which there exists no consensus, and threatening to report me otherwise
• "You are not the sole decider of which comments are about improving the article" after I deleted a driveby WP:FORUM post accusing other editors of canvassing and conspiring to drum up "kangaroo consensus" and promote a "narrative"
• "Get consensus for removal of this content" after I deleted a section sourced to an opinion article written by the subject of the Wikipedia article (a WP:PRIMARY source in this case), and a self-published blog post by Matt Taibbi responding to the opinion article

93.72.49.123 (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: this IP editor looks a lot like Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP again. Strong arguments in edit summaries, tending / preferring to revert edits over discussing them on a talk page, and removing warning templates from their user talk page, usually showing a strong dislike for them (check out the edit summary of this edit!).

Either way, you've been reverted by multiple editors now, so it is on you to form a consensus in favour of your edits. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not BKFIP. But I agree that I was more aggressive than I should have been (though it's kind of hard to be patient when someone blatantly, repeatedly violates WP:ONUS and potentially WP:BLP even after you point it out to them). I've been editing for several months now and never been blocked.

Where have I been reverted by multiple editors? On Ben Collins (reporter), only Sundayclose has reverted me. On James Kirchick, only he and User:Adakiko have reverted me, but Adakiko was just a good faith vandalism patroller who took a hasty look at the edit and, not knowing the context under it, thought I was a driveby vandal deleting stuff for no reason. He has not otherwise engaged in the dispute and did not restore the content again. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

AP 499D25, I see that you have restored the content on Ben Collins (reporter), urging me to "see latest message on talk page". However, given that both Firefangledfeathers and Muboshgu agree with me that the content is WP:UNDUE, the consensus (at least right now) is obviously in my favor. Why did you restore it then? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Untamed1910 also disagrees with your edit on James Kirchick.

In response to the edit on Ben Collins (reporter), I misread it, sorry. But my edit was made before the comment by Firefangledfeathers. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Untamed1910's argument is essentially the same as Sundayclose's: "gain consensus for exclusion". But that's not how Wikipedia works, as WP:ONUS clearly and succinctly explains. They have not brought up any arguments for why a primary opinion article and a self-published blog post are due for inclusion. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not same argument Untamed1910 (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Then what argument it is? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

(ec) I do not get a strong BKFIP vibe from the OP. No comment on the merits of this report. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If I compare the edits and edit summaries of the OP to the previously blocked IP addresses listed in this talk thread, things look very similar between the two I'd say. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Sundayclose, AP 499D25, might I request you to consider that the IP is editing productively, and we might gain by hearing them out? May I also request 93.72.49.123 to be more collegial in edit summaries and discussions, and to be conversant with 3RR issues when it comes to content disputes? There is nothing else that is going to come off this report right now, but a strong advise to all parties, per above. Thanks, Lourdes 06:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I have struck out my BKFIP accusations above, sorry about that 93.72.49.123. And next time, I will give the editor some time to discuss and to try and settle things before jumping to conclusions. The main thing here is that no one has actually violated 3RR, and most of us are aware of / participating in talk page discussions.

By the way, User:Binksternet has sided with the IP editor's edits on James Kirchick, so there's that. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

No offense taken. I can certainly see some similarity between my behavior and BKFIP's. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 04:48, 15 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.

Chronic POV in contentious topics by one editor

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.

---

DaTruestEva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been notified multiple times of the nonconstructive nature of some of their edits (see multiple sections here: [225]), at earliest due to repeated unexplained content removal ([226], [227], and [228]; all October 2019 and on the same page regarding the same content). No edit summaries.

More importantly they have repeatedly inserted unsourced blatant POV content in contentious topic areas. Diffs: [229] (January 2023), [230] (March 2023), [231] (March 2023; after which they received a notice against disruptive editing), [232] (April 2023; after which they received a notice about MOS:GENDERID + a separate one on gender/sexuality as a contentious topic area on their talk page – again see [233]), and finally [234] (two days ago, which I reverted today after it went unnoticed). Again, no edit summaries. Looks like a pattern. VintageVernacular (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User talk:DaTruestEva#Indefinite block. El_C 10:24, 13 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.

Civility and possible WP:CAMP issues

There's been a back and forth about the nature of the Panspermia article on Fringe Theory Noticeboard and the way that it's being presented. Just as some background, since this is pertinent:

• There are two conceptions of Panspermia. One is undeniably a fringe theory, the other is not and is frequently cited in the scientific literture. I am not a fringe theorist, nor do I hold any beliefs on panspermia outside of the scientific mainstream. I am not someone here upset that my favourite fringe theory is being treated as such. Note that the Pseudo-Panspermia distinction used on Wikipedia is not even close to universally used when publishing, meteoriticists and astrobiologists refer to what Wikipedia calls Pseudo-Panspermia as "Panspermia" regularly, which I provided references for.

There's a discussion about how the article should present Panspermia as fringe. I've been trying to porvide scientific sources that reference the form of Panspermia which is not fringe as Panspermia instead of Pseudo-Panspermia. Essentially my issue is with the statement "Panspermia is a fringe theory" is it isn't in all forms, just some versions of it are. User User:Hob Gadling responded

"Took me a while to understand what you were trying to say here. You made it unnecessarily difficult by, for no apparent reason, nowiki-ing the legal term bright line, which I had never heard before, and by using lots of multiple negatives.

But the brunt seems to be just a repetition of the statement that one obscure science branch you bloat to "the sciences" - uses the word "panspermia" with a different meaning than the rest of the world."

When they simply rejected any counterevidence, I called out WP:CAMP behaviour not as an explicitly calling out the behaviour of the poster in question, but a sort of unintentional situation that has been created by FTN enforcing a specific viewpoint that runs counter to the scientific understanding. The response I got was hostile:

"This is so boring, I regret reading it. Instead of trying to find a solution, you are making accusations while claiming you are not. This will not lead anywhere."

Please note that I proposed multiple soltuions and even generally agreed with one of Hob Gadling's proposals. I want to improve this article, I have a pile of sources to do so but it seems that the current state of people's burnout on the FTN is creating ownership issues. If people can't disagree with the FTN's edits, with credible sources, then there's a WP:CAMP issue in my opinion. I don't think this is a real Wikipedia:Tag team issue since I think that the FTN's general tag teaming is probably necessasry to avoid fringe and I dont't think any editors (except the one in question, at this point) are attempting to engage in bad faith. However, a hallmark of tag team behaviour includes:

Reluctance to incorporate new sourced perspectives in an article. Tag-teamers will often attempt to get an article the way they want it, and then insist that nothing new should be added from then on, because it "violates consensus".

Which feels pretty much like exactly what's happening here. Either way, feels like a pretty heft civility/bad faith issue. This seems to be a pattern:

"I don't care for your opinion though, and I do not need it here."

Warrenmck (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Warrenmck, despite your invocation of WP:CAMP (which is merely an essay), the discussion on FTN looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute. I see that Hob Gadling ran out of patience, but I don't see evidence of bad faith on his part and I don't think his comments to you are at the level of WP:Incivility. My advice would be to first read through the talk pages (and their archives, if there are any) for Panspermia and Pseudo-panspermia, as well as discussions of 'panspermia' in the FTN archives, to familiarize yourself with the history on the articles on wikipedia. (Notice how the subject heading at FTN ends with "(again)"?) After catching up on all that's gone before, you'll be better equipped to perhaps propose a solution that addresses your concerns as well as the other editors'. Schazjmd (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"I don't see evidence of bad faith on his part"

Friend:

:"This is so boring, I regret reading it." Warrenmck (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Warrenmck, What good/bad faith means on wikipedia: Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. An accusation of bad faith means that you're saying the other person is deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia. I don't see evidence of that in the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with editors."

I don't think this is an active, explicit interest in harming wikipedia. I think this is behaviour which unintentionally does which requires a willful abandonment of civility and critical evaluation of sources. I've been editing for 16 years and would frankly expect to get ANI'd if I acted this way. If you disagree, that's fine, I'm not trying to bludgeon the process. Warrenmck (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Warrenmck, there are two topics that bring out the worst in editors who patrol the fringe topics, extraterrestrials (including UFOs), and panspermia. It’s been this way since the Internet was invented. Part of the problem is that the claims themselves are considered extraordinary (I don’t believe general panspermia is extraordinary, but the idea that life arrived on Earth from elsewhere is impossible to prove at this time). The incivility-tainted pushback you are experiencing is real, but it’s also considered acceptable, unfortunately, and is tolerated. The best advice I can give you is to find a quiet area to work in; perhaps create articles related to the subject with good sources and develop the topic area as best you can. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The incivility-tainted pushback you are experiencing is real, but it’s also considered acceptable, unfortunately, and is tolerated.

Incivility becoming normalized does not make it acceptable. I stand by my decision to post this here, particularly in light of other uncivil behaviour from the poster in question. If WP:FTN regulars can’t avoid burnout and incivility then that’s what either WP:WB or this page are for, but neither I nor anyone attempting to edit in good faith and within the guidelines should be greeted with that kind of response.

Don’t get me wrong, I would completely understand the distinction in this kind of response if I was trying to push a fringe POV, but that’s not what’s happening here. Warrenmck (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I didn’t communicate well? I see by your user page that you’ve been online for decades. Surely you know by now that the discussion of panspermia crosses the third rail of civil discourse? Let me explain by way of a somewhat tortured analogy. If I, a progressive liberal, traveled to the most conservative part of the US wearing a Joe Biden shirt and waving a rainbow flag, do you think that maybe, just maybe, I might be treated a bit harshly, albeit undeservedly? All I’m saying is know your audience. They don’t like panspermia here, or any kind of discussion about it, and that’s what is happening. And there’s nothing you can do about it, just as there’s nothing I can do about being treated unfairly in a red state. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"I see by your user page that you’ve been online for decades. Surely you know by now that the discussion of panspermia crosses the third rail of civil discourse?"

No, actually! My exposure to panspermia is entirely professional and I'm essentially unfamiliar with its reputation online. If you checked my profile I'm sure you saw I'm a meteoriticist, a.k.a. the field that's actually publishing on this besides astrobiology. I don't get to claim my expertise as a justification to ignore Wikipedia's rules, I need to play by the same playbook as everyone else, provide the same sources, work to build the same consensus, and treat people with respect.

If users of WP:FTN cannot engage on a topic in a civil tone, they need to stop engaging on that topic. Plain and simple. I can understand their frustration, I can recognize it, and I can still be here saying I have no interest in accepting it. Incivility is incivility and there's not a huge carveout in the rules around cilility for WP:FTN regulars. I've seen more than a few well intentioned new people (making terrible edits, to be fair) eaten alive by the FTN and this continues to be an issue. There seems to be an attitude that verbally berating people is acceptable for posting fringe content, and that's apparently spilled over to simple content disputes from people who are ostensibly on the same anti-fringe mission.

"All I’m saying is know your audience. They don’t like panspermia here, or any kind of discussion about it, and that’s what is happening."

You're potentially describing WP:OWN. They don't have to like Panspermia or discussion around it. If an edit improves the article, is factually accurate, and meets all guidelines for inclusion for a given source then they're free to try to build consensus for why something shouldn't be includeed. I do really appreciate you taking the time to explain this, and I definitely understand their frustration. However, I do not think that being frustrated to the point of incivility because you're puppy-guarding a specific version of an article should be considered acceptable. Warrenmck (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It's acceptable because it's house style (bias). Wikipedia has it's own house bias, just like other websites. Is this the first time you're encountering this phenomenon? Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I genuinely fail to grasp how that is in any way different from just saying “power users are allowed to act like jerks when frustrated.” Warrenmck (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I took panspermia off my watchlist years ago when they did the same to me. I suggest you do the same. You could be the leading researcher in your field and they still won't accept what you have to say. There are various, long-term reasons for this, but it's outside the scope of this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, since this is ANI, perhaps we could get the issue addressed at an admin level if this has been going on that long? Warrenmck (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Nah, nothing you can do. The bias was here when Wikipedia first went online. As I said previously, it's a carryover from pre-Wikipedia. This has been going on for a very long time. What I recommend doing is publishing a paper in your field describing the bias and then waiting until it is used as a source in the article. This will be my last comment on this. Pick your battles. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of people from the Indian subcontinent who engage in undisclosed paid editing, but the mind boggles trying to imagine someone being treated with prejudice by a new page patroller due to their nationality, and then being told at a noticeboard that they deserved to be given a hard time because of how many people from there write bad articles. Like, I understand that there are a lot of POV-pushers and grifters who try to use Wikipedia as a means to disseminate deranged views, but there's got to be some limit to how hostile people are allowed to be on the basis of "oh, sorry, you mentioned outer space, so I figured you must be a Scientologist". jp×g 03:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Did this accidentally get posted to the wrong thread? I feel like this reply was intented for the Nazi Flag section above. Warrenmck (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I tried to indent it properly, and probably failed. It was meant for this. jp×g 08:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• On one hand, this would seem to be a content issue, but looking at the noticeboard discussion, the situation becomes more and more baffling. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken in my reading, but it looks like Warrenmck (the OP)'s claim is something like this:

"Many people in scientific literature have mentioned a concept called 'panspermia', so why do we have an article titled 'panspermia' that talks exclusively about a bonkers crackpot theory, and a separate article (with the made-up name 'pseudo-panspermia') describing the real concept?"

This seems to me like a reasonable enough question. But reading through the thread, the responses are perplexing; basically, the thrust of it seems to be that there is some guy who posts crackpot nonsense on the Internet, so the Wikipedia article about the word he uses to describe it takes precedence over any other use in scientific publications. Again, let me know if I am missing anything. jp×g 03:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty much essentially correct. Just to be clear about this though:

"Many people in scientific literature have mentioned a concept called 'panspermia', so why do we have an article titled 'panspermia' that talks exclusively about a bonkers crackpot theory, and a separate article (with the made-up name 'pseudo-panspermia') describing the real concept?"

Panspermia (bonkers crackpot theory) would undeniably hit WP:NOTABILITY, and the use of pseudo-panspermia is noted in the literature, particularly in astrobiology, but it's far from universally used. "Panspermia" is frequently used in scientific publications without qualification to refer to what wikipedia is calling pseudo-panspermia.

"the thrust of it seems to be that there is some guy who posts crackpot nonsense on the Internet"

Unfortunately he's actually a serious academic, just also someone who said in a paper:

"The presence of complex organic molecules including the building blocks of life in comets is now amply confirmed; so it is reasonable to hypothesize that there is fully fledged microbial life in comets"

Which I hope doesn't require a specialist education to see the problem with. It's like saying we found metal in a meteorite so naturally Rodin's The Thinker can be found on chondritic bodies in the Solar System. His notion of panspermia is undeniably fringe, but that fringe definition isn't the one widely used in the field and as someone who is in the metoeritics field myself Wikipedia's elevation of a mathematician's contributions to astrobiology were literally my first exposure to it. I think the conversation above with someone else who gave up on this exact situation years ago makes me think there's a serious WP:OWN issue at play which is manifesting as incivility. Warrenmck (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I still do not understand why anyone would write "[[bright line]]" instead of "bright line" or "bright line". It's more work for them as well as for the readers. If you annoy people like that, you can expect them to get annoyed. When I point out that they are making communication difficult, and also point out that the tiny branch of science that looks at life in space is not "the sciences", they start talking about civility, instead of justifying what they did or acknowledging that it could have been done better. Such behaviour is counterproductive for problem solution. Also, boring. They continued in the same vein, making accusations while saying they were not making accusations, which I subsequently pointed out. But, again, pointing out suboptimal communication methods is viewed by the bad communicator as incivil. I have experience with such people - usually, they are not scientists but pseudoscience fans, or maybe lawyers of pseudoscience fans - and I try to avoid them because they want to talk about all sorts of tedious stuff except the actual subject.

Fred Hoyle is a big name in astronomy, and some people say that if it were not for his panspermia ideas and his silly attacks on biology, including the junkyard tornado misconception and his allegations that Archaeopteryx was fake, he would have been a candidate for the Nobel. The Hoyle meaning of the word, however stupid, has been much more notable over the last decades than whatever astrobiologists do, in my opinion. Biologists still have to fight against that nonsense. A discussion about the exact names of the disambiguation pages would take that into account as well as Warrenmck's quotations from astrobiology. But I cannot see any attempt on their side to find an acceptable solution. Instead of discussing the page names, which could have been interesting, they talk at length about concerted, explicit efforts and then drag me here, both of which is too far down on Paul Graham's hierarchy of disagreement to be not boring. I will now avoid this person more actively than before. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Under any reasonable assumption of good faith, a misplaced nowiki tag is almost certainly a typo (the buttons are right next to the edit box), making it rather confusing why you have responded to it with a pointed accusation of deliberate malfeasance on two separate noticeboards. jp×g 08:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so there is a button that does that? I do not use those. They are for clickers, I am a typer.

I really do not know where you got the deliberate malfeasance from.

When I make a mistake, and someone points it out, I say it was a mistake. I find it extremely weird not to do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I think you're assuming way too much from an editor who is not that experienced and likely not particularly familiar with the myriad aspects of wiki formatting. There is a very good chance Warrenmck had no idea what you were talking about when you said what you said. There's a good chance they still don't know. If they carefully reread and looked at the formatting of their reply, maybe they will figure it out. But I really see no reason why they need to and can easily understand them partly ignoring that part of your reply as something they didn't understand but which didn't seem important (since frankly it wasn't).

This is a minor mistake which shouldn't matter to anyone, it's trivial for an experienced editor to visit the bright line page. And frankly most editors are likely familiar with the concept to some extent since the bright line aspect of 3RR is something that comes up a lot. Still if for some reason this mistake matters so much to you, you should approach Warrenmck on their talk page and properly explain what you're talking and preferably also why it matters so much to you and they will hopefully take a bit more care in the future.

Hob Gadling and jp×g. As for how this mistake happened, I think the more likely scenario here is the editor used the 'visual' mode of the reply tool whether by accident, or on purpose without understanding the implications. If you use the visual mode, and type the two square brackers to make a wikilink, it will open a menu for you to make a link. If you ignore this and click back onto the editing field, or x out or probably even in some cases if something goes wrong with your browser and the menu doesn't show, it will keep the two square brackets like so [[ and you can then proceed to make what you may think is wikilink. When you save it will put nowikis around this wikilink attempt.

See here for an example where I intentionally did that [235] This makes sense since the visual editor isn't intended to be used by typing out wiki code. If you type something that it thinks will be interpreted as wiki code, it may first try to help you by providing a tool for you to add formatting which will appear as formatting in the visual editor. But if you ignore this help and proceed to just put wiki code, it will put nowikis around it.

It's assuming this is what you want as it's intended to be a just what it says, a visual editor. WYSIWYG, so when you have [[Bright line]] it's what you will get when you save, just that as I manually did it here. The visual editor for editing pages tags edits as being made with the visual editor but the reply tool visual editor apparently does not as my example showed, so I expect there might be no way to know precisely what happened without Warrenmck remembering.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the only time I ever typed out nowiki was when I made the above reply. I didn't do so in my own talk page I just typed two square brackets then clicked away from the menu that popped up. While I don't use the visual editor myself, adding nowiki tags is a well known feature/bug partly for the reasons I explained but also in the past I think it did so even when it was unneeded. So when the issue of stray nowiki tags came up, I had an aha moment, checked the edit but found no tags but then tested the reply-tool and confirmed that it doesn't seem to tag replies as any different, whatever mode/s you used when composing your reply. And as I expected I was easily able to replicate the nowiki issue by just closing the menu for adding a wikilink and then typing out the rest of my wikilink as normal. Oh and it just occurred to me if you paste a reply into the visual mode of the reply tool with a formatted wikilink, it will likely do this as well. (I'm lazy to check.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You hit the mail on the head, I minimally edit with the visual editor and every now and then just sort of use it because it loads, and have had some slight issues with it, particularly on mobile.

I think you're assuming way too much from an editor who is not that experienced

Just to be clear this is a Wikipedia:Clean start mainly to edit under a real name account, I doubt the pipeline for new user to RfCing with twinkle consistently is quite as quick. But experienced users can make mistakes, too. :)

I mostly ignored the comments on the bright line thing, in addition to some other particular comments made, since civility seemed to be faltering and I’d rather drop something than try and drag it out into some spat. Warrenmck (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find an image for you hit the mail on the head so I had to settle for "mail hit you on the head": [236]. EEng 19:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation.

It does not "matter that much" to me. I just intended to mention it once, but, having been dragged here, had to do it again here to explain the situation. I was not aware that this is such an inexperienced user. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Premature comic relief

• Just to point out that the FTN discussion linked [237] at the top of this thread contains the unfortunate choice of words trying to whitewash the Panspermia article. And for those who don't believe in lightning striking twice in one discussion, above we've got conceptions of Panspermia. Oy vey. EEng 08:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I was pinged here. My quick impression is that there is nothing going on that requires admin action. EEng, does this have something to do with sperm? (Don't answer that.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Let's organize a seminar on the subject. EEng 18:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  That would be showing proper spunk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wait a minute: are implying there's a naughty subtext to this facially innocent subthread? EEng 03:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  If there is you only have yourself to blame. Until you prematurely ejaculated your comedy into this, it was a perfectly clean discussion. oknazevad (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Will you do something productive instead of trying to be witty, go and read a book about a sea man or something by Conan Doyle. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Normal discussion resumes

• Wouldn't the easiest way to resolve this be having two separate articles using disambiguation. The disagreement seems to come down to the naming of the Pseudo-panspermia, and Panspermia articles. Opening a move discussion on renaming the articles, with disambiguation to separate the two articles. As the most common usage is the pseudoscience nonsense, but the common scientific usage is the hypothesis this would seem to be the way to resolve the issue. I don't believe everyone's behaviour has been perfect in the discussion, but it doesn't seem to meet the standard of incivility that would require any form of sanction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  This seems like the most reasonable way forward, but would likely require an RfC. And honestly, given the sheer glut of pseudoscience around panspermia, it would be an ugly one.

  Probably what we need is to swap the two articles: Psuedo-panspermia becomes the Panspermia article, while the current Panspermia article is moved to Panspermia (fringe theory) or something similar. But I expect any RfC around that to be a bit of a fight, as people have PTSD from literal decades of dealing with the pseudoscience variant being pushed both here & on various other sites. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  The problem their is that the common scientific usage isn't the common usage, so either the main article should be about the conspiracy theory or both articles should have disambiguation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  “ The problem their is that the common scientific usage isn't the common usage”

  I don’t think this is blanket true, and we should all be cautious of extrapolating how often we hear a specific term and what our bubbles are. I unfortunately think the reality is that WP:COMMONNAME applies to both, and the article needs to either reflect that or we need Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory), because there is not an easy case that Pseudo-Panspermia is the common name of that idea. This is why I thought the disambiguation page was a decent idea, despite accusations I wasn’t willing to engage in discussions about solutions. Warrenmck (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  You misunderstood both articles should be moved to new names that both have disambiguation, I'm not talking about a disambiguation page. So "Panspermia (fringe theory)" and "Panspermia (Astrobiology)", or similar. The idea that the astrobiology term is the primary topic is definitely a bubble. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  When that is being pushed to IDHT levels. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  "The idea that the astrobiology term is the primary topic is definitely a bubble"

  Undeniably, but I think that there's no easy way of evaluating whose bubble is more or less valid. My bigger concern comes over using Pseudo-Panspermia to refer to what the literature often calls Panspermia, but we're really getting into the content discussion here and I don't have any strong disagreements with any proposals, we just never even got to the point of evaluating the facts since things were shut down pretty hard.

  "You misunderstood both articles should be moved to new names that both have disambiguation, I'm not talking about a disambiguation page. So "Panspermia (fringe theory)" and "Panspermia (Astrobiology)"

  I think this is what I said? I may be misunderstanding you, sorry:

  "or we need Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory)" Warrenmck (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well you definitely appear to be misunderstanding. I might agree pseudo-panspemia is wrong, but to be clear the scientific term should not be at the "Panspermia" article it is not clearly the primary topic. Ignoring that many editors have said the same thing is not a content issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  "but to be clear the scientific term should not be at the "Panspermia" article it is not clearly the primary topic"

  Sorry, I think I'm clear on what you're saying now. As I said, I didn't get too far into the content discussion of how to approach it considering the brick wall. I obviously disagree vehemently with the quoted line above considering the huge number of scientific publications that refer to Panspermia without the pseudo- qualifier, but I don't really have a verifiable way of demonstrating which common use term is more accepted. I think the real answer is there isn't really a WP:COMMONNAME in the way we'd both like, as most people have simply never heard of Panspermia at all. The common name depends entirely on which bubble you've approached Panspermia from, as far as I can tell (see: the "surely you're familiar with how Panspermia is percieved online" comments). Warrenmck (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry I think I missed the distinction you were drawing between

  "Panspermia (fringe theory)" and "Panspermia (Astrobiology)"

  and what I suggested

  "Panspermia and Panspermia (fringe theory)"

  I have zero issue at all with your suggestion, to be clear. Warrenmck (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  The difference is that there isn't a clear primary topic, so both articles require disambiguation. This was, again, my whole point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  No argument from me on that, sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. Warrenmck (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Another possibility (which I am virtually certain would be roundly rejected because of the history here, but which I think might actually be the one that makes the most sense under policy) would be to merge the two articles. The two theories have a conjoined history, equal claim to the term as a matter of historical usage, and shared physical mechanics--and neither is anywhere near large enough to trigger a forced SUMMARYSTYLE spin-off. I think ti probably makes the most sense to discuss the evolution and relative levels of acceptance of both concepts together. But again, for practical reasons involving the history of the dispute, it's probably a non-starter of an idea. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  That being the case, and following the model proposed above, how about a DAB at Panspermia, with a robust 2-4 sentence description, and then the daughter articles being Panspermia (organic compounds) and Panspermia (microbial); an awfully clunky and atypical (if not outright confusing) way to label these concepts (the first in particular), which is why I lean towards the combined article, but if we're going to use this three-part organizational scheme, I don't know what other terms could be more appropriate or precise. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  To get very nerdy with it, I think in advance that specific delineation would result in multiple years of edit warring over Allan Hills 84001. Warrenmck (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is exactly what I suggested, and what has been previously suggested at FTN before this was brought to ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• So, Warren's core claim here is that FTN overestimates the significance of fringe theories. That's a plausible claim, and consistent with my own perception of FTN. Really, I question whether in 2023 we still need it. Anti-fringe thinking has been thoroughly integrated into the communal ethos, much more than it was in 2007, and FTN procures a lopsided sampling of people who favor the most maximal interpretations of related policies, sometimes (perhaps as here) to a fault. (True of all single-issue noticeboards, but we collectively do a much better job handling fringe issues than we do with NPOV, BLP, etc.) But that's another issue for another day. No one did anything sanctionable here IMO. If Warren wants to merge the articles, he should propose a merger. The closer of that request should be wary of any arguments, from either side, of "that's how I always hear this term used", instead looking to empirical evidence of how sources treat the topic(s). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  ”So, Warren's core claim here is that FTN overestimates the significance of fringe theories.”

  This, and that greeting counter-evidence with “this is boring, I regret reading it” is not civil and that attitude has no place on a noticeboard. How can I improve an article if those puppy guarding it refuse to evaluate evidence (which meets all standards for inclusion) because it counters their crystallized notion of a term? If my sources are dismissed out of hand by those who would instantly revert any changes I make, then my incentive to improve the article is pretty low, which is why I referenced WP:GANG. Like I’ve said, I can recognize the burnout, but above in this ANI thread is someone who unfollowed the same article in question years ago due to this behaviour and I already bowed out of trying to actually revise this because I think it’s going to be a huge cluster given the history and, frankly, the lack of concern from admins at some of the behaviour displayed.

  I’m not trying to bludgeon the process, and I’m sorry if I come across as doing so here, I just can’t imagine wanting to spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia in a field I am familiar with if there’s essentially going to be a cadre of power users are simply going to shut down discussion.

  I maintain that if FTN users can’t engage with civility due to burnout the solution is a wikibreak, not tolerating burnout manifesting poorly, and there does seem to be a lot of that explicitly going on. In all my time editing on Wikipedia I don’t think I’ve every just said “This is boring and I regret reading your contribution.” Sometimes I may not reply, but I don’t try to Molotov a discussion. For the same reason I never fear WP:BOOMERANG, bad behaviour is bad behaviour, and Wikipedia is better without it, even if it’s from me. Warrenmck (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree with Tamzin and others here: over the last couple of years, I've started to become concerned that FTN has developed into the Lupus of en.Wikipedia--based in mechanisms that serve an important function in protecting our content from certain kinds of infection and thereby maintaining the health of the project, but increasingly this methodology for applying those mechanics is becoming unrestrained by necessary limiters, and as a consequence is starting to become an issue in its own right.

  It's gotten to the point where I won't recommend it to newer editors in conflicts over edge case fringe content, but only for instances where I am absolutely certain policy does not allow the disputed content, because it is a terrible place for discussion or dispute resolution, but a reliable place to get extra !votes to keep fringe content out. But that's the exact nature of the problem that has developed there: it has essentially become a place for editors working in content areas with inordinately high levels of psuedoscience, crank concepts, products, or treatments, and fringe social theories to gather together and call on one-another for support.

  Now, that might sound to some like not such a bad thing, but the issue is that it has essentially allowed a semi-tight cadre of editors to be at one-another's call without running afoul of WP:CANVAS. Further, it encourages a certain degree of group think; even when non-regulars bring matters there, it's extremely rare to see a high degree of disagreement: the ostensibly non-mainstream view is always going to get piled on. This sense of belonging on the right side of the battle against misinformation while enjoying reliable support has also lead to some tonal issues, from what I have seen: the dismissiveness bordering on hostility that has been alluded to above is something I have seen myself in other cases and has bothered me even though I tend to align strongly with the consensus when I have followed discussions there.

  About the only part I disagree with Tamzin about is whether we should necessarily wait until another day to start addressing the issues that have taken root at FTN and, indeed, the question of whether it has outlived it's usefulness-to-issues threshold. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not a regular at FTN, but I would disagree that is has outlived it's usefulness because anti-fringe thinking has become part of communal etjos. In fact the last few years appear to show the exact opposite, with fringe becoming more normalised in certain communities and counties. The discussion of canvasing is also the same as concerns over projects that have been rejected elsewhere. If there are problems with uncivil behaviour they should absolutely be stopped. If the issue is burnout the solution is more editors taking an active part at FTN, not closing it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Etjos isn't a word, but it really should be. Not sure for what. EEng 18:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yours is, as ever, the most useful comment in this whole discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  "If there are problems with uncivil behaviour they should absolutely be stopped. If the issue is burnout the solution is more editors taking an active part at FTN, not closing it."

Maybe, but it wouldn't be the first time we closed down a process or space because the manner of resolving issues had gotten unruly and impractical. And we can't just conjure newer, fresher volunteers from thin air. The thing is, FTN has always been the odd duck out when it comes to our noticeboards: it's the only one which is content subject-specific; every other one of our dozens of boards is focused on a particular type of issue, behaviour, or process. Only FTN is concerned with a certain (albeit quite broad) area of content. So it's the only one set up to accrue a cohort of specific contributors with similar outlooks who can routinely form ranks together to push a specific POV. Even considering that the subject matter in question is an expansive and somewhat unique one like fringe theories, I question whether it is really an appropriate function for a notice board.

I don't think Tamzin was suggesting that fringe concepts (or their impacts on our work) have gotten any less prevalent, but rather that our policies surrounding it have tightened considerably since the mid 2000s, and we have pretty robust means for dealing with these kinds of issues without forwarding them to a subject-specific board where the received wisdom on (and willingness to entertain new thoughts and approaches, or even truly open discussion for) certain topics gets stagnate or even stigmatized. Almost every issue that gets taken to FTN could probably as (or more) easily be addressed through an RfC, which would bring in just as much outside perspective, and a higher percentage of it would be from editors without possibly already entrenched perspectives. Truly repetitive or tendentious issues surrounding POV pushing in fringe areas could still be brought here, and broad changes to reading or interpretation to relevant guidelines to the village pump, same as how it works for every other subject area. And really, those issues often have to be passed here from FTN as it stands anyway.

I think it's worth considering: FTN's reputation for generating heat versus solutions has been growing for a while, and I don't think I'm the only editor/community member that happens to consider themselves strongly philosophically aligned with the concept of empirical skepticism who nevertheless finds the attitudes and behaviours there become increasingly walled garden and even territorial, for at least some subjects. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

(Very non admin) comment: If FTN is useful for centralizing fringe issues, but suffers from a culture issue, could it exist to act as a central notice board for fringe issues with the discussion taking place on the pertinent Wikiproject? i.e. just have a “there’s a discussion about this fringe issue at link” without any discussion taking place at FTN. That would possibly avoid the risk of things flying entirely under the radar, but keeping the discussion in the relevant topic-specific Wikiproject would elevate “domain knowledge-possessing users as part of the “anti-fringe” userbase without just dumping the work on Wikiprojects or scattering all the FTN users to the winds.

Some of the issues I’ve seen on FTN come from users having a greater vested interest in being anti-fringe than they have knowledge of a topic that they’re trying to keep fringe content from. Having the discussion on the wikiproject for whatever topic it is also prevents FTN powerusers from, well, powerusering. Warrenmck (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a notion worth pondering, though I would add the caveat that really the discussions should typically be taking place more locally, at the talk pages for the relevant articles: if anything WikiProjects tend to exacerbate walled garden approaches (which is why we have the WP:Advice page standard. Mind you, they certainly have their role, but I wouldn't necessarily say their strengths lay in decreasing the tendency for camps to form! Maybe the notion of putting these cohorts in tension with the FTN crowd so that they keep eachother from exercising too much influence has some merit, but I wouldn't consider it likely to act like a silver bullet to any problems we see at FTN.

I also question whether moving the discussions from FTN to the local spaces would do much to discourage people from using the forum as a recruitment shop with regard to the "users having a greater vested interest in being anti-fringe than they have knowledge of a topic that they’re trying to keep fringe content from" issue you (I think quite correctly) identify; users who have lost perspective in this way can just as easily tag team on the talk page as on FTN itself, afterall. The one benefit I can see is that maybe this might lead to issues being resolved by RfCs more often--which is really a mechanism that works infinitely better (and with much less risk of systemic bias / self-appointed guardianship issues) for resolving these sorts of issues than does an FTN posting--and the existence of this and similar tools is a big part of why I question the cost-benefit value of the forum at this juncture.

Another possibility that has occurred to me during this discussion is whether we might go in the other direction and expand FTN into a Contentious Topics Noticeboard ('CTN'). I can actually see a lot of utility for such a space (although, needless to say, it would become a gravity well for tense loci of disputes; though the existence of ANI and AE demonstrates that this community sees benefit in aggregating such issues together at times), and it would have the additional benefit of diluting the anti-fringe crew (both the ones who act with the appropriate level of restraint when outside their wheelhouse and the ones who don't) among other participants. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

”users who have lost perspective in this way can just as easily tag team on the talk page as on FTN itself”

Honestly that’s why I think the use of Wikiprojects would work; you can keep all the users tag teaming each other but they’re at least somewhat supervised by those with a positive interest in the topic, as opposed to a negative interest in fringe. If nothing is out of line in the anti-fringe content then I don’t see why it couldn’t just be business as usual (i.e. FTN regulars posting as they always do, just on multiple pages instead of FTN, with FTN serving as a central repository for where anti-fringe discussions are taking place), but if something has been misunderstood then it’s getting posted where a lot of eyes capable of pointing that out are on it.

This one does seem a wee bit complex to navigate! I’m curious to see what (or what not) comes of it, thank you for all your time and thoughts on this. Warrenmck (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Only FTN is concerned with a certain (albeit quite broad) area of content. That's not true; WP:BLPN is just like FTN in being about a specific type of content (sometimes they even overlap in coverage). Maybe observation of the one can lead to insight on the other. :) Shells-shells (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right--I did fail to account for BLPN in that generalization! Though I will say that I think BLPN does probably have an at least slightly broader purview in terms of aggregate subject matter. Hard to say with certainty though. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Ed instructor not engaging with community concerns

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

As is clear from this EDUN discussion (Permalink), despite having taught 23 Wiki Ed courses, Berrgmanucsd's students have consistently produced subpar output, demonstrating clear failures to understand basic principles of article writing like the need for independent sources. Concerns were raised in 2019 and Wiki Ed staffers assured the community that measures would be taken to ensure that the problems stopped. Evidently, they haven't, and Bergmanucsd's sole contributions since concerns were re-raised in July 2023 have been to delete a chunk of the initial complaint, and to continue moving problematic student work into mainspace.

For the prior reasons, and as I previously stated in the EDUN thread, I am proposing that the community ban Bergmanucsd from teaching further Wiki Ed courses. Alternatively, if an uninvolved admin wants to step in and indefinitely block on WP:ENGAGE grounds, I think that would be a much lower-bureaucracy resolution at this time, and any question of teaching courses can come after a successful unblock request. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I left a message at their talk. Further action might occur if there is no response within a short period. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I am available to brainstorm ways with WikiEdu staff of how to improve their training and overall programming, as I have been now for 6 years. Bergmanucsd (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) in a discussion about your perceived engagement, an acknowledgement that doesn't acknowledge anything is pretty... brave. SN54129 10:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m afraid that we’re past “brainstorming” here. You need to demonstrate that you understand the problems with both your past courses’ contributions and your own failure to communicate about them when concerns were raised. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I, like you, am not in control of other wikipedians contributions. I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes, talkpages, etc. WikiEdu's training is something that they have control over. I assign my students ALL the lessons available. If students do not complete the lessons, they do not receive full points for the assignment in my course. As it relates to their actual contributions, if they rely to heavily on a single course, the grade they receive will not be full credit. In my capacaity as an instructor, my role is to model best practicies, ensure they are aware of the policies of Wikipedia (through the WikiEdu portal and trainings), and then assess them. I'm not sure what else you'd like for me to do. The WikiEdu portal would need to be changed for this to happen. All of this has been documented in my communications with WikiEdu. If you require furhter information, then I would suggest you ask for greater access to their records and actions they take to improve the program. On my end, I can only access what I see as well. As always, thank you for your multiple messages while I was on vacation. Now that I am back, I hope that I have adequately addressed your concerns. Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes, talkpages, etc. Actually, you do have the power to edit these pages. In fact you have a responsibility to do so as the person in charge of these student editors. That you don't understand this is the root of the problem here. MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a conflict here, with the same page trying to serve both as an encyclopedia article and as a piece of coursework? If I write 2+2=5 in Wikipedia, someone should and will correct it; if I write it in my maths exam then they should leave it as a record of my (lack of) ability. It's hard for one page to do both jobs simultaneously, and the encyclopedia has to take priority. Certes (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, this is a problem with using Wikipedia in teaching in general. There are ways to use Wikipedia as part of a course that don't result in this dilemma (for an instructor, the course/students really ought to take priority! so your assignments should avoid putting the two aims in conflict). -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It should surely to navigate ways around this, such as establishing that coursework should be conducted purely in the sandbox and only be migrated/copied to mainspace upon the nod and approval of the instructor? And then be checked again in mainspace? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Certes "If I write 2+2=5 in Wikipedia, someone should and will correct it; if I write it in my maths exam then they should leave it as a record of my (lack of) ability." But if you correct it on Wikipedia, it's still there as a record of your (lack of) abilityl - that's why we have the history and contributions publicly visible. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

As a former educator though not with WikiEdu, while Bergmanucsd certainly has the editorial power to edit those pages, same as any other editor, it would be inappropriate to do so directly as a teacher. While you can certainly provide feedback on a student's work and even suggestions for how to approach or solve a particular problem, typically at any point up to the final submission, it is wholly inappropriate for a teacher to directly edit a student's piece of work. As a teacher your goal is to impart knowledge so that the student can do the work, not to do the work of the student for them.

What I can't see on wiki though is Bergmanucsd giving any feedback to his students. Perhaps that is something that is happening off wiki, whether in the classroom or through the WikiEdu portal. Going forward it might be helpful to editors who are active on pages that WikiEdu use as part of their courses to be able to at least see the feedback being given to the student, as that might make it easier to identify whether this is a student cohort problem, or a class/course provider problem. Right now as a non WikiEdu editor, I don't see any obvious or easy way to tell if a student is being given wrong or misleading advice or information as part of what should be an ongoing course feedback loop between the teacher and student. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article isn't the student's work. The edits are the student's work. No one can edit the edits -- the diffs remain -- but if a teacher edits an article to fix a mistake their student made, that is not changing the student's piece of work, it's changing a Wikipedia article. There's nothing inappropriate about it. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit stunned by this response given that you are quite obviously aware of your ability to edit other wikipedia editors' contributions - you removed a part of the initial post on WP:EDUN that you found objectionable. -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This also doesn't explain why you chose to move patently unready articles like Draft:Iraq and the World Bank or Kuwait and the International Monetary Fund to main space. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This behavior I will refrain from in the future. Bergmanucsd (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to interpret this as "I don't have any control over anyone else's edits", which is true; everyone can make whatever edits they want. But when you went on to say you couldn't edit anyone else's contributions, you kind of lost me. @Bergmanucsd, are you aware that all of us here, not only everyone in this discussion but everyone in the world, can edit anyone else's contributions? Literally everyone in this discussion can edit anything that isn't fully protected from editing, which is a minuscule portion of pages, and hundreds can edit even those. You can edit anything that isn't fully protected, too.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you were trying to get at? Valereee (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that everyone in the world can edit any page. What I meant to say is that I can't put my name on the edits or specific contributions of my students, only after they have been posted. Maybe I was misinterpreting some of the comments, but it seemed as if editors were asking me to make changes to what students post. As I mentioned above, the course structure does require students to acknowledge that several aspects of their contribution conform to wikipedia standards. If they claim it does and publish it, that's on them. And edits should be made on their contributions and discussions on their talk pages to remind them of the wikipedia standards. Bergmanucsd (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

But it's very much also on you, since you are the reason they are editing wikipedia in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bergmanucsd:, you wrote: I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes... Co-signing what other have told you that yes, you do and you have a responsibility to keep an eye on them and minimize or reverse the damage they do. Instructors and students who turn up once or twice a year to dump these inferior drafts, and often edit-war over them, are harming the project. I think we need to treat them the same way we do any other user who disrupts. As some of them have done this repeatedly, they should know better than a new disruptive user. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm kinda concerned about the seeming lack of communication. That said, after looking through various things for Wiki ed (including Wikipedia:Assignments_for_student_editors#Advice_for_instructors), I think maybe having a set guideline might be nice to give everyone more of a sense about where they stand in regards to accountability. I don't think it necessarily needs to be anything as strict as WP:ADMINACCT, but at least the same thing we ask of discussion closers - that they at least should respond to an initial request for clarification when asked. This shouldn't require an AN/I post every time. - jc37 06:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Brianda, and Ian for their thoughts. - jc37 06:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging User:Frank Schulenburg (Wiki Education), Frank Schulenburg, User:LiAnna (Wiki Ed), Liannadavis - jc37 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Jc37 In the area I edit, WikiEd has provided ample materials, which apparently the instructors don't access or teach. I agree that perhaps more on instructor accountability might help (particularly in a case like this one where the instructor is coming off as blaming WikiEd and being combative).

But anyone concerned about WikiEd's materials or lack thereof should know some history. While the WMF was quite happy to promote, advertise, and piggy back on the very limited successes in 2008 of Jbmurray and Awadewit with generating student-edited FAs with considerable use of resources (meaning time from numerous FA regulars to get the articles promoted), WMF has since provide insufficient funding for WikiEd, which even resulted in layoffs some years back. WMF will not devote the necessary resources to addressing these issues, and that is the direction anyone who is concerned about student editing might focus. We can't ask more of WikiEd if WMF is unwilling to give them enough resources to make encounters with student editing less tiresome for the rest of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this would be helpful.

As I have mentioned to the WikiEd staff through my collaboration with them for 6 years, I am available to brainstorm ways of how to improve their training and overall programming. Bergmanucsd (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

And we are available to respond to non-copy pasted comments, if you'll give us that courtesy Bergmanucsd. You have been asked to engage; I recommend doing that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Please be patient. My read on things is that the instructors may not be as wiki-fluent in the back-project processes as you or I might be. Please let's give everyone some time to work this out. - jc37 09:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bergmanucsd can you explain why you chose to remove part of Rosguill's complaint as your opening action in the discussions? I would also like both Bergmanucsd and Brianda/Ian to lay out what actual concrete steps got taken in 2018 and 2019 to resolve these issues. As a more general point, while instructors obviously don't need to be back-end savvy in the way that we are, I do expect them to be more responsive to concerns than the average editor because of the nature of their role. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed my non-Wikipedia name Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bergmanucsd, FWIW, your full name is publicly displayed at Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UCSD/IPE_Money_and_Finance_IMF_WB_2023_(Summer_2023). If you are concerned for your privacy, and want to edit outside of your courses, you may wish to open a second account for your own editing. Valereee (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that googling "Bergman UCSD" gets us immediately to your non-wikipedia name. If you're worried about your name being on Wikipedia I'm not sure what to suggest at this point, since anything I can come up with is a real "closing the barn door after the horses escaped" kind of solution. At any rate, I would warn you against following Valereee's suggestion and starting a new account until this ANI discussion is resolved, so that you don't look like you're trying to evade some kind of consequence or to create a sockpuppet. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe this explanation. You also unnecessarily removed a full paragraph the entire sentence along with it, and you seem to have no problem linking to 23 pages which prominently list your name on your user page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill, I only see the removal of a single sentence, am I missing something? Here's the diff I'm looking at: [238] -- asilvering (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Asilvering, I misremembered the length of the text in question and have corrected my comment. Thanks for the ping. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I do actually find it believable from someone who may not realize everything onwiki is public and even if removed is visible in history unless oversighted. Valereee (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're correct, that's very worrying. Either this prof has misunderstood something in WikiEdu's materials or WikiEdu isn't sufficiently clear on this. Because this is a major issue for student privacy, I hope one of the WikiEdu staff tagged into this discussion can clarify which it is. This would cause serious privacy concerns under various FIPPA rules and, I presume, American legislation as well. -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The students are private, except for those who use their names for their user accounts, or those who edit with IPs (which I'm not sure I've actually seen). Valereee (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Their work, however, is not. -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think grades are public, if that's what you're getting at? This is probably getting to be a tangent. Valereee (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

if after 6 years they are not "wiki-fluent", then that appears to be a competency issue. ValarianB (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF Bergmanucsd (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bergmanucsd: Voicing concern about another user's competence isn't necessarily a violation of those policies/guidelines. If someone's ability to edit this site is far below where it should be based on the amount of time they've spent on here, editors are expected to call that out. CityOfSilver 15:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but let's remember that while it's six years, it's also only 700 edits. That's still in the steep-learning-curve phase, and I'm sure this editor has the capacity to become competent. Hearing concerns about competency does feel like a personal attack. I'd rather go with "you don't seem to have learned enough about Wikipedia policy to be teaching it". Valereee (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think something ADMINACCTesque would actually be that strict a bar to meet. As ArbCom recently reaffirmed, admins don't have to give a good answer, just a reasonably prompt and generally coherent one. (My gloss; some might leave it at "any answer".) It seems reasonable to hold course instructors to a similar standard—a trade-off for the exemption courses get from WP: MEAT. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin WP:MEAT allows students to operate within what would typically be considered meatpuppery for other users, but should it disallow admins from blocking problematic courses? The many and long-documented probably with student editing can be addressed in some cases by stopping the bad courses from editing. Disallowing them from working with WikiEd, as Rosguill suggested, does nothing to stop the bad course-- just allows them to continue without someone watching them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Well, there isn't any explicit exception to MEAT for courses. (There's an explicit exception to SOCK for the students themselves, but that's separate.) We generally don't consider courses meatpuppetry because, at least where the master isn't blocked and there isn't intentional deception, there must be disruption for something to count as meatpuppetry. (Otherwise it would be meatpuppetry for me to email you a suggestion for an article.) Usually there isn't an issue with that when it comes to courses, because disruption doesn't exceed the standard levels for new users, and we don't hold the occasional student's misunderstanding of policy against the instructor. Or it does happen and someone chews the instructor out and they learn their lesson. If there's persistent issues with students making inappropriate edits under an instructor's direction, though, yes, I would say MEAT could apply. I have not looked closely enough at this case to say whether it does here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Just linking the instructor orientation, which includes fixing bad articles: How to clean up major problems in articles that your students worked on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this tutorial Bergmanucsd (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiEd

Does WikiEd actually bring any real benefit to the encyclopedia, a benefit that exceeds the downsides of their activities? For example, do a non-trivial number of the students stick around to become long-term editors? BilledMammal (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. As troublesome as WikiEd can be, when instructors run courses completely on their own the results are on average more disruptive than when WikiEd is involved. Unless we're prepared to ban edits-for-grades entirely (and police that somehow) we are better off with WikiEd. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, my concerns here are with this specific instructors’ courses (and noting as well that part of the reason for the WB/IMF problem’s persistence appears to be the changing of the guard of Wiki Ed liaisons since concerns were first raised). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that there's already a strong basis in policy for banning edits-for-grades: WP:NOTHERE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to provide a sandbox for editing practice. However, we need to tolerate good-faith mistakes by newcomers, especially if misguided by an inexperienced teacher, because they may go on to become regular editors or at least make enough good edits to be a net positive during their course. One way forward might be to have some way of finding out about these endeavours in advance and to pass them on to a relevant wikiproject, who may be able to provide a volunteer with adequate subject knowledge and long experience of article creation to work alongside the teacher. Certes (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

finding out about these endeavours in advance and to pass them on to a relevant wikiproject I think there have been efforts to do this in the past. Certainly with medical courses this became routine practice after the issues Sandy is referring to (I don't know if it still is). This could probably be automated in some way, but do bear in mind there are hundreds of these courses every semester, which means lots and lots of notices on pages like WikiProject Sociology and other not-very-active WikiProjects. I think the main reason this doesn't already happen is because WikiProject activity is so uneven that professors/students can't rely on help there, and not wanting to overload volunteer projects (similar to why professors are discouraged from requiring students to go through DYK, GAN, PR, or other parts of the project where community time is already spread thin). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree, neither teachers nor students are really WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia; one is here for money (it's their job) and the other is here for a grade (also their "job"). Neither is volunteering. If the teacher keeps the job and the student gets an A, neither will care about WP policies (and why would they?). I don't see what benefit it brings to require people to edit as part of a class -- I don't see the benefit to Wikipedia or to the student. Editing only works if it's something you want to do. So I'd support just removing that exception from WP:SOCK policy and saying teachers can't assign editing to students, but that's a discussion for another page. (Not to be confused with a class on editing, which should of course still be allowed, but that's different from editing as part of a class about something else, as is the case here.) Levivich (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What a bizarre take; teachers' job is "teaching", not "giving assignments that involve Wikipedia"; they aren't "here for the money", they're here because they think that it will serve a purpose for their students and the encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Teachers that make Wikipedia editing a part of their course assignments are "giving assignments that involve Wikipedia" as part of their job, "teaching." The teacher is being paid to teach students (part of which involves Wikipedia editing), and the students are paying to attend the class (part of which involves Wikipedia editing). The teacher is doing the Wikipedia editing for the money and the student, who paid the money, is doing it for the grade. Neither are volunteering to build an encyclopedia, they're using the encyclopedia for something else (their teaching job, or their class grade). Levivich (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Teachers that make Wikipedia editing a part of their course assignments are "giving assignments that involve Wikipedia" as part of their job, "teaching." Yes. The teacher is being paid to teach students (part of which involves Wikipedia editing) Maybe. The teacher is doing the Wikipedia editing for the money Certainly not. --JBL (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly the edits made by WikiEd students are productive and end up sticking. The issues are created by a small percentage of classes/students - I'd estimate in the 5-10% range based on when I did a fairly comprehensive look of the edits from 15 wikied classes last year. Issues are particularly vexing for the community both because when a class goes off the rails it's not 1 editor doing so but 5, 10, 15 editors and also because the community has a harder time sanctioning editors when they're mission aligned (even if some students are quite clearly only doing it for the grade). This is how you get the fair idea of "seems like we spend a lot of time dealing with wiki ed classes" to square with "overwhelmingly productive editing happens by wiki ed". It's also not clear to me how much WikiEd causes classes to be taught that wouldn't otherwise be taught and how much WikiEd serves as an additional layer to help us make edits that would be happening anyway more productive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

For me the bigger problem is that some instructors won't communicate and don't bother to educate themselves on what they're teaching. I removed a lot of cruft sourced to sales sites at Scrunchie a couple months ago, apparently just before the work was graded because the instructor quickly came in and reverted, which is how I discovered it was a wikied project. I posted to the talk and pinged the instructor, who never responded. Out of sympathy for the student being graded, I left it for a few weeks before removing it again, but it's pretty frustrating when an instructor with 228 edits over her entire career and who is teaching "Public Writing" every semester at an esteemed university hasn't bothered to learn anything about what she's apparently teaching and doesn't respond to pings. Her immediate previous edit was a similar reversion in March to removals of promo by someone else. Valereee (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth imposing some requirements on who can run courses on enwiki? I like the idea of imposing something similar to WP:ADMINACCT to require that the coordinators communicate, and considering your comment here and above (Yes, but let's remember that while it's six years, it's also only 700 edits. That's still in the steep-learning-curve phase, and I'm sure this editor has the capacity to become competent. Hearing concerns about competency does feel like a personal attack. I'd rather go with "you don't seem to have learned enough about Wikipedia policy to be teaching it".) perhaps a minimum-contribution count requirement as well? Perhaps at least 1000 edits, including at least 500 to article space and 300 to talk space? BilledMammal (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied with requiring engaging by responding to pings. I don't mind someone well-intentioned not knowing what they don't yet know. I do very much mind someone not bothering to take advantage of a ping to a concern, which in the case of WikiEd should be seen as an invitation to learn something. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I learned about (lower-case r, not the WP version) reliable sources in middle school writing classes. The fact that a writing professor apparently can't handle it is appalling, and raises many questions partially separate to the issues in this thread. casualdejekyll 23:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the support for a ban of Bergman so far, it looks like there might be a ban in this public writing instructor's future as well. -- asilvering (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49 is there data to back that student edits are overwhelming productive? That has never been my experience in the medical realm, although it may be so in areas less difficult to edit. Colin did some analysis years ago: User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, Part I User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, 2013.

BilledMammal, a fine line has to be walked with course instructors to convince them to work with WikiEd, as they aren't required to, and having them work with knowledgeable Wikipedians gives us at least some small chance of stemming the bad edits. If we impose anything else on their ability to get free unpaid tutors (Wikipedians), they can just run their courses outside of WikiEd, and then we (the unpaid volunteers) end up in a worse place in terms of the amount of cleanup we are forced to (which in my case has caused me to unwatch huge numbers of medical articles, because once students descend, the cleanup takes over my editing time). It has long been argued at the noticeboard that a better way to deal with bad courses is if admins would start blocking them after repeat offenses. I believe Tryptofish might have more on this discussion-- I stopped following the Education Noticeboard years ago as the problems with student editing in the medical realm became too much to keep up with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't impose these requirements solely on educators working with WikiEd; I would impose it on all educators, although I don't know how difficult it is to identify those operating outside of WikiEd? BilledMammal (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

At least in the medical realm, there are few things easier to identify than student editing. The issues are so common and repeated course after course that they are inescapable: frequent plagiarism, very very sub-standard writing, adding off-topic content to main articles rather than using summary style for content already written elsewhere, essay-like original research, almost absent knowledge of WP:MEDRS in spite of training materials, use of substandard sourcing, "peer reviews" from fellow students that have nothing to do with WP:P&G clogging talk pages, edit warring as course end approaches and they need to get their content to stick for a grade, over-segmentation of articles to make their own portions stick out, usually with faulty section headings ala WP:MSH, failure to engage on user or article talk, and disappearance from the article after the course ends. I could probably think of a dozen more (and will as soon as I hit send). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

We see the disappearance after the course ends regularly at DYK. It seems some instructors give extra credit for a DYK nom, and neither the instructor nor the student will respond to pings. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, thanks for the ping. I don't have a whole lot to add in regard to what you asked about, beyond what others here have already said. I'm fine with student editing in general, and it's a fact of life here. But I feel strongly that we have to treat student editors, and class instructors, the same as we treat other editors, not better, not worse. As to whether student editing is a net positive or a net negative, that's largely in the eye of the beholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy for raising this important point. I did not check courses where I knew my knowledge would be completely inadequate to judge the edits. So I did not check any medical writing in my sample. It is entirely possible that the failure rate for medical articles is much higher (the same it would be for articles within the scope of contentious topics). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'm curious how often you still see issues with medical content from students? There used to be a lot, especially before WikiEd and in its early days, but since then there are specialized trainings, requirements that apply just to medical/psychology classes/articles, special flags on the staff end to monitor those courses, and other interventions based in no small part on your feedback. Back when I was involved with WikiEd, it seemed like it had improved dramatically from 2014-->2019. Are you still seeing a lot of those problems (or a recent uptick)? Just curious. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see them often now simply because I gave up almost entirely, and unwatched almost all popular articles (which are those typically targeted by students). I do recall there being dramatic improvement in those cases where WikiEd was successful in reaching out to the professors and making them aware of the problems, but I can't say whether those were few or most courses (only that I came to really appreciate those times when WikiEd was able to successfully intervene). After Nikkimaria posted at WT:MED recently, I looked into this class (which historically is not as bad as others). Gratification disorder has a SYNTH list of primary cases, some which were from journals that HeadBomb's script redlinks. You can look at my edits at Premenstrual water retention; as WAID said, perhaps not as bad as most new editors, but the use of primary sources and other issues is less than what I would hope for in a course with a long history and theoretically knowledgeable profs. Similarly, the commercial sources used at operative vaginal delivery surprised me, as I had the idea this course did a better job than most at explaining optimal sourcing, but I agree no worse than a typical new editor. Asynclitic birth had very bad sourcing, again, perhaps typical for a new user, but surprising relative to what I thought (formerly) of this course. The take-home message, as usual, is that with what limited time I had, I didn't look further and I barely scratched the surface in briefly glancing at those few articles, and we don't have enough active editors to keep up with the issues. It's surprising those students still aren't all fully understanding medical sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I ran into that particular class with this. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal I would always encourage student editors to start fresh with a new account if they intend to do other editing on Wikipedia, since their previous work in a listed course is an obvious doxxing angle. I think it's also very likely that many student editors get interested in Wikipedia through their course, get busy with their normal life, and come back to the encyclopedia later, having forgotten their password or account and just making a new one. So I'm not sure there's any data we can really use here. I will say that in the history and biography topics I edit, I have seen some awful contributions by students, but more often I see useful ones. The problems I see more often are a) creating articles on non-notable topics and b) translating articles without checking any of the sources. The first is easily dealt with (though really traumatic for the students), and the second is hardly a WikiEdu-alone problem. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No, WikiEd is not more beneficial than it is harmful to Wikipedia. I think introducing students in research-heavy courses to Wikipedia can encourage them to edit it, but having done a deep-dive of the training materials and how instructors engage when issues have repeatedly come up before, it is clear that students are not guided through policies before being asked to introduce large edits to articles. Some are requested to create articles in sandboxes that they are led to believe is their untouchable work, and this is then moved into mainspace by some. Students are encouraged to check each others' edits conform to policy, rather than engaging with experienced editors - this also leads to students not even knowing other editors can engage with them and their work. Instructors generally have no idea what they're doing, and do not engage.
Any new editor can be a benefit, especially students with specialist knowledge, but I will always believe that WikiEd is a piece of crap (offense intended and maintained), and that the best way to get these students to start editing would be through edit-athons in collaboration with universities. They will be introduced to Wikipedia not through this seminar and coursework style format that is at major fault for the many editing issues. If WikiEd is kept, instructors at least need to have good standing on Wikipedia before they start teaching, IMO. Kingsif (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The original proposal -- wrote this before the subheading was added, and it partly addresses that so leaving it here -- not because I want to defend edits made in this course, but because I think "you cannot run a type of assignment" is outside the bounds of what we can sanction. We can block, topic ban, etc., but we can't make their pedagogical decisions and can't preemptively block people who have never edited before just because of who their professor is.
  This situation is not ideal for anyone: the community, the students, the professor, or WikiEd. Fun fact: there are thousands of students editing Wikipedia in hundreds of courses every single term. The ones that wind up here aren't the ones where students make lots of mistakes. They're newbies after all, and enhanced newbies at that because they have a support system in place. Someone sees a problem with a student edit and flags it to the student, professor, or Wiki Ed staff. Between them, they fix the problem, get the professor to work with students to avoid it happening again, and/or assign additional training modules. Professors don't want students to have a bad experience, professors don't want to be dragged to ANI, WikiEd doesn't want courses to go to ANI, students don't want to get blocked/reverted -- none of this is good for anyone, so in general, professors and students are super receptive of feedback/training, fixing problems and what not. You never hear about those. If the problems are course-wide, WikiEd can set boundaries for the class like "only work in userspace". Again, people are generally content to abide by this because nobody wants to have a bad experience and working in userspace takes the pressure off. The most common reason a course winds up here at ANI isn't that new editors made mistakes -- it's that they made mistakes and the professor doesn't understand the problem, doesn't agree that there's a problem, doesn't listen to WikiEd, or is simply too overcommitted to address problems properly. (Every once in a while problems come because a few students simply defy the professor, but that usually winds up being simpler, because the professor understands the need to block them).
  WikiEd can't force the professor to do anything, though. They can just say "abide by these best practices and listen to our advice or we won't support your classes in the future". From the thread at WP:ENB, it sounds like that support might've been withdrawn, but the course was accepted again accidentally (apologies if I've misread that).
  So that brings us back to "what to do". We can't tell a professor what to do in their class, but we can be crystal clear that if WikiEd withdraws its support for any of the reasons they might do that, your courses will have a heightened degree of scrutiny form the community and, if it has problems it's extremely likely your students (and maybe your account) will just be blocked. No professor wants to go into an assignment knowing they'll be subjecting their students to so much stress and scrutiny and no professor wants their assignment to fail, so that should be clear enough. In other words: no need to "you can't teach with Wikipedia" -- just "for the sake of public knowledge on Wikipedia and for the sake of your students, please don't run this assignment again" and keep the block button handy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think "you cannot run a type of assignment" is outside the bounds of what we can sanction I'm not yet convinced such a sanction is called for in this case, though I am leaning towards it, but I disagree that we cannot impose such a sanction. The extent of our "jurisdiction" is all activity on enwiki; we are not required to permit educators to use our platform as part of their course, and if we believe it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia we can topic ban individual educators from doing so.

  If they chose to ignore the topic ban then we can block them, and we can contact WMF Legal who can get in contact with their institution to make them put a stop to it; I'm sure there will be some sort of TOS violation that WMF Legal can use. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  The extent of our "jurisdiction" is all activity on enwik - We can sanction someone's on-wiki activity. The proposal here isn't to sanction what the professor does on wiki, but to either (a) tell him what to do off-wiki, or (b) to preemptively sanction other people (those in his classes), before they've even signed up and edited. How else would enforcement of this sanction work? No, WMF Legal is not going to be sending a message to a university because a professor runs an assignment (this is frankly bananas). Especially not when we can so easily deal with it on-wiki. We can certainly encourage WikiEd not to support this course (if they haven't already made that decision), and we can certainly discourage him by making clear students that make the same mistakes will just be blocked. We can even block the professor's account... but we shouldn't be creating sanctions that try to reach off-wiki or which can only be enforced by preemptive sanctions against otherwise good faith contributors. Simply "if students keep making mistakes, they'll get blocked" followed by blocks. What's wrong with that? Also, I should say that I'm opposing the sanction and articulating alternatives not because of anything to do with this professor or their students, but because of the sanction. I'd need to actually look into it more before supporting these alternatives, but having seen the thread at ENB it sounds like enough experienced users have identified long-term problems that probably call for some action. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  The proposal here isn't to sanction what the professor does on wiki, but to either (a) tell him what to do off-wiki, or (b) to preemptively sanction other people (those in his classes), before they've even signed up and edited. Telling people what to do off-wiki, when it is very closely related to on-wiki activity, is implicitly part of most bans we issue because of WP:MEAT; when we issue those bans we are saying "we are banning you for being disruptive, and if you recruit others to continue your disruption we will ban them too". We also wouldn't be preemptively sanctioning anyone; we would be sanctioning them after they make their first edit as meatpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  My intent in proposing the topic ban is to prevent them from performing instructor roles on Wikipedia, based on a track record of failing to engage with criticisms of their and their students' work. It is in no way telling them what to do off-wiki, although it does preclude the possibility of continuing to teach courses centered on editing Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Support (TBAN preventing Bergmanucsd from instructing others to edit, assigning editing to others, otherwise directing others to edit, broadly construed... not sure of the exact verbiage... but a TBAN such that they can no longer invoke the WP:ASSIGN exception to WP:MEAT), on WP:CIR grounds. Clearly, this person does not have enough competence to direct others to make edits, or to instruct student editing. There are the bad edits themselves, the fact that this has been going on for 4 or more years, the lack of meaningful communication (including the initial 4 verbatim copy-pasted responses about "brainstorming"), and then the whopper: "I don't have the power to edit my student's contributions, their sandboxes, talkpages, etc." That last bit shows they not only don't understand their "power," but they don't understand their responsibilities under WP:ASSIGN. This is wasting a huge amount of editor time, we should just put a stop to it. Let WikiEd worry about WikiEd, let the prof's university worry about the classes and the prof, but Wikipedia should just bar this particular prof from "teaching" Wikipedia editing due to lack of competence. If the ban is imposed and violated (if another class is taught post-ban), then the prof and students can be blocked by any admin. Levivich (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose tban now that Bergmanucsd has come in to address concerns. I am willing to give this editor another chance now that they've started listening and responding. Support a tban from using Wikipedia as an instructional tool unless Bergmanucsd comes in here and makes at least an attempt to address the concerns. Bergmanuscd, are you aware that the community does actually have the power to do this? That is, we can actually prevent you from using the Wikipedia portion of your current syllabus? WikiEd staff do not have the power to overrule the community. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Valereee (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'm willing to give another day or so for the folks at WikiEd to try to communicate with the instructor, before moving ahead with sanctions. And I want to say that WikiEd deserves the support and appreciation of the community, because they really do try very hard to help the community, and they don't have many resources to work with. But when I start from the perspective of what I would expect from anyone working in education, in terms of being able to communicate with other people, I'm pretty disappointed with what the instructor has been doing here. It's not like this should be difficult for anyone to understand. If things can be worked out, then OK. But based on what I've seen so far, I think I'm quite likely to support a topic ban against being able to instruct others to edit or using Wikipedia as an instructional tool. Yes, we have the ability to do that. (Can't tell instructors what to do in their classes, but absolutely can determine what they and their students do as edits here.) And the community needs to get comfortable with making these kinds of decisions, because they are going to come up more and more frequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm now ready to support TBAN. I don't see any reason to continue waiting. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Like Tryptofish, I am willing to wait a day for a complete and fully responsive reply from this editor as opposed to copy and paste comments that tell us nothing. If engagement is not forthcoming, I will support the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all Wikipedia editing related to educational courses, after waiting a day and seeing this infuriating non-answer on their user talk page: My conduct in future courses as it relates to the content that my students post? I will reiterate the trainings provided by WikiEdu and the policies contained therein, reiterate the course grading requires them to conform to Wikipedia policies, and show them some flagged pages as examples for the type of contribution that does not conform to Wikipedia standards. This person is clearly not taking our concerns seriously, and is either unwilling or incapable of engaging seriously. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN preventing Bergmanucsd from instructing others to edit, assigning editing to others, otherwise directing others to edit, broadly construed. I would also like a serious re-evaluation of Wiki-ed. My experience is that the students and instructors usually do more harm than good. I can recall one OK experience and many horrible ones, including personal attacks and edit-warring. As others have said, the priority is the 'pedia, not anyone's grades. The ones I've seen don't stick around, nor do their edits. They almost always waste the time, energy and patience of good editors. So much cleanup of bad, copyvio term papers. Per WP:NOTHERE. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Is it possible to get a list of all editors who participated in Wiki-ed? I will be able to get some statistics on how many stuck around, revert percentage, etc, but only if I can get that underlying information. BilledMammal (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal The dashboard seems to record all campaigns since Spring 2015. Possibly there's a bulk data download somewhere. Shells-shells (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I notice you were already aware of this (and of Category:Wiki Education student editors). In that case I don't know if there's a collection of data on WikiEd more extensive than these. Shells-shells (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support TBAN as above. The talk page non-answer Cullen328 cited is altogether too prevalent in the education field, where dressing oft-simple concepts in torrents of polysyllabic, passive voice pretentiousness is both a standard dodge to cover up a lack of content and a badge of faux erudition. Happily, while that nonsense is the norm in academia, it is not on Wikipedia. If Bergmanucsd cannot bring himself to communicate in plain, active voice English, then he surely is not capable of teaching students how to edit Wikipedia effectively. Ravenswing 08:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support TB, per Valereee, and also per Bergmanucsd's being available to brainstorm ways with WikiEdu staff of how to improve their training and overall programming, as he has been now for 6 years. And six later, nothing has changed. This dismissive, non-answer of the decade—now repeated several times—attempts to place culpability and responsibility with WikiEd rather than accepting it himself. SN54129 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - TBAN; Bergmanucsd has shown that it is necessary. Their non-answer that tries to shift responsibility shows that the issues will continue, and the response gives a strong impression that they didn't read or understand what the concerns here actually are. - Aoidh (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as Bergmanucsd now appears to be focussed on improving the situation. Harper J. Cole (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Tban If Bergmancsd's comment below were an unblock request, I _{Note:not an admin} would expect it to be granted without issue. The comment explicitly identifies the main problems with their actions, Correctly identifies the steps necessary to prevent the issue that caused this ANI thread, and takes an immediate step to prevent the problem from reoccurring in the future. So long as he keeps his promise to be more communicative going forward, I see no reason for further action here. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  An unblock request, quite possibly. Would we consider such a comment sufficient to reverse a desysopping, by contrast? There's a large difference between giving someone the chance to make edits -- especially with many eyes looking them over, and reblocking easy enough to accomplish -- and giving someone the thumbs up to teach novices how to edit Wikipedia ... especially since we went through this a few years ago. A student who repeatedly fails to learn from their mistakes gets a failing grade. Don't we expect a little better from their teachers? Ravenswing 09:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  The thing that inspired me to be willing to extend a little more rope here is that below, he is announcing his intention to cut actual Wikipedia editing from his summer courses, because he has come to realise that he is unable to achieve the required standards there. I think that's a major course correction, and I'm willing to extend some patience to see if it has the desired effect. He's definitely still on thin ice for his initial lack of competent response, though, so I definitely see where you're coming from. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Update from Wiki Education

First off, let me apologize for Wiki Education's slowness to respond. I was on vacation last week, and I'm catching up with this situation now.

• I had an email exchange with Bergmanucsd in July of 2020 where he assured me that he was taking steps so that his students would no longer use primary sources, including the involvement of a librarian who could help his students navigate sourcing, as we promised to do following incidents with his previous course.
• Bergmanucsd didn't teach with us again until the summer of 2022, and due to staffing changes we incurred in the intervening years, we did not accurately assess that course. We apologize for that, and are working on updating our internal procedures so staffing changes don't result in similar issues .
• I will reach out to Bergmanucsd to discuss under what conditions Wiki Education would support future courses he'd like to teach.
• Again, we are profoundly sorry for any disruptions this has caused, and (as always) respect the community processes playing out here and on WP:ENB.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Helaine (Wiki Ed), thanks. Maybe also explain to the instructor that this is actually quite serious, that his ability to use Wikipedia for instructional purposes actually is in jeopardy, and that his continued interaction at ANI is necessary if he wants to keep teaching that syllabus? Valereee (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely plan on discussing the severity of the situation and the importance of interacting with the community. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Helaine (Wiki Ed): I put this on hold for a day to give y'all time to confer. Any progress? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll be speaking with Bergmanucsd this Thursday and will update here following our conversation. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Helaine (Wiki Ed), please convey to Bergmanucsd the gravity of the situation and the necessity of engaging fully and frankly here at ANI. Further evasive non-answer answers are unlikely to be received well. This editor has been given far more time to respond than usual, and their comments are bafflingly unresponsive. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thursday. Others here see this as enough of a priority to respond more promptly. Just saying. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I just talked with Bergmanucsd, and we had a very productive conversation. We cleared up a lot of misunderstandings and discussed how things went awry. Bergmanucsd is going to be posting a response here shortly based on our conversation. Again, we respect any community procedures taking place here and are having internal discussions to ensure issues like this are avoided in the future.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That ping probably won't go through, because it was added in a subsequent edit, so I'll re-ping Bergmanucsd. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hm, "shortly" appears to have been either overly optimistic or a misunderstanding. One thing that might be worth discussing in those internal discussions is how to make it clear to instructors that, while many discussion areas on Wikipedia move slowly, if an admin is demanding an explanation for your conduct, they really do want one very soon, ideally now. -- asilvering (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Helaine (Wiki Ed), we are getting cheery, chipper, upbeat assurances from you and we are getting surly non-answers and failure to substantively engage with the Wikipedia community from Bergmanucsd. You promised a reply "shortly" and nearly seven hours has passed with no further response. I do not know how you define "shortly" but it is difficult to avoid the perception that Bergmanucsd really wants to blow us off and ignore our concerns. Very disappointing. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Bergmanucsd response

I apologize for my delay in writing out a formal response. I had a meeting with Helaine (Wiki Ed) who helped clarify the concerns posted by Wikipedians on this page as well as some others

First, I want to take responsibility for my delay in responding. There were numerous pages where discussions were going on and it was difficult for me to keep track. There were several days where I was overwhelmed by the activity and mentions that I was receiving. I am also currently not in a similar timezone as many Wikipedians so I was losing a day during the conversations. Now that I have identified this page as where the conversation is being held, I will be sure to be responsive (noting the time zone differences) in a more reasonable amount of time when I am mentioned.

There are two conducts that I ought to directly address. The first was editing someone else’s comment with my mention in it. My edit was to remove my name from the discussion. I am aware that this information is available for those searching as part of the WikiEdu project. For the discussions of behavior of Wikipedia, the standard is to use Wikipedia handles and not given names. I was trying to keep the discussion in that vein.

The second is moving the page of someone else. Sometimes in the process of creating pages, students generate pages that begin with “userID:” or “draft:”. When I notify them that they are not posted, students send me the link and think that they are. In that regard, after several back-and-forths, I then move them. In this future, I will not partake in this process. If student editors are unable to move their own pages, it is a signal that their work might not be ready for publishing. In the cited cases last week, I had reach out to students individually to identify the issues with some of their pages and how they are not conforming to standards (for example, if a student contribution relies to heavily on primary sources). I had also instructed them that it is crucial to the mission of Wikipedia that they engage in constructive discussions regarding comments made on their pages. I had mentioned in previous messages, perhaps too flippantly, that students ignoring such comments are their own decisions. Should I continue on Wikipedia, I will be sure to make this more clear to students that it is not just their grade that is affected, but the whole Wikipedia project that is at stake.

I have been with Wikipedia for 6 years now. I believe in the mission of Wikipedia and I share it with my students as well as other instructors in my academic discipline. I believe that the weight of these contributions tends towards the constructive rather than the destructive. That said after these most recent contributions, I think that future iterations of this summer course are not appropriate for the Wikipedia project. To better conform with Wikipedia standards, I think that it is crucial that student contributors do (at least) the following: (1) examine existing high quality pages; (2) receive feedback on their own draft contributions from peers, Wiki Education staff, and instructor; (3) present a revision for review before permanently posting. The summer session format (of only 5 weeks) does not provide enough time for this process, and as such, might be setting up Wikipedia for subpar contributions. Should I be allowed to remain on Wikipedia, I will work more closely with Wiki Education staff and be more engaged with contributions before posts become published.

As mentioned above, I am available to clarify any of the further concerns that you may have here on this page. I have mentions automatically sent to my e-mail, so I should be able to respond to them in a timely manner (noting the time zone differences).Bergmanucsd (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)BergmanUcsd

For those reading who haven't taught or taken a summer course like this before: I think the resolution not to use wikipedia in summer courses is a very good one. These five- or six-week courses are an absolute whirlwind. Everything goes very fast, students are stressed, and it's really difficult to properly scaffold assignments. They're pretty awful, unless you're doing a mostly-lectures course with a huge exam at the end. fwiw (non-admin comment), I find this response heartening, though there are still some parts to iron out (eg, "permanently posting" and "published" worries me a bit, since everything on wiki is "permanent" and "published" to some extent, so I'm not sure what the intent is here). -- asilvering (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Bergmanucsd, there is a process available for draft review at WP:AFC. Like almost everything else on WP, it doesn't allow for deadlines (such as assignment due dates). One alternative to consider is not requiring new articles but instead improving existing ones. For instance, here is a list of high-importance stub-class finance articles. Upgrading those to start-class would be a very positive contribution. Valereee (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

While I'm satisfied that Bergmanucsd intends to engage with Wikipedia in good faith at this time, I still think that the tban from teaching courses is appropriate. The (well-intentioned) misconceptions regarding editing processes included in this response, the lack of acknowledgement relating to the sourcing concerns that precipitated this whole situation, and the fact that this is not the first time that Bergmanucsd has made assurances that their instruction would improve, leave me unable to trust that future courses will be unproblematic. I am happy to have Bergmanucsd edit Wikipedia; I am not comfortable with them teaching courses full of students to edit Wikipedia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I also still believe the TBAN is the best course of action. I don't doubt their good faith for a moment, but this response does not give confidence that the issues will not continue. - Aoidh (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm also still in favor of a TBAN. Aside from reasons cited above, some of Bergmanucsd's responses ring curiously hollow. I am having quite a hard time, for instance, wrapping my head around his time zone being a factor in his lack of response; Wikipedians come from all over the world, and edit at all hours of the day and night (I'm typing this over an hour before dawn local time, for instance). Nor has he addressed what Cullen328 accurately called his repeated, cut-and-paste "non-answers." Of course there's no question concerning his ability to edit generally. But when it comes to teaching newcomers how to edit, I would ten times rather have no instructor rather than a substandard one. Ravenswing 08:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bergmanucsd: I suggest that you also read WP:ASSIGN, as that will help you get a better understanding of community expectations here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a great listing of expectations for students and instructors alike Bergmanucsd (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, thank you for sharing. I will link to this page for my students as well. Bergmanucsd (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Input request for a proposal to address related concerns

(Please do not vote, this is just one of preliminary brain storming (earlier one at Wikipedia talk:Student assignments, to facilitate discussion to find solutions for concerns being discussed. Any final policy discussion will take place only on related policy talk page)

Proposal  : A) Allow only limited number of student drafts - only the number which community can monitor effectively. B) Let those be topic wise common drafts and not student wise draft. C) Student's drafts be tagged as 'Student's draft' in draft namespace D) extend draft life for student drafts up to four years from present six months. - The idea is multiple number of students from multiple batches for four years will work on single draft to be improved. E) Accept content through usual WP:AFC evaluation process only.

Bookku (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Mm. If you're looking for a general proposal regarding how WikiEd does its thing, this isn't really the place for it; that ought to be a RfC, perhaps at the Village Pump. Ravenswing 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether we do this here, or elsewhere, Yes, you have some good ideas here. I especially support E: the requirement to go through the usual AFC process. If this is moved, please ping me. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That looks like a good idea; pls ping me, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's why this is a really bad idea:

1. Projects where multiple people are paid to look after them (professors indirectly and Wiki Ed staff directly) should utilize backlogged volunteer processes as little as possible.
2. AfC is not compatible with a class project, which needs to be on a clear schedule. What's the point of allowing four years? Students typically have a lot of time to devote to writing an article for part of a term. Once in a while they stick around, but it's not part of the course. If for some reason Wikipedians think it's worthwhile to devote a ton more volunteer time to AfC to get students feedback/evaluations on drafts promptly, then great, but otherwise you're just creating a pointless black hole. "You must ask for an evaluation" + "an evaluation might come this week or well after the evaluation does any good" isn't useful process unless the purpose is ensure the classes never stand a chance.
3. Students have a support system. They have a professor, paid staff, training modules, etc. They need AfC less than the typical autoconfirmed user (for whom AfC is not mandatory, after all).
4. This would effectively kill the education program (or rather, support for classes). I don't know what Wiki Ed's finances are like these days, but I cannot imagine a nonprofit with a big central program having its capacity to run that program cut to a fraction and still retaining its funders.
5. This is 100% based on a handful of anecdotes rather than actual data. There were 6,000 student editors in 350 courses in the spring. How many made it to a noticeboard? How many had problems but were easily addressed by Wiki Ed staff or a professor? These proposals always come when one professor and one class cause problems, and instead of just blocking the bad class it becomes about the dastardly scourge of student editors and inept professors, supported by a smattering of anecdotes that span years.
6. There's still an easy fix: if a class causes more trouble than it's worth, block them all. No need to ask special permission. Like, yeah, ideally you're seeing if they prof can get it under control, but if they can't or won't, just block. Problem solved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for so clearly stating nearly everything that horrified me about this idea. I will add, as something like a 2b), that I presume the value of using Wikipedia in teaching, for many instructors, is that it gives students a concrete, "real-world" thing to do with the knowledge and skills they've learned in classes. Multiple batches of students working on a draft for who knows how long that might get published at some point, maybe, very clearly does not fit this aim.

Furthermore, this would do real harm to the idea that wikipedia is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". A class assignment might be the first time it has ever occurred to a student to think about wikipedia and the people who make it. Writing a draft that disappears into a multiple-year black hole is not teaching them that anyone really can edit. I'm not sure what it would teach them, but it certainly wouldn't teach them that. Meanwhile, the current WikiEd experience seems to be quite good, aside from the few courses that go really off the rails. A friend of mine who just taught with WikiEd tells me students found it accessible and clear. Their students found wikipedia a "welcoming environment", two words I have, frankly, never heard about wikipedia anywhere else. -- asilvering (talk) 05:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, students don't just create articles; they edit existing articles too - for example this list of assignments. WikiEd guidance is mainly about creating articles, leading up to mainspace creation. Misapplied to editing an existing article, this can mean a sudden batch of edits at course end. These may not be well received or last long, which might - I don't know - mean very low marks for the student. Concentrating on controlling article creation misses the potential for article improvement or, at worst, organised degradation. NebY (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is going after the wrong problem. The issue is with the people who are running WikiEd's. If they are not capable of running them correctly, they should have the issue explained to them, and if they are unwilling to listen or make corrections they should be banned from running WikiEd's. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Genre warring only account User:AgentKozak

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.

---

(Update: User has since been blocked so this can be closed) --FMSky (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, WP:GWAR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AgentKozak This user has never made an edit that wasnt adding the genre glam metal to articles. will edit war if reverted and will delete talk page warnings without addressing the issue--FMSky (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Not true, I have made several different edits.

I have made several edits. Please see these edits I made here for example: Do Ya Do Ya (Wanna Please Me)

Draft:KingOfTheHill - Wikipedia

This article I have written above is also awaiting review and is certainly not just "adding the genre glam metal" AgentKozak (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

also makes up his own rules and completely disregards guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lynch_Mob_(album) --FMSky (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Which rules are those?

I want examples. AgentKozak (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Not just one where we disagree. I want a firm 'rule' I have made up. Seems to be a lot presumption here AgentKozak (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:EXPLICITGENRE

--FMSky (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Show me how that applies because I am struggling to see how those match that specific article AgentKozak (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thats because you haven't read them --FMSky (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know you watch what I read. AgentKozak (talk) 19:44, 14 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.

User:Thebloodline is not here to build an encyclopedia (round 2)

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.

---

• Thebloodline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I initially reported this user in January (report here). They were initially blocked for a week, and that was extended after they engaged in sockpuppetry.

Since then their editing hasn't become any more constructive. Today they made a rather bizarre page move[239]. When I questioned them on why they did it, they replied with "I want to abuse".[240] After this they made a string of edits that introduced deliberate factual errors to an article (the article their account is named after, in fact).[241] While I was writing this report they in fact added more nonsense.[242]

I actually suspect this user is the same as 190.219.215.124 and Anthonytd20, both of whom make very similar edits to the same article.

At the absolute best, they have severe WP:CIR issues. In reality I do not believe they are here to build an encyclopedia (the talk page of Anthonytd20 should be telling). — Czello ^(music) 19:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

More article move vandalism[243] — Czello ^(music) 19:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed. I don't need to see more. No comment on the sockpuppetry thing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Anthonytd20 vandalising the article at the same time I would say is evident they're the same person[244] — Czello ^(music) 19:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, they're independently blocked now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks — Czello ^(music) 20:36, 14 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.

IP user 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.

---

2600:1700:30F0:6E6F:B5BA:C4A4:2202:190D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can an admin look at this user's contributions and decide what to do about this? It's basically 100% extremely disruptive behavior that seems to be designed just to be argumentative and attack other users.

jps (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Given a 72 hour block. There's an edit I have revdel'd that was worthy alone in my opinion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Might need some more revdels (up until this revision). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 17:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, taken care of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:09, 14 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.

User Wikiboo02 - Casting aspersions

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 want to draw administrator attention to the Millenials talk page where the user @Wikiboo02: is casting aspersions about my participation in the recent consensus building process. Please see his recent comment and take the appropriate action:

[245]

Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This user has previously reported another user involved in the Millennial article dispute for seemingly objecting to his edits. Now it’s my turn but what I’m doing is just conveying what this user is actually doing to other users involved. This user is trying to get the Millennial article locked from further editing after one-sidedly pushing a version with barely no consensus to change the article. This user also makes it seem as if there’s a much stronger consensus than there actually is which I had to point out. In addition, this user considers my objections as threats to the “consensus” and asks me to show good faith and this was before I commented. I feel like something is wrong. Wikiboo02 (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - that dispute was settled with both parties on better terms and no further action. In actual fact the user you are referring to supports the recent change. Many thanks. Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

See the recent edit war on the page - I was asked to engage in the consensus process - I did. That is unlike anything you have attempted to do on the page. Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Other user’s lack interest in the dispute and with only four people voting, one of them you and another one it looks like you asked them for help. You also ignored pinging certain users that were involved early on. You did a Be Bold so you should expect that it might get reverted or edited and not seek administrator’s help to lock the section. I have yet to engage in an edit war or even make a single edit. Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:How to hold a consensus vote, the options were limited and you’re doing an All of nothing which it isn’t. I’m merely proposing a minor change to the version and if no one objects to that change then I’m going to publish it. Consensus isn’t about numbers, it’s about finding things everyone can agree on. Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no control over whether users want to participate or not or whether they lack interest - that is up to the people involved. I opened an RfC and have encouraged and invited all to participate. In actual fact the latest straw poll which you participated on was introduced by another user - not me. If people wished to participate no further that is not something I can control. You have questioned my participation in the consensus process - and only me - thereby casting aspersions. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, one can argue that you started by questioning my participation which you did by asking me to show good faith and also behind our backs asking administrators to lock the page because apparently my objection is a threat to the consensus. Consensus hasn’t been reached yet. Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

In your opinion - however, within the ANI you have highlighted it was made clear by the administrator overseeing that the latest straw poll which you participated on was perfectly reasonable and that I accepted in good faith. You are now questioning that straw poll which I didn't even make in the first place. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

'behind our backs'. This is casting an aspersion. It is perfectly reasonable to seek advice from other noticeboards. If the admins involved don't see an action as needed they will say so. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

By implying that there’s a threat to the consensus (which again you try to make seem stronger than it is) then that’s bad faith. Wikiboo02 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

If you care to read the straw poll - which the administrator advised was perfectly reasonable - there was another user who made it perfectly clear that everyone has had enough time to respond. This user recommended that if version B was implemented they would have no objections. You were advised by this user to propose a tweaked variation of Version B and participate in another straw poll. So far, you have ignored this request and have called in to question my good faith efforts to engage in consensus. This is a rather strange take since you have made no effort to do a poll of your own nor propose to other editors - in detail - what exactly it is that you are proposing to do. Have you noticed that me and another editor have gone to great length to demonstrate our proposals to other editors over the last week and have them evaluated? Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:33, 17 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.

Revoke 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.

---

User talk:Metalforgeindia is promoting on the talk page while while block, please revoke talk page access. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 10:54, 16 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.

Problematic behavior focusing on Ottoman warfare articles

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 raise the behavior of Germanicus44 (talk · contribs) as an issue that could merit a block. The user was created only recently and immediately went about editing figures to reflect a more "pro-Ottoman" view of various battles. User has been warned about edit warring and has been reverted across the board for removing cited facts, or simply switching numbers out to a version more favorable to the Ottoman side.

My view is that Germanicus does not seem to be capable of using sources properly. In these two edits,[246] the citations are either untracable or simply crudely copy-pasted from the article at Turkish Wikipedia. Hattendorf & King is a good source, but it doesn't actually provide any figures. It simply says that Preveza was one of several important battles.

In the Battle of Preveza, I've noted that the article has been extremely skewed with purely fantastic figures of losses that are intended to present the battle as a triumphant Ottoman victory. Established historians describe the battle as more of a stalemate with large forces involved but with little actual fighting and only minor losses. I've summarized my point regarding this on the article's talkpage.

I suspect there's a concerted effort aiming to glorify Ottoman military prowess during the 16th century (as if it wasn't impressive already), and to present any contradictory sources as "Christian propaganda" or whatever. Not sure if Germanicus is one of several problematic users or simply the latest incarnation of Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs) (who I was confronted with at galley through Mercresis (talk · contribs)). Peter ^Isotalo 07:27, 16 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.

Carlitos760 and PAOK FC

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.

---

Carlitos760 has made around 150 edits to PAOK FC in the last few days. A lot of them have been littered with problems, including but not limited to: violations of MOS:HEADER e.g. [247] (reverting my fix of this), mass linking to the dab page Greek, general poor spelling/grammar, adding and re-adding unsourced lists of fans e.g. [248], creating the Notable former football players section as a random list that isn't wikified.

Version before: [249], Version after their edits, and before I started a cleanup: [250] (I can't be expected to trawl through hundreds of diffs to find the worst offending edits)

I have tried contacting them to slow down on their talkpage, and they were also pinged on a discussion about this: WT:FOOTY#PAOK FC, but they're WP:NOTLISTENING (or possibly aren't aware their talkpage exists). Can they be partially blocked from PAOK FC until such a time as they speak to us, so we can work to resolve the mess that the article has become? If they don't edit this article and make it mostly worse, then a cleanup can be done to fix some of the underlying issues that they've introduced. It doesn't look like they've made lots of edits to other articles, so a partial block seems better than a full WP:CIR block to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I've reviewed their edits and yes,  Done, for 1 week. Note the partial block only covers PAOK FC itself and not articles like PAOK FC in European football. WaggersTALK 13:25, 15 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.

Persistent disruption at Witchfynde

• Witchfynde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help, please. WP:COI accounts appear to be warring over the band's status and members, and of course none of it is sourced. I've wasted enough time just fixing the infobox format, which is broken again. Requesting user sanctions, page protection, and copy editing and paring of unsourced content. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

So basically the article has long been needing additional sources to verify the statements. but as I can expect, @Wfynde is a new account created on August 6, with all edits from mobile, and all of them are directed to the article. Another account, @Iansmiler, begin almost exclusively editing in this article. Should Wfynde edit warring in this, it is obvious that the username is focused on the article. Futhermore, the new user doesn't use edit summary. Pinging the two users to pay their attention. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 19:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Correcting my mistakes:

• Account was created Aug. 5, not 6

Also, Iansmiler seems obviously a sleeper as the account was inactive for three years. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 20:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already notified both accounts. And while their edit histories are focused on the article, there are several IPs that have also dedicated their attentions there, so it's not unreasonable to think that one or both registered accounts have been involved while signed out. This didn't just start. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello - I am iansmiler :) I am a NWOBHM enthusiast. I edited the site following an announcement on the original bands FB page. Many NWOBHM bands on Wikipedia are not up to date with regards to information on their current status, but I do not know enough about them to commit my knowledge to a wiki. With regard to Witchfynde - I have followed the band for 40 years and know EVERYTHING about them! Including the direction each member has taken. I therefore chose to lend my pen and update the wiki. Recently I was alerted to somebody else editing the wiki, and was looking forward to see what additions had been made... alas - somebody had removed band information, this was not even band info that I had added. Two particular names that were removed were Tracey Abbott and Ian Hamilton. I know that in the NWOBHM scene there is a current 'difference of opinion' between these two former members and one of the earlier band members (It is all over social media) - I believe that the culprit that is editing this wiki is acting on behalf, or is the earlier band member based on this information. Iansmiler (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Iansmiler. Notwithstanding the likelihood that Wikipedia is filled with experts on each subject, we can not publish unsourced content or WP:OR. Any content that is not WP:RELIABLEy sourced may be removed. If you can support edits with acceptable sources, please do. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:18D0:2F84:4011:2D47 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

When the article is barely unverifiable as one source says they are formed in Nottinghamshire but it says derbyshire. Source no 2 is just a wikipedia citation. Futhermore, the IP before the COI account was made can clearly be a sock. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 20:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Everything you add to Wikipedia must be verifiable, you're now personal knowledge isn't enough. I suggest reading WP:REFB, which is a simple explanation of how to add references for your additions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Iansmiler, while I have hard-blocked Wfynde, may I request you to please read WP:PILLARS as well as our policies on biographies of living persons, verifiability and guideline on reliable sourcing? May I also request a hard confirmation here that you will not post any material on Wikipedia that is not attributed to a reliable source? Thank you, Lourdes 13:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Iansmiler? EEng 06:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism, Multiple accounts, self promotional advertising.

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 Wikipedia administrators, and editors. I was checking some Wikipedia page and found that more than 20 accounts are being created by one person for self-promotion, attacking on other people pages and he is publishing stuff about himself on Simple Wikipedia, Commons, Wikidata, and Wikipedia pages. I have started SPI here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EramZuko and reverted some of his edits on Operation Swift Retort (short film): Revision history - Wikipedia. I found that a person name Awais Shaukat is behind all this, and he claims to be a Wikipedia editor of Pakistan User:Avace Khan - Wikipedia. Upon checking I have been told that he is not an editor but disruptive showing himself as an editor. His few logos he made of himself, and his website were removed on commons, below are some of the edits which he is doing for himself and his company.

Haji Shaukat Ali Lohar - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revision history of "PakistaniArt" (Q119331657) - Wikidata (heavy editing of his own knowledge panel here)

Revision history of "Awais Shaukat" (Q114905590) - Wikidata (He himself created his own Wikidata page)

Pakistani art - Wikipedia (He added his own name on this Wikipedia page and his website logo, self promotion)

Pakistani comics: Revision history - Wikipedia (Similar thing he did here)

Two more sock puppets did the AFD spam on this page Operation Swift Retort (short film): Revision history - Wikipedia usernames are Scudo_Lives_Once & Sigaur.

Total SPA I have found so far; EramZuko Jeero_Navid Avace_Khan MujtabaRedX Sigaur Scudo_Lives_Once Jio_Lohar_Jio and many others. Admins should investigate this and protect the community from vandalism. NatRepo (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

4 users @EramZuko @Jeero Navid are same hence blocked, @Scudo_Lives_Once & @Sigaur are also same hence blocked. These 4 accounts are run by the same person name @Avace Khan NatRepo (talk) 08:18, 17 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.

2607:FB91:20E4:82AC:AC39:C218:9AB2:90E

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.

---

2607:FB91:20E4:82AC:AC39:C218:9AB2:90E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I don't know what this IP address is doing. Either this user is in the wrong site or just trying to seek attention in the page Mushoku Tensei. Just look at this revision for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mushoku_Tensei&diff=prev&oldid=1170579622

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.

Hot Wheels

I am, unusually, prepared to be wrong about this but…

New editor D45678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is determined to add information about Mattel offering NFTs of Hot Wheels to the main article on the subject, a related disambiguation page and a draft they wrote.

Ordinarily I’d just revert then report to the appropriate noticeboard for smiting, but they do seem to be trying to be cooperative with their edits, reinstating them each time in more concise ways with slightly less advertising, although still with the spam links.

I have lost perspective on this (and know nothing about the subject to start with) so fear I’m accidentally slow-motion edit warring with them.

Can I have someone better than me at this look at this? Slapping me down is just as preferable as anything else btw. — Trey Maturin™ 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

If they're writing primarily about the Nasty Fucking Thievery then WP:GS/CRYPTO applies to their edits. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 23:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say G11 and indef, but I'm like, way past the point of being reasonable when it comes to crypto spam. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. See User talk:D45678#Partial blocks where I explained to them that they may still continue editing the draft, so long as they answer the disclosure @User talk:D45678#Managing a conflict of interest. Also, NFT promo in 2023? Okay! El_C 11:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Mister Conservative

Mister Conservative is repeatedly adding unsourced content to articles having been warned no less than four times for it, and refusing to communicate with other editors.

• On July 1st, Mister Conservative added a "potential candidate" to the election page and to the Senate elections page, without any source. I left them talk page message 1, asking them to cite sources for these things.

• No more than two hours later, they made two (one, two) additions to the Montana senate election page, as well as this edit to the Senate elections page. At this point, with another user having warned them for this, I left talk page message two.

• On July 13th, Mister Conservative again added "potential candidates" to other Senate races: Massachusetts and Michigan. At this stage, I left talk page message three, asking them once again to add sources for these additions.

• On August 9th, Mister Conservative once again added a "potential candidate" to the page for New York's senate race.

Mister Conservative's edits are certainly not vandalism and I do believe the user is contributing in good faith, but after three attempts to reach out from me and one from another user, including the "citing sources" guideline, there has been no response and the repeated additions of unsourced content has continued, and I feel I'm left with no choice but to go to ANI. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I hate to reply to my own messages but since there's been no responses since, I'm returning to note that since I made this report, the user has engaged on talk pages for articles no less than four times, indicating they know how to use talk pages but are simply choosing to ignore requests to add sources. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Pikachu 9988

User:Pikachu 9988 has been warned multiple times on their Talk page to not edit war (which is filled with a multitude of such warnings) by admins, experienced editors and the like. Even multiple DS sanctions have been alerted to the user but they persist with no meaningful engagement on Talk page discussions or anywhere else (even WP:ES are either non-existent or not meaningful). See for e.g. Chola dynasty where a meaningful current discussion exists and is ongoing on the Talk page with multiple participants but the user in their usual WP:Battleground mentality continues to edit war and restore dubious edits (the edit warring on this article alone by the user goes back months with different editors).

Editing restrictions look necessary till the user shows they understand their wrongful conduct. Till now WP:NOTHERE is very apparent. Gotitbro (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite call this an all-CTOPs% speedrun yet (they seem to be limited to WP:ARBIPA and WP:GS/CASTE, and that's only because those two so heavily overlap), but the refusal to engage is a massive problem. Over 300 edits, only two of them are to talk pages other than their own, and even then those edits are from two months ago. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 21:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Dronebogus doesn't like IP 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.

---

• Dronebogus doesn't seem to think I should be editing here and is continually reverting me. Do they do this to anyone who disagrees with them on an AFD?

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trams in popular culture for the worst of it, but this spans a few AFDs and some minor article changes, and they're doing it across all of it.

See User_talk:Dronebogus#IP_editing_now_banned_on_WP? 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You've blanked the post on your talk page, but Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:21F5:E0FA:3F3C:F743 (and the reverts of it) are still necessary here. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Recently I reverted pretty much all the edits by 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:21F5:E0FA:3F3C:F743; most of them were harassing me across related AfDs I started, though one was casting aspersions against piortus and two others were probably good faith but were still not constructive (adding unreliable sources an unexplained “see also” links). The user then hopped to a different IP (this one) and began edit-warring all their old edits back. Dronebogus (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

When you announce that you're going to use AFD as a harassment tactic in a talk: page argument on an unrelated article [251], then you go right ahead and do that, then it's not "harassment" if someone then calls you on it. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I struck that comment, thanks. Stop waving it around like it’s a smoking gun. Dronebogus (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You might have struck that comment (long afterwards), but you still went right ahead with the bunch of AFDs on topics that you agree you've no knowledge of. Then when someone disagrees on those AFDs, you bulk blank all of their edits. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:55AC:38D7:1FCF:FB93 (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Recurring_jokes_in_Private_Eye&diff=prev&oldid=1169848187 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbenheimer&diff=prev&oldid=1169635566 Dronebogus (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Dronebogus, whilst I understand you don't like the IPs comments about you at those AfDs, you should not be deleting them, it's not a good look to be removing "Keep" comments on AfDs that you started. Especially as it's possible the IP has a point - IMO some of those AfDs were poor ideas which seem to have been done with little attempt at WP:BEFORE. MY advice would be to restore the IPs AfD comments - though you could reasonbly NPA the jab at Piotrus in the one you mentioned. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I’m concerned they’re somebody’s bad hand account or a block evader re:Piortrus attacks Dronebogus (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Plus I’m not going to put up with systematic harassment and edit warring irregardless of context. Dronebogus (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps they are someone's sock, in which case it would be fine to remove the comments. But you don't know that. I note you didn't remove the comment that Rhododentrites made on one AfD [252], which basically says the same thing as the IP editor. Why not? Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Rhondodendrites isn’t cruising from AfD to AfD hounding me. Dronebogus (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• After the IP commented at your AfDs, you then followed them to Alternator (automotive) and Dunball; at the first one starting an edit war in which you are still both involved, and at the second one blindly reverting the IPs removal of a terrible user-generated review of a pub (though you reverted yourself there when you realised how terrible it was). So I don't think that you're exactly standing on the higher moral ground here. Now, unless you have evidence of them being a bad actor, the AfD comments need to be restored. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Furthermore, there's also nothing wrong with this edit, which you've reverted three times now. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  How does Ecky Thump relate to the Cloggies? Dronebogus (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just as an uninvolved party, they both deal with supposed Lancashire traditions played for laughs. Quite similar in concept. Cloggies is organized around a fictional 'Lancashire clog-dancing' troupe, Ecky deals with a fictional Lancashire martial art, Ecky Thump. --50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining Dronebogus (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I’m slightly dubious about the see also link being included but it at least makes sense now Dronebogus (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  For the record I have zero opinions on if the see also link should be there, but since I understand the argument someone would make as to why, thought it best to arm the less aware of British media with that knowledge so they can evaluate. --50.234.188.27 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• [edit conflict] While I'm happy the material has been restored, now Dronebogus has relisted a discussion in which they have already made an outcome assertion. Dronebogus has an unfortunate habit of clerking various discussions in which they've already participated. They were cautioned about this in a recent ANI discussion which removed their MfD editing privileges. BusterD (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to relist a discussion. I thought I wasn’t allowed to close discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• No, you shouldn't be relisting your own discussions, but more to the point it was relisted only two days ago! I have reverted. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  That was simple ignorance. I have never relisted anything before and was worried I was out of order. Dronebogus (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  The main issue here is that a relist is functionally a closing action, in that you're prolonging a discussion in the hope that it reaches one outcome or another. That involves assessing whether consensus has been reached, or could be reached. It's not appropriate for anyone who's been involved in the discussion to make that call. Furthermore, I believe you're topic-banned from closing XFD discussions. If you can't close a discussion, you shouldn't relist one either, and definitely not one that you're involved in. Mackensen (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I see. Dronebogus (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• It seems Dronebogus is bound and determined to purge WP of anything that might incidentally bring a smile to the reader's face. See, for example, [253]. EEng 23:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I do wonder if he applies the same modus operandi to his own userpages.... X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 03:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Do you two have something important to say or do you just want to knit by the guillotine? Dronebogus (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  We did say something important: the pattern seems to be that you you seem bound and determined to purge WP of anything that might incidentally bring a smile to the reader's face. EEng 22:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• 'm unfortunately unsurprised to see this here. I'm also fairly certain relisting an XFD is a violation of his topic ban, as Mackensen said above. I also am completely dubious at the notion that he didn't realize it was a violation, considering that relisting prolongs the discussion and can very conceivably be used to stave off an unfavorable outcome, as it was indeed used in an MFD that he participated and commented in, including in response to the relist discussion. Sorry, I don't buy it at all. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 02:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's not fair. The actual wording on Dronebogus' talk-page is "Dronebogus is indefinitely topic-banned from closing any XfD discussion.". Note the absence of any reference to "broadly construed". By definition, relisting something avoids closure. It may still be wrong to avoid a closure you don't like, but the fact remains that Dronebogus has exactly observed the letter of his ban. In fact, in response to his topic ban, he specifically asked "so in regards to closing I am only restricted from closing XfDs?", a perfect opportunity to clarify that he shouldn't be taking any clerking or administrative action in XfD discussions. But Extraordinary Writ replied "That's correct, yes.". The right way forward from here is a thorough trout for Dronebogus for observation of the letter rather than the spirit of his law, and the rewriting of the ban to ensure it's clear for the future. We shouldn't punish people for failing to stick to limits that we find we accidentally didn't set. Elemimele (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  As the OP of the original ANI complaint, I endorse User:Elemimele's suggestion limits on User:Dronebogus's editing be further defined. They regularly clerk or hat discussions in such a way to benefit their own position. All this was evidenced in that prior discussion. And now we're here again, seeing Dronebogus game the relist procedure while under direct observation, and then claim ignorance of error. I want to assume good faith but this user challenges the our social norms regularly. BusterD (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  How can I game a procedure I had no idea about?! Dronebogus (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. I don’t like constantly being told to remember the exact details of a restriction from months ago that, lo and behold, never existed. Dronebogus (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Further ICANTHEARYOU behavior. BusterD (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  What are you even talking about? Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Although I think WP:BEANS applies as far as how we would or should define the limits of a topic ban in the XFD area, I suppose you're right that it's reasonable to say that it's not considered part of the original topic ban conditions, and it's worth amending the topic ban to take this sort of behavior into consideration. And also as I look into it, it was only the MFD topic ban that was broadly construed and not the XFD closures (I guess you can't really broadly construe those anyway). However, I do worry that at the rate things are going, we're continuously going to play Whack-a-Mole on the limits of his ability to clerk discussions. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Here’s my suggestion: “don’t do anything related to clerking talk pages or xfds except removing obvious vandalism and WP:NOTFORUM comments”? Dronebogus (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Although I can't speak for Black Kite or anyone else, I think that's better. I worry that what you might define as obvious vandalism or WP:NOTFORUM could be different from another's interpretation, given what prompted this ANI discussion. But that being the case, if we really needed a third party to make that call, then there's really no other place to go besides AN or ANI. So your suggested changes are workable. More formally worded, it would be:

  • Dronebogus is indefinitely topic-banned from clerking any discussion in which he is an active participant, except to remove or strike only those specific parts of comments which constitute patent vandalism or WP:NOTFORUM violations.

  And I feel even after implementing this change, I'd encourage you to reach out to another user to remove borderline comments if you're in doubt. Emphatically I should add that even if I think this change would work, I can't convince others to feel likewise. Lastly, knowing we've been on opposite ends of discussions before, I understand and appreciate that these restrictions are frustrating to you; perhaps I feel differently from BusterD in that I don't believe you're acting in deliberate bad faith. However, again I urge that you try to have care that you don't get too wound up over discussions that you feel are important to you. People do notice that. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with that will be convincing the community that you can competently identify vandalism and WP:NOTFORUM comments, we have a lot of evidence to the contrary. I would suggest that regardless of the outcome of this discussion that you cease to remove comments which you consider to violate NOTFORUM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  If it’s just involved discussions then that’s totally fine. I only included the caveats because I was worried I’d be dragged back here for reverting “lol gay” on a random talk page I’ve never edited before. Dronebogus (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just in terms of NOTFORUM I was actually thinking in general, plenty of others around to remove it if it actually does need to be removed. Thats just advice though, in my own past there was a time when I was a bit heavy handed with removing off topic stuff and I've had to learn to let the grey stuff slide (and watching how the community treated those posts allowed me to better refine my understanding of black and white so to speak). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Look at it from my perspective: I don’t want to have to dance around a minefield of oddly specific restrictions either. Dronebogus (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Can we just jump straight to the “Dronebogus is indefinitely topic banned from XYZJGQ and U on threat of permablock” so I can go back to something productive? Because I can tell I’m not going to win and would just like to minimize my losses. Dronebogus (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• If we're up to the whatever^th discussion along the lines of "Dronebogus can't follow basic discussion norms", and the whatever^th discussion in which he's not showing much interest in the substance of the criticism and just trying to get it over with, and the matter at hand now is finding a TBAN sufficiently broad that he won't (intentionally or not) exploit whatever exceptions are granted, isn't this the point where we start to say enough is enough? Quite a bit of community time has been spent on various poor decisions by this editor, and I'm no longer convinced it's worth the tradeoff for whatever amount of good edits we get in return. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I’m “not showing much interest” because I’m exhausted and resigned to it at this point. Dronebogus (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  What do you expect me to do? Grovel and beg for mercy? I did that last time, it got the same response. Dronebogus (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just on a personal note, Dronebogus, I understand that deletion debates can be really emotional, it's difficult not to get attached to them, and continue to fight for the outcome you feel is right. I have been finding myself drawn into them, and going back to make more comments, but for me personally, the best debates are the ones where I give an opinion and walk away. I've no right to suggest how you handle things, and I've slipped up enough myself. But it can be helpful to learn to walk away from a debate with a sense that you've done your bit, and what happens thereafter isn't your responsibility. Elemimele (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, but I personally didn’t think I was the one getting emotionally involved with the deletion requests that started this. It seemed like everyone else was and projecting that onto me. Dronebogus (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Dronebogus, I appreciate that being under the microscope at ANI isn't fun. I don't think anyone here has it out for you either. That said, we're back here because your behavior at XfD discussions continues to be subpar. We shouldn't have to spell out that involved users shouldn't relist discussions, regardless of whether they're under a topic ban in that area. I would support topic-banning Dronebogus from XfD discussions, broadly construed, in the hope that they can refocus their attention more productively. Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I thought this was about clerking discussions, now it’s AfD Dronebogus (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Like @Mackensen: above I too would support topic-banning Dronebogus from XfD discussions, broadly construed. I also agree with Tamzin above that Quite a bit of community time has been spent on various poor decisions by this editor. Lightburst (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are only voting here because I disagreed with you constantly. Dronebogus (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

XfD ban proposal

A couple of editors above (Mackensen, Lightburst) have indicated their support for a full ban from XfD. From my observations both of this thread and of Dronebogus' recent conduct pertaining to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in Private Eye, I had been moving toward a similar conclusion. At some point, it's time to stop bending over backwards to carve out increasingly specific restrictions on this user's ability to participate at XfD. He is already restricted from closing discussions and from participating at MfD, and he has subsequently made poor decisions with regard to clerking and relisting at discussions in which he was involved. Furthermore, the AfD that I linked was opened under very questionable circumstances, and Dronebogus has responded poorly there (as well as in this thread) to criticism of his actions. At some point, enough is enough. Therefore, I propose that Dronebogus be topic-banned from XfD, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. XfD and Dronebogus need a break from each other. Mackensen (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - per the above. At some point, this seems to stop being positive contributions. - jc37 18:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• support just to get this over with. Dronebogus (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• support a break from this editor's AfD participation will be good for the community. Blocks and bans are not to be punitive but escalating consequences are a feature of any good response to disruption. Lightburst (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  a break from this editor's AfD participation Was that supposed to be XfD? Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above, although I would tend toward a siteban, as the interpersonal issues that recur in AN/I thread after AN/I thread show a deeper issue that I do not think will be fixed by this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I was caught up on my partial support for a CBAN and forgot to note my normal qualification on XfD TBANs, which is that they should allow for a single comment in defense (or not) of an article that a user created or significantly contributed to. (If "significantly contributed to" needs a definition, let's say, "wrote more than 25% of the text and/or got through any content-review process".) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support as a minimum, as we have been here so many times before and Dronebogus has been a huge drain on editors resources. I do wonder though if we aren't just delaying the inevitable siteban. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  And this discussion has been a huge drain on my mental health Dronebogus (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think most of us edit here because, to some degree, we enjoy it. Some days are certainly better than others, but I wouldn't be here if it made me miserable. You seemed upset during the ANI in March and you are obviously upset now. While I am not without compassion, you surely understand that we aren't going to ignore the problems with your editing simply because the discussion upsets you. With all of that in mind, I encourage you to reflect on 1) whether editing here is really worth it for you; and 2) if you are going to continue editing, what do you need to change to avoid situations like this from continuing to occur? Wikipedia isn't worth it if it's bad for your mental health. I can understand why you might not be inclined to listen to me after I opened this subthread, but I do hope you will find a way to prevent your involvement on Wikipedia from damaging your mental health. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  It’s not worth it if most people would rather see me gone. Dronebogus (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think most people would see you happy and productive, while keeping in mind the tenants of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. If you "want someone gone", as it were, you don't cast around for a remedy short of a siteban. You just ban them. Mackensen (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I hope you’re right Dronebogus (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I've never been a big fan of that essay, for reasons I explain at my own essay User:Tamzin/Guidance for editors with mental illnesses, where I try to apply the lessons I've learned over years of editing with dissociative identity disorder and bipolar-like symptoms. Both the first and second guiding principles I give there would be good for Dronebogus to look to in this case. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  I still think that's a brilliant essay and if any essay regarding mental health were in Wiki-space, that should be the one. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• No contest. I found myself grimacing at the sight of this discussion considering that I (despite my major conflict of interest) was willing to allow DB to amend the conditions for his topic ban, but regrettably, this outcome is probably inevitable with the way things have been going. Of course, there are people out there who appreciate his efforts to combat vandalism or extremism on Wikipedia, and I hope if they feel that this is in excess that they weigh in. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I expected that to happen I wouldn’t have voted in favor of my own topic ban. Dronebogus (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

That's enough of this sideshow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose This seems a bit extreme for a valuable editor who is obviously now understanding how to change for the better Grip Grabber (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Well, there's an interesting first ever edit... Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC) I'm not a conspiracy theorist... but something's fishy. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC) It ain’t me, you can run a checkuser. Never seen that person. Dronebogus (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's a Joe job if anything. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC) You’re being sarcastic Dronebogus (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC) I'm actually not. I do believe there's a likelihood of a joe job (that is, someone else's sock behaving as though it was your sock). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC) But why would someone do that? Dronebogus (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC) LTAs do weird things sometimes. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC) I'm sure it's not you as well but it's still an obvious sock. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support, and at minimum expand to any admin-lite or "policing" tasks. Their behavior in these areas as well as their lack of understanding of general community consensus of how PAGs apply and are enforced is severely lacking and will lead to more sunk editor time in the future. Would support a full cban based on their past behavior and behavior in this thread. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm going out on a limb here, but as someone who hangs around quite a lot at AfD, I have a strong bias against excluding people from giving their opinion on articles. By all means extend Dronebogus' ban to cover all clerking and "admin-lite" activities, but don't ban the actual !votes and opinions. Banning anyone from AfD should be a fairly dire last resort because it has a chilling effect on others; it discourages people from saying what they actually think about an article. Elemimele (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I was about to agree with Elemimele above and counter propose something a little less restrictive than a total XfD ban. Then I did a little more contribution searching and found more not-ideal XfD nominations and participation than I anticipated. I think the XfD-specific-WP:ROPE has been given, and sadly, more at this point will result in more problems. —siroχo 08:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Whilst clearly being unimpressed with the AfDs mentioned above, I believe a complete ban on XfD participation is too much. I would have gone for a restriction such as "DB may make one bolded comment ("!vote") on any XfD. They may also reply to any comment in direct reply to their initial !vote." I think that would sort most of the issues out whilst sdtill giving them a chance to participate. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Would there be any stomach to me creating a counter-proposal to cover clerking/quasi-admin activities rather than a total XfD ban? I don't want to go to the trouble of it if I'd just end up muddying the waters; I've seen a lot of ANI threads die with no action because they've become oversaturated with competing proposals. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support 92.40.198.139 (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  4 edits, ever, no rationale given? Zaathras (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. In recent interactions with DB I've found him to be passionate about his views and willing to defend them. Nothing wrong with either of those things. Maybe a bit more of a deletionist than not yet a complete block from all fD discussions seems a bit too far. Wasn't this discussion actually started because of a relisting that he did (aside from a WTF? removing of another editor's comments)? He's no more to be trusted with a close or relisting than I am but a total ban goes too far in the way of solution. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as draconian, would prefer something limited in scope such as "one vote and one follow-up comment, if directly addressed". Zaathras (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support. How can anyone oppose if the subject of the ban has already asserted its support? Do we think Dronebogus did not take his own support assertion seriously? What would he think would happen if his own assertion was successful? Isn't this exactly the problem, that Dronebogus takes an unserious approach to their contributions in a serious setting? This ban is preventative, not punitive. It is clear by now that either Dronebogus doesn't understand these warnings or is unwilling to read policy and guideline pages even after being warned multiple times for essentially the same issues. Not knowing relisting a discussion is a no-no when when involved is an XfD process failure disqualifying him from relisting. He hasn't changed his behavior since his past warning; he has merely skirted around the previous sanction. I'd like to think this was mere passion, but we're witnessing recklessness. All this is my opinion, based on my experience with their edits in this ANI thread. BusterD (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BusterD: How can anyone oppose if the subject of the ban has already asserted its support? Do we think Dronebogus did not take his own support assertion seriously? Anyone can tell he is under duress right now. I'm thinking back to all of those people who retired from Wikipedia after an unfavorable Arbcom ruling but then returned months later. Some compassion is needed on that front. That said, your position is pretty clear and has been clear since the start of the thread. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody has made threats against Dronebogus or is holding them under threat (i.e. duress). Dronebogus is once again facing the community for bad actions they have taken after already being warned against such actions. Normal consequences for what the community often views as bad behavior may indeed put them justifiably under stress. They have complicated the situation by being "exhausted" as opposed to admitting their own part in this. The XfD ban supported here is merely the remedy I asked in the previous ANI process I linked above. I haven't begun to document other sorts of bad behavior yet. Don't get me started about their frequent bludgeoning of discussions. BusterD (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose; nobody has really presented evidence that the problem extends to AFD as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  He was already topic-banned from MfD and from closing all XfDs. In this thread, we have evidence of his misuse of relists, improper clerking in discussion in which he is involved, and filing an AfD that appears to be vindictive. What more do you really need? It is a waste of community time to continue carving out specific bans that would allow a repeatedly-problematic editor to continue editing in an area in which he was been broadly disruptive. At some point, enough is enough. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The core effect of an AFD ban is to prohibit someone from weighing in at AFD. Obviously if you want to call for that you ought to try and show that it's their comments that are the issue. Neither do I find your (short) list of relatively minor issues particularly compelling - the relisting was an error, and the "vindictive" AFD nomination seems to consist of someone presenting an article to him as an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It's not vindictive to respond to that with "well, I think we ought to delete that one too and I'll list it on AFD later", it's consistent - when you present a second article as an argument, you're introducing it to the discussion and opening it up to legitimate examination. "Vindicative" is poorly-defined to the point of being a bit WP:ASPERSIONy, but the policies that could be used to translate it into an actual coherent issue back this up - WP:POINTy edits have to actually be disruptive, which isn't really demonstrated here; the (proposed) nomination was in good faith and clearly reflected Dronebogus' interpretation of policy. Likewise, WP:HOUND is about following an editor yourself, not about acting on things that they themselves decided to call to your attention - it's unreasonable to say "see, look, this article hasn't been nominated for deletion!" as an argument and then object when calling attention to it does get it nominated. The clerking when involved was an issue but hardly sufficient to justify a proposal to topic-ban someone from an entire area of the site; and throwing a bunch of weak accusations at someone all at once isn't going to add up to enough to support it. --Aquillion (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to dismiss the evidence that I presented as minor and unimportant, I see little point in trying to persuade you otherwise. But I certainly can't agree with your summation. Even if I accepted your argument that the nomination was carried out in good faith (and I don't), that would still leave us with a poor decision to nominate an article on a clearly notable topic, which is still evidence of the user's lack of competence pertaining to deletion. And I don't think it's at all obvious that I need to prove that the editor's comments are the issue. When an editor keeps getting into one problem and after another in a given content area, eventually it is simplest to remove them from that topic area altogether. I believe we have reached that point. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support I believe only an administrator can relist an AFD. An editor who participated in the discussion shouldn't be able to do so. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_trafficking_in_popular_culture This seems to be his way of avoiding a no conscious closing when he wants it deleted. I haven't had any problems with him for awhile so assumed his behavior had improved, but looked through his recent contributions just to see, and found that right away. Dream Focus 16:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why is it an option in twinkle if only admins should be allowed to do it? Dronebogus (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I believe only an administrator can relist an AFD why do you believe this obviously false thing? --JBL (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  See my comment below. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Le sigh. --JBL (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting_discussions is quite clear on the rules. Dream Focus 18:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  It only mentions admins in reference to minimal participation AfDs (and I think that's actually an error, to be honest - I would replace it with "closer" like in the initial sentence). Non admins have been relisting AfDs for many years, usually without issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that it is clear, and in particular it clearly does not say that only administrators can relist discussions. Moreover that would be bizarre, given that non-administrators can close discussions. Finally, it's worth noting that you don't actually seem to find non-admin relists objectionable, or even noteworthy, as a general rule 1 2 3. --JBL (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  WP:RELIST That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. Anyway, I did not object before because I didn't realize it was possible, I always assumed those relisting things were administrators. Someone who votes to delete something, shouldn't be able to relist it and keep the AFD open because they don't want it to end in no consensus though. Dream Focus 01:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support, I just looked at their 12 August AfD activity (i.e. their last day of AfD activity) and almost each and every edit seems inappropriate: removal of legitimate IP comments, also removing other users' comments in the process (eg. here they also removed a TompaDompa comment), tagging the removals as minor edits, edit warring over such removals, relisting AfDs as involved. The worst (or weirdest) thing is that Dronebogus apparently does not seem to realise how inappropriate such actions are (especially with the involved relists, it should be a matter of common sense, and given just a few weeks ago in March they have been banned from closing AfDs for exactly the same reasons it sounds even weirder). Assuming good faith, they never got the point of the previous ANI discussions and the reasons for their previous ban, which leads to wider concerns (WP:NOTGETTINGIT, Competence is required). Cavarrone 17:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Um… that was months ago I was banned. Dronebogus (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  But yes you were right. It was a case of Hanlon's razor. I really am just that incompetent it seems. Dronebogus (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support a third tban for the repeated AFD disruption after having just been tbanned months ago, and given the history, I'd support a site ban, too. Levivich (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I really don't like the idea of taking away anybody's right to !vote except as part of a general block on editing. I can't see a valid category of "editor who is trusted enough to edit but not enough to !vote". How about allowing !voting and absolutely nothing else on XfDs? That's a nice simple rule with no room for misinterpretation. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  You are free to propose that, but I cannot support it. From my point of view, if an editor is not competent to participate in any of the other aspects of deletion, it is unlikely that their !votes will be well-grounded in policy or otherwise productive to the discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have to disagree. Consider actual voting as an analogy. We trust pretty much anybody in the general population to vote in elections but only selected, trustworthy individuals are allowed to participate in the operation of an election. A guy who drinks too much, swears at people, holds weird political grudges and can't count accurately wouldn't be allowed to hand out ballot papers or to count votes but even he retains the right to vote so long as he doesn't punch another voter or throw up in the ballot box. We don't exclude people from voting just because their votes might be dumb, only if their behaviour is sufficiently disruptive. DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  In real life, we can vote based on personal preferences; it can be as simple as whether or not we like a candidate. That obviously doesn't fly at AfD. !Votes at AfD are expected to have some basis in policy. To use your examples, a editor who swore at other editors or !voted based on grudges would be sanctioned. Therefore, I don't think actual voting is an applicable analogy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I definitely oppose now that the AfD inclusionist posse have arrived en masse to remove one of their opponents from the scene. Strange how that happens. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  What a terrible comment @Black Kite:. You called DB an opponent but I have had zero contact with them in years. I barely participate in AfDs either but I came across this issue when I checked ANI. This is called the "community", but apparently it is not as some folks are not welcome to weigh in. If you have not noticed ARS died a few years ago, and it was mainly because of admins like yourself who trip over themselves to disavow contributing volunteer editors who participate in a group to improve articles. There was no canvass involved here and your accusation is classless. We all just work in our little corners of the project and when we raise our heads to comment on disruption, incredibly biased administrators like yourself spout off BS. Shame on you for your shitty biased comments and for your failure to protect the project and content creators from disruption. You are the cause of this disruption and now you make an angular ivote just to backhand good faith participants who arrived here organically; frankly it is jaw dropping bad behavior coming from an administrator. Tsk Tsk Lightburst (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I always check the list of list articles at AFD. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists I am quite active in them and have been for years now. Someone in one of these linked to this discussion. Please assume good faith and don't make wild accusations. Dream Focus 18:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Note that you and I both participated in the AFD in question. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_regular_mini-sections_in_Private_Eye Dream Focus 18:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I know. If you look above I was very critical of Dronebogus for starting those Private Eye AfDs when there was clearly notability. That doesn't, however, detract from my point about the !votes in this discussion. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think "inclusionist posse arriving en masse" is a bit of an exaggeration. Who are we talking about here? Lightburst, DF and... is that it? Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  A couple of others who I'd place there, if not on the extreme side. I always think it detracts from the discussion when this happens, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I appeared every time he was here, then perhaps it'd be suspicious. I did not participate at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Proposal:_Dronebogus_warned. Nor at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1123#User:Dronebogus_and_involved_NAC_closures, nor Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095#Dronebogus_@_MFD. What other places has he been at in Incidents where he is the topic this year? That should be listed somewhere is this discussion. You can then search to see if I showed up at any of them. I honestly don't remember anything, but can't be entirely certain. Dream Focus 18:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oddly enough I was not involved in any of these above either. Perhaps we will get apology now? Lightburst (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure who you are referring to, but as for me I don't like such a characterization. I am very rarely active at AfDs (about 40 comments in the last three years). While slightly more on the keep side, my AfD votes are pretty various and generally match the closure. I have just checked and I have no previous interactions with this user, let alone consider him an "opponent" (on the contrary, I feel some sympathy for them, otherwise given their previous ban/ANI history I would had no issues in accusing them of WP:GAME). Cavarrone 18:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I am profoundly disappointed by this 17:52, 14 August comment by User:Black Kite, an admin I admire greatly, who was the first sysop in this discussion to correctly point out bad behaviors by User:Dronebogus, the subject of this discussion. It is possible we might have a separate thread for misdeeds of a so-called AfD inclusionist posse, but this discussion is about Dronebogus's repeated bad behaviors and how to prevent their recurrence. Even if such a cabal existed, it is not surprising that editors who regularly find themselves interacting with Dronebogus might want to make substantive comments on the subject of Dronebogus's behavior. BusterD (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Reply Perhaps I'm one of those people who says what he thinks. As you say, I picked up that DB behaved poorly at those AfDs and that the AfDs he did start were done with clearly little or no WP:BEFORE. On the other hand, I can't help but note that whenever there is an ANI conversation related to deletion process about blocking or banning editors on the obviously inclusionist or deletionist side, the same people always show up to support or oppose them, and I knew it was going to happen as soon as soon as the XfD ban got put to a "public vote", as it were. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why people would support or oppose those that they have had positive or negative interactions with at AfD - we're only human. And I don't think it is a bad thing to lean either to the inclusionist or deletionist side, unless you take it to extremes as some have in the past. But I don't think it helps when we see people !voting along party lines - I just don't. Sorry. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Appreciate the words. I can't learn anything new by just reading my own words. No reason to self-excuse; I very much want to hear alternate points of view on this. As somebody who labored with the old-regime Article Rescue Squadron "canvas", this is better, IMHO. In his now legendary ANI thread, Dronebogus himself helped the entire community move forward on some old die-hard ARS thinking. This might accrue him regular opponents. I have complimented them on occasion for their BOLD. But to my eyes this clerking activity frequently looks like gaming, intended to bring a desired result. BusterD (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not seeing how relists can be considered part of AFD closures as you only give due weight to the !votes not the relist comment, That all being said the IP comment removals, apparent vindictive AFD nom as well as the current AFD closure topic ban and MFD topic ban are all highly concerning. I sense if no topic ban happens we're gonna bounce from one AFD problem to another. –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• I don't know if an XfD tban is the right sanction, but I'm inclined to support something at this point, sadly. There have been several times that I've found DB's nominations and clerking a little useful, but they're generally outweighed by the large number of low-effort !votes, ubiquitous bludgeoning, reliably increasing the ratio of heat to light, etc. I'm not going to guess how old DB is, but my guess (based also on some experiences from Commons) is it's a maturity thing. For whatever what's worth. I'm conspicuously missing a boldtext !vote, I know, because I don't know if this is the right scope. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support XfD TBAN: I take exception to cracks about the "inclusionist posse" engineering this -- I am very far indeed from being an inclusionist, to the point of having been taken to ANI myself by peeved ARS stalwarts hoping to sideline me. But c'mon; deletionists can recognize poor behavior as well. I recognize that there weren't explicit mentions of relisting or "broadly construed" in the TBAN prohibiting XfD closures. At some point, though, editors need to act with a measure of common sense. That TBAN was a warning shot, instructing Dronebogus to stop screwing around with deletion discussions. Dronebogus is an experienced editor who should not need continuing lessons about good practice and the proper way to handle deletion discussions, and we should not have to keep going to the well because the envelope keeps being pushed. Beyond that, his several melodramatic handwringing responses in this thread are far less impressive (and far less productive) than a simple "I'm sorry, and I'll refrain from closing XfDs going forward" would have been. Ravenswing 22:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Dronebogus has a history of hostility per this discussion. He was warned last year about gatekeeping XFD discussions and he's continued to do so. I know bans aren't supposed to be punitive, but I know from experience (having been under editing restrictions myself) sometimes a ban from performing certain actions is a way to get a user thinking "Maybe I shouldn't do that" and break them out of their radical behavior. Dronebogus's harassing an IP shutting them out of discussion(s) isn't the first time Dronebogus has been bitey towards his fellow users. If Dronebogus doesn't know how to conduct himself at XFDs, then perhaps he doesn't need to edit XFDs.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. My only previous experience of Dronebogus being that I have occasionaly seen them contributing in administrative / community discussion spaces (and usually having reasonable perspectives), I did not go into the reading of this discussion expecting an IP accusation of misconduct to bear out. Unfortunately, having followed up a number of the pages and contributions flagged herein, as well as the previous ban discussion, and having taken into account the various community reports on the broader issues in this area as well as DB's responses to the criticism, I don't see that there's much choice but to endorse the perspective that the WP:ROPE has run out. AfD seems to be an area of major focus for this user, so I don't take the TBAN proposal lightly. But bluntly, XfD is not a good place for a user who is having trouble contributing without disrupting process in the first place. And the situation seems to be exacerbated by a somewhat short-tempered, ABF, and battleground mentality's on Dronebogus' part.
  Honestly, I am less concerned about the clerking actions (dubious as they are) that have become the major focus of this thread than I am the ownership issues and violations of TPG/blanking another contributor's contributions and then refusing to hear the feedback from multiple admins and community members about why that is not acceptable, cognitively shrouding it in the suggestion that they (DB) are being harassed, such as to rationalize and excuse that conduct: that's a pretty massive amount of IDHT around conduct that is now somewhat getting lost in the mix here because concerns about other behaviour (that DB has an older and broader history with already) have eclipsed this newest issue. But that blanking (and defense of their right to do so) represents an escalation of tendentiousness and inability to see the forest for the trees in this area, imo.
  I suspect from following this discussion all the way through and looking at much of the context of complaints against them in this area, that this is a case of burnout pushing DB increasingly towards bad decisions and inability to drop the stick or judge the appropriateness of their actions in various respects. I can't know the cause with any certainty, of course, but the cluster of conduct issues needs addressing regardless: the proposed TBAN is preventative of those behaviours first and foremost, but I would hope it will also give DB distance to improve their frustrations and perspective, whether they would seek that break or not. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:44, 15 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.

Disruptive editing on the Amanda Abbington article

Over the last week there has been persistent disruptive editing on the Amanda Abbington article, incorrectly changing her date of birth from 1972 to 1974.

A reference in The Guardian from 2022 states that Abbington was 50 last year. A reference this year in 2023 from Digital Spy states she is 51 this year. So according to the sources, her date of birth cannot be 1974.

A request for page protection due to persistent disruptive editing was recently declined. I'd be grateful for an admin to take a further look at the disruptive editing. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

81.107.204.16 had already been given a day off for this, and then comes right back? Guess we will try a week this time. Courcelles (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The year was still wrong in the infobox, which is all many readers see. On a hunch, I used Commons to navigate to the Wikidata item, and found it also had 1974. I've changed that but was unsuccessful in replacing the bad sources listed, which are credited to Italian Wikipedia; I left our block of sources on the Wikidata talk page, but I doubt anyone looks at those, and my removal of the bad refs didn't stick. Someone who can handle the Wikidata interface should replace the sources there, preferably someone who is in the UK or can fake it well enough to see the first cited ref, on BBC iPlayer. Or this will keep happening. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The iPlayer link is no good as a reference as it will expire and be removed after a month (i.e. on 4 September). Black Kite (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Promotional disruption at multiple Texas university articles

Mostly involving one local IP range. Persistent removal of most recent sourced data in favor of older or made-up content, primarily to promote attendance numbers at University of North Texas and University of Texas at Arlington. Restoration of correct content, page protection and possibly user sanctions requested. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Also Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Numbers at UNT appear to have been first falsified in this July edit [254]. Not sure how to return to last stable version, given all the intervening edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours (/64). I dunno, IP. Painstakingly? El_C 11:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You are nothing more than an openly schizophrenic individual conditioned with anti-christian ideals that has hijacked biblical wikipedia pages on random biblical figures of your choosing. Unable to discern reality in your own life, you feel capable of discerning the reality of ancient figures. [255]

Such poor discernment of reality, my schizophrenic friend. [256]

I warned them it won't be taken lightly by admins, they did not listen. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Context is needed. Please see the context from tgeorgescu in his messages before and after these ones. Belittling and self-righteous dismissal of my concerns about his original research. Although my fallacy attack on him personally is irrelevant and I apologise for this, it was in response to his own off topic fallacy attacks towards me.

He also never warned me of anything, which is why he hasn’t referenced you towards his warning to me. He lied, this warning doesn’t exist. DennisRoddyy (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of lying. I have written very clearly I am aware of WP:NOTTHERAPY, and using the above information against me in disputes will be considered a gross violation of WP:NPA. Please do not do it, it won't be taken lightly by admins. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Could you be so kind as to provide a diff to that comment? —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred: That's from [257], and that's the only place on the web where I came out as a sufferer of schizophrenia. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

DennisRoddyy, not only are your comments violations of the No personal attacks policy, but they are scurrilous and contemptible. I encourage you to withdraw them unreservedly, and perhaps you can avoid getting blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Hrm. That leaves one of two possibilities: 1) DennisRoddyy had not seen your user page, was speaking from a place of ignorance, and hit a raw nerve—which is a personal attack. 2) They had seen your user page and made the comment in spite of what you said. That is a flagrant personal attack. I agree with Cullen328 here: if DennisRoddyy wants to continue to participate in Wikipedia, they must unreservedly withdraw the comments—and ideally also apologize for them. —C.Fred (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Seen The only thing dead in the water, is your understanding of reality itself, being a self admitting schizophrenic. from [258], it is hard to believe that he did not read my user page. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm really supposed to comment on this board but what the heck.

The personal attacks by DennisRoddyy are truly appalling and upsetting to see. Knitsey (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Knitsey, your sincere observations are always welcomed, and this noticeboard allows good faith comments by any editor in good standing. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m happy to withdraw and remove these comments and I also directly apologise for them.

I would also ask Tgeorgescu to withdraw his belittling personal comments regarding his assuming I have a pipe dream on the matter and his irrelevant assumptions about my personal identity DennisRoddyy (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, DennisRoddyy. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"The fact posited by mainstream Bible scholars is that we don't know who wrote the gospel of Mark, but there are reasons to disbelieve the tradition that he was Mark. That's a vanilla claim, if one is a mainstream Bible scholar, they will highly probably say that. So, you are splitting hairs about an issue which is irrelevant to mainstream Bible scholarship. To draw the line: "the author of the Gospel of Mark could have been Mark" is not a mainstream POV. Your protests in this regard are contrived and futile. Authorship by Mark is dead in the water, and saying otherwise is a pipe dream."[259] This openly dismissive self-righteousness led to my retaliation, as you've seen. His claims are verifiably incorrect, even simply using the scholars he himself has referenced, yet he continues to move the goalposts of the discussion to confirm his views. Our mainstream scholastic consensus is that Mark may or may not have written the gospel. We simply do not know. Again, crucially, Mark MAY have been the author, contrary to what's written in the article which explicitly removes him from this possibility. I can provide countless reliable sources to confirm this if necessary, including his own sources. For some reason he continues to insist with certainty that Mark absolutely did not write it. No such certainty exists in any corner of mainstream scholarship.

He goes on to ad hominem assume my identity is Christian, which I am not, but is an unnecessary attack on identity "admit your holy book has severe mistakes, instead you blaming those who point of the mistakes"[260]

Further constant self-righteous belittlement about having "never read mainstream biblical scholarship in my life". [261] [262] DennisRoddyy (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere in this thread, DennisRoddyy, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. But are you now rejecting a source published by Harvard University Press in favor of your own personal unreferenced interpretation? Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I accept the published source as it supports my assertion, not his.

Why have you chosen to ignore the belittling self-righteousness I have referenced? DennisRoddyy (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"an illusory or fantastic plan, hope, or story" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pipe%20dream So, it's not like I would have accused you of actually using opium. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I blocked DennisRoddy, but was reading the talk page discussion for context before doing so. Didn’t see this apology until after hitting the block button. I undid it… but I’m still not sure it’s wrong. I see a NOTHERE block coming pretty soon unless the attitude exhibited completely and totally changes. Courcelles (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I will delete the statements when I’m in front of a computer. Having now read the context you would have noticed the self righteous belittlement of my concerns about original research. Diffs will be provided shortly DennisRoddyy (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Diffs better be provided shortly, DennisRoddyy, because you are skating on very thin ice at this point. You are not in a position to accuse another editor of self righteous belittlement without immediately providing rock solid evidence. Otherwise, you have violated WP:NPA again. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

About WP:OR, there was and is WP:CITEd a WP:RS/AC claim, namely Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press. p. 235. ISBN 978-0-19-518249-1. Why then do we call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Because sometime in the second century, when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,¹¹ and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century. I think the only way to read it is that most scholars today have abandoned the idea that Mark wrote Mark. Which DennisRoddyy denies. Besides, he got reverted by other editors (not me) when he tried to remove it from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, tgeorgescu, and I am quite familiar with Bart Ehrman, an eminent scholar. But as you know, this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. We deal with behavioral issues here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Yup, it was an argument against his repeated accusations that I would have violated WP:OR. Which, if true, would be a behavioral issue. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

DennisRoddyy, if you are consistently arguing to reject modern scholarship like books authored by academics and published by academic outlets like the Oxford University Press, in favor of 1900 year old religious tracts, then that itself becomes a behavioral issue. This is a neutrally written encyclopedia that favors modern scolarship, not an outlet for promulgating orthodox religious dogma. There are countless websites where that sort of thing is welcomed, but not here. Cullen328 (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Coming up on 48 hours since their last edit, still no striking of the hateful comments, still no diffs as requested, most recent edit is a personal attack... @Courcelles: Any objection to a reblock? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  None at all, @Tamzin. I was hopeful things were going to improve, but, alas… Courcelles (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps we bumped into each other in a thread too many and you caught some of my optimism. It's a terrible affliction, really. Reblocked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Pessimism continues to win on this one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps why I have accused him of ignorance deserves an explanation: Matthew did not write Matthew, Mark did not write Mark, and so on, is one of the famous claims of mainstream Bible scholarship. E.g. lambasted here and defended here. So, it is known for a long time by both its opponents and its defenders. It's very hard to miss, especially for someone spending their time to oppose it. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is a problem because he wrote I am so well versed in the current mainstream biblical consensus [263] and The modern mainstream biblical consensus is that the author may or may not have been Mark, because the texts were originally untitled, and their attribution to these figures is based on 2nd century guesses about the origins of the untitled works. This is not my opinion, or some pipe dream you think I have, this is the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship, whether you like it or not. [264]. The latter is a very superficial understanding of what mainstream Bible scholars claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I also doubt very much that they are really a lawyer. For what it's worth though, I think you're dead right that their claim to being an expert in this field is largely inconsistent with their commentary, which seems to be very confused with regard to the historicity of the Bible.

Anyway, returning to the more immediate behavioural issues, even if anyone here were inclined to credit their (clearly very unlikely) excuses about the timing and meaning of their final edits with the benefit of every presumption, I for one would have gladly supported a community indef if it came to that. Their comments were so clearly calculated for maximum hatefulness and in a way that was both egregiously unacceptable and yet simultaneously petty beyond description, that I can't see that they could give even the project's single best mea culpa ever and win back the benefit of the doubt: what they said in the first instance was so far beyond the pale, so indicative of WP:CIR issues (to say nothing of the owership issues and ignorance of basic policy), that there was never any realistic hope they were going to be staying. Their post-block commentary is mere confirmation of that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I do want to add though, tgeorgescu, that there were points where your tone took on a bit of a dismissive edge that probably could have elicited a strong reaction even from a more reasonable editor. I don't think it rises to the level of an actual violation of WP:CIV (even a mild one), but because it was enough to potentially give this user excuses for further poor behaviour, I'm going to point it out to you as purely practical advice if nothing else: please consider high-roading a little harder in these cases, if you follow my meaning.: it is much more effective against these types and gives them less excuse to try to justify their own disruption. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

DennisRoddy (at their talkpage), seems to be suggesting they'll evade any blocks/bans. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

May this rank-and-file editor make the suggestion of a WP:DENY-based removal of talk page access? Something tells me this one is not going to be hard to spot when they do return. Though all things considered, we might want to consider whether this is actually the first time we've encountered their particular brand of disruption. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

There was an atheist who supported Christ Myth Theory who had been socking, often promoting WP:OR against WP:RS, in Bible articles that were not so obvious targets for his advocacy of CMT (especially The Exodus). DennisRoddyy self-identifies as agnostic.

If there was an excuse for me feeling irritated: I did not revert DennisRoddyy's edits, but other editors did. And he grudgingly took it to the talk page. So, I was addressing an editor who already edit-warred against WP:CONSENSUS (soon before that). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand, but I still think that (up to a certain point) it's easiest to deal with these types by starving them of the oxygen they need in order to pretend that their view is being suppressed, even if just as a purely practical/strategic/rhetorical matter. Corner them with kindness, to repurpose an old adage. Or at least, that's my view. Now obviously once they made the comments in question attacking you along those personal lines, all pretense that this was someone who could be reasoned with was done: those were some of the most targeted, personally hostile, and unacceptable comments I have ever seen leveled at another editor here. I would tell you that I'm sorry you had to deal with that, but I hope it goes without saying that virtually any goodfaith member of this community would be displeased to see them. Also, you seem like a fairly unflappable sort; those who have gone through true trials in their life often are, in the face of such clumsy, petty, and low provocation.

Of course, that doesn't mean you didn't have the right to be incensed at that point. I only mean to stress that up until the moment such a nasty piece of work reveals their true colours, it's usually best to not give them excuses to point to when they do start to explode. But you can value that advice as you wish: your tone was just a little impatient at the very worst, and my overall impression of you and your conduct in this matter is very high, let me hasten to assure you.

Getting back to the matter of potential socking, my feeling is that this editor is probably unlikely to be your CMT SPA: this editor was bothered by the prospect of saying in Wikivoice that the gospels are unlikely to have been authored by the apostles and their associates, so I can't imagine they are strong advocate for the theory that Jesus never existed even as a historical figure--those positions would seem to be in tension. Still, given Dennis' immediate threat to sock and disrupt the second they realized they couldn't talk their way out of this, I would say it would not shock me if this was their first rodeo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

About Ralphellis: his socks weren't promoting CMT in any obvious way, and they decided they like Ancient scholars more than modern scholars. So to speak, he was scratching his left ear with the right hand. He tried to hammer some points he thought were useful in the long run, there was no apparent connection to CMT. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on how recently DennisRoddyy was created and the threat of future socking, I think a CU might be called for here. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Or, to put it otherwise, Ralphellis wanted to win the debate through inserting apparently insignificant details in lots of articles. To those who did not know his arguments, those details were innocuous. His master move would have then been: "Why do you try to remove my POV? 30 Wikipedia articles support it." And he could win such argument only if WP:OR of Ancient scholars is allowed. So, he wanted Ancient scholars be recognized as WP:RS, but for different reasons than the Church. So, yeah, DennisRoddy wanted that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark the Evangelist. But why would an agnostic want that? For different reasons than the Church. If he did not cast his lot with Ancient scholars, it is hard to understand why he picked such side upon the authorship of this gospel. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible off-wiki coordination

Brazilian fan of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) 80.47.149.26 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) I reported this to AIV but I thought I might as well come here. This seems like a couple of kids using Wikipedia as social media or intentionally trying to draw attention (which they have done, so all power to them). See User talk:80.47.149.26 for what I'm talking about. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

A portion of that IP page has been suppressed, the behavior, etc in general can still be evaluated here. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt there's any off-wiki coordination, just a very questionable choice of who to befriend. @Brazilian fan of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit:. Please do not use Wikipedia as a social network. If you do so again in the future, you may be blocked from editing. Just focus on improving articles. You may also wish to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

From talk page subjects and IP whois, 80.47.149.26 looks to be evading an active month-long block on 89.243.205.200 (talk · contribs · logs). Belbury (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• I have blocked the new IP address, removed some misuse of User talk:Brazilian fan of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit for chat unrelated to work for Wikipedia, semi-protected that talk page, and left a note there explaining to Brazilian fan of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit that a talk page is only for discussions related to work for the encyclopaedia. I hope that those steps may go somewhere towards conveying the message to the IP editor. (I am usually very reluctant to apply any kind of protection to a user talk page, but in this case there have never been any edits to the page by any other non-autoconfirmed editor, so the risk of collateral damage is tiny.) JBW (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• I forgot to mention that this is also block-evasion by Dont block me pls i beg u. JBW (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• ...and it now seems by Bosko.the.kawaii.cartoon.character too. JBW (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing on "Gender-related topics"

I have been editing since 2006 and in January 2023 I stumbled upon the MOS entry for MOS:GENDERID. I was shocked to find it clearly violating NPOV and NOTCENSORED and got involved in recent RfCs where I perceived POV-pushing by activists trying to expand privacy protections to deceased individuals in the MOS, beyond even the scope of BLP. I initially brought up concerns on the talkpage 5 January 2023 (see 2023 archive) and recognized that the situation fits exactly with the article on WP:CPUSH, and I found myself struggling for months against a bunch of very civil activists trying to crush even the most basic policy-based improvements on any gender-related page (e.g. Irreversible Damage). One of the first comments I got was, You've been an editor here for many years. Don't throw it away on a tendentious anti-woke crusade.

I followed closely two RfCs closed 7 June 2023 and 20 July 2023. They were started either in part or wholly by Sideswipe9th with a fairly biased setup that was leading the discussion toward another expansion of MOS-based restrictions. They both failed. I was labeled as part of "the opposition". My oppose !vote in the second RfC brought several activists arguing to dismiss my !vote. Numerous comments from the RfCs lamented the "MOS activists" repeatedly running RfCs and wasting people's time, gaining local consensus on the MOS page and failing at VPP with a wider audience. People are fatigued on this topic. In discussions with Sideswipe9th over many months, I've found they often respond to my comments within 10 minutes, regardless of time of day, and the comments tend to be very long and always oppositional and dismissive. The result, maybe intentionally, is that others find it hard to keep up with the enormous amount of discussion and they check out, leaving the few highly committed activists to dominate discussion. Consensus is impossible, creating repeated RfCs.

I started proposing a revision to MOS:GENDERID at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on 26 June 2023 and was clear since January that I wanted to work toward a new RfC that aligns the MOS with policy, which would inevitably be opposed to the nth degree by the activists trying to go the opposite direction. I went through about 5 different revisions over at least 5 weeks trying to get feedback, trying to parse the useful feedback from the fluff of specious complaints in the face of CPUSH. I'm not providing diffs because of the volume involved. When I finally got to the point of a reasonable proposal at Village Pump, I posted it today and within 15 minutes Sideswipe9th, Firefangledfeathers, and LokiTheLiar asked for a procedural close of the RfC, basically saying that because they previously opposed it, I didn't have consensus for the RfC and failed WP:RFCBEFORE. At a surface level their complaints may look reasonable, but they're not.

CPUSH seems to be the most difficult thing for Wikipedia to deal with, even ArbCom has effectively said that they can't fix the problem. I'm not sure what can be done, but the current VPP pole response seems actionable. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Notified users involved here, here, and here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a bunch of exhausted people trying their best to improve policies and guidelines, mostly collaborating well. We also have Cuñado posting a complex RfC over universal objection and then posting this series of allegations with not a single diff of evidence. I am truly shocked to see this here, and I need some processing time. Please ping me if you have a question I can answer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m beginning to get the impression a boomerang GENSEX top8c ban is in order given this type of language, Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I can assure you that if the consensus at ANI is that my perception of CPUSH is wrong, and that my attempt at RfC was inappropriate, you won't be seeing much of me on this topic. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You’re right, I won’t, because I’m going to need a VERY good reason not to use the CTOPS protocols and topic ban you. My post was hoping someone can provide one. Courcelles (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Based on my warning, and their response to the rfc they opened where they said, The current MOS:GENDERID seems to be an example of regulatory capture, where those invested with their POV have been successful at expanding the MOS to inappropriately include content restrictions that violate WP:NOTCENSORED without any clear policy-based justification. I am ready to topic ban now. Asking after clearly ignoring the warning is not the correct order of operations, and demonstrate that they understood that they were casting aspersions yet again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I respect the feedback that my perception was wrong and acknowledge my failure to stay civil. I'll propose a one-year topic ban on myself (never been topic-banned, so not sure if a self-ban is relevant), with right to coment civilly in future RfCs. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday, admin User:ScottishFinnishRadish posted this on your talk page - "Comments like several extremely active editors on this page are WP:NOTHERE and your frequent referring to other editors as activists needs to stop." and posted an AE logged warning to that effect ([265]). What have you just done above? Yeah, referred to other editors as activists. I'd say that wasn't the brightest idea. Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Given ScottishFinnishRadish's comment "If you believe that other editors are editing in bad faith or are NOTHERE WP:AE and WP:ANI are the venues to discuss that"[266], I thought this was the appropriate place to describe the problem that I perceive. If not, my apologies and I learned something. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I dunno what Cuñado thinks is happening, but to me it looks like they proposed an RFC wording, nobody liked it, and then they disruptively tried to start it anyway.

This is actually something they've done before in discussions on that page: they proposed a wording for a section on the page, and over multiple drafts people repeatedly had the same objections that Cuñado refused to answer, enough so that I eventually made a draft incorporating those concerns over Cuñado's objections.

Like it or not Cuñado, you do not actually have consensus for the majority of the changes you want to make to this guideline. It's a pretty common pattern in this topic area, IMO, for someone to try to make a change to a trans-related page or guideline against consensus and then when nobody is for it they start calling all their opponents activists and accusing them of wanting to WP:RGW. But WP:RGW is not a synonym for "woke", and in fact it applies better to the pattern of behavior I've just described than it does to any consensus among editors. Loki (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, @Courcelles I think I'd oppose a topic ban because, while Cuñado's repeated refusal to listen to feedback from other editors has been frustrating, I do think that his efforts on the talk page of MOS:GENDERID have been more helpful than harmful overall. (Maybe I wouldn't think this if he had been this accusatory the whole time, though.) Loki (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

As my last comment of today, is there any changes or it is the same so it will require closure? ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@ToadetteEdit I think you want the discussion above us. Loki (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

What I'm seeing from Cuñardo is repeated failures to listen to other editors - repeatedly at the MOS discussion and then exacerbated by the failure to listen to the logged warning yesterday. Courcelles asks for good reasons not to topic ban, I am unable to provide one. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thinking more on this, I'm not sure that a simple topic ban from GENSEX isn't too blunt an instrument but I'm not sure what would be better. Advice and warnings haven't worked, so we need to try something else. Blocks for personalising disputes and for casting aspersions maybe, but they're subjective and can sometimes cause more drama than they avoid and they also don't address the failures to listen. A topic ban from making new proposals in the GENSEX topic area, but not from commenting on others' proposals, would help somewhat but this feels too specific and comes with definition difficulties (e.g. is a comment like "I suggest point 2 would be better phrased as ..." a "proposal"?). When they engage constructively and without casting aspersions, commenting on motivations, etc. their contributions are valuable and it would be a shame to lose them, but if there isn't a way to retain the good without also getting the bad then a topic ban may be the best way forwards for the community. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think it's civil POV pushing? Shells-shells (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Sideswipe9th and I have rarely agreed on topic related questions. However, I do think they are a good faith editor and I'm always concerned when the civil POV essay is brought out. Sometimes people do work to support their POV. So long as that effort is done civilly (and I don't recall a time where Sideswipe9th wasn't) and without edit warring, I think we should give a lot of leeway when it comes to taking people to ANI for, what amounts to, trying to make their point. I can understand frustration in topics like this but I think we should really err on the side of not intervening so long as things are civil. For what it's worth I wouldn't support any action against Cunado either as I have been in their position and understand their frustration. When you have a clear vision of a problem and others aren't understanding the issue it's easy to become frustrated. They should be careful in the future to distinguish between how something can appear and the likely intent behind things. I strongly believe Sideswipe9th's intent is good faith even in cases where I disagreed with them. Springee (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• This is far from the first time that Cuñado has referred to anyone who disagrees with them as "activists" and they also did so in a similar fashion on the Village Pump MOS:GENDERID discussion two weeks ago, where I called them out on it. Over there they claimed all the previous RfCs on the topic and their outcomes were "driven by trans-activists that made unreasonable proposals". Silverseren^C 00:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There have been a lot of discussions since the second of the two recent RfCs closed on next steps, and by and large we are trying to come up with a draft guideline amendment that will fit the consensus established by the first RfC, while also addressing the concerns raised in the second. This isn't an easy process, there are naturally strong opinions from all involved, and we're trying to hit what seems to be a very small target for where the community consensus lies.

• The problem, at least as I see it and reasonable minds may disagree on this, is that while Cuñado has taken some aspects of feedback onboard (for example in this reply after I pointed out that MOSBIO applies to all biographical content and not just biographical articles), there are some pretty major concerns from multiple editors that have not been addressed. The frustrations that arise from not listening to the feedback that has been given are compounded when those are met with accusations of being NOTHERE, that the two recent RfCs "had a biased activist-y setup", and that the GENDERID guideline is the result of a "local consensus on this page, where gender-activists are overrepresented". When these are combined, it does not create an environment conductive to collaboration.
  For the most part, I have tried to set the accusations aside when giving feedback on the proposals, though some of my frustrations came out in this reply, where I really should have used softer language in the last sentence. However the accusations Cuñado has been making are making this process far more contentious than it has to be. I had hoped that SFR's AE logged warning yesterday would have put a stop to the accusations, however Cuñado's opening !vote in the now closed RfC, where he said The current MOS:GENDERID seems to be an example of regulatory capture, where those invested with their POV have been successful at expanding the MOS to inappropriately include content restrictions that violate WP:NOTCENSORED without any clear policy-based justification. clearly flies against the spirit of that warning, as it is accusing the hundreds of editors who have contributed to the development of the guideline over the last twenty years of being activists by another name. For context, see regulatory capture, and then Google search a term like "transgender regulatory capture" for how this language is typically used off wiki.
  Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I would urge Cuñado to rethink his approach to discussions on this topic. There are good aspects to your proposals, but those are massively outweighed when you cast everyone who opposes them because of the bad aspects as activists, and don't take constructive feedback about the bad aspects onboard when it is given. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• (comment in non-admin capacity) Back in January, I reverted Cuñado's attempt to unilaterally remove the deadname provisions. For what it's worth, I agree with some of Cuñado's criticism of the guideline as stands, but that removal was obviously inappropriate. Since then, Cuñado has no doubt seen that there's a diversity of opinion on GENDERID, even among those who generally support it. I, EvergreenFir, and Folly Mox all have expressed views (please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing either of you) that the current guideline is in some ways too strict. The two aspects of GENDERID that most conflict with the preferences of the trans community—retaining deadnames on some articles and avoiding neopronouns—were both largely supported by editors who broadly support GENDERID. If there is activism afoot, it's not doing a very good job. MoS remains about the middle of the pack on style guides when it comes to trans issues: Don't misgender, don't out, minimize deadnaming, but in some cases put content concerns over the subject's preference.
  Maybe I and Evergreen and Folly and the other pro-GENDERID editors who've expressed varying degrees of heterodox, independent thought don't fall under the "activists" Cuñado is talking about. It's hard to tell, because, other than naming Sideswipe thrice and FFF and Loki once, it's not clear who in particular he's complaining about here, nor has a case been made for why those three should be considered "activists" rather than just people who sometimes disagree with Cuñado. I have my own critique of GENDERID and its ideological underpinnings—specifically that it represents a fairly stereotyped understanding of the trans experience, more the sort perpetrated by cisgender allies than by trans people. But I don't blame anyone in particular for that. If there's a problem with a guideline, that's a communal failing. I've appreciated a lot of Cuñado's critique of various aspects of GENDERID. I wish he could manage to give that critique without personalizing matters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  (Summoned by ping) (in horror to an MOS:GID thread at ANI). I appreciate the characterisation above as a heterodox, independent thinker. I did comment " Works for me" on Cuñado's recent proposed rewrite of the section in dispute— which I'm not prepared to assess as more, less, or equally strict in comparison with the current guidance. I did not find anything in the rewrite that seemed immediately objectionable, and the comment was made – like my first comment at the second VPP RfC – ex exhaustio, in the vain hope that a bold do-over might stem the flood of RfCs. I have also given pushback against proposed changes to the current policy that would make it more thoroughly trans-accommodating at the expense of reader confusion or editor frustration, including use of neopronouns and specific guidance on "complex / complementary gender expression". That second pushback, where my edit followed Tamzin's and preceded EvergreenFir's, may be what Tamzin had in mind above.

  I think User:Slakr did a valiant and adequate job in the close of one recent discussion, seeing that people are arguing from entirely different policy underpinnings, talking past each other because we disagree with or don't understand each other's assumptions. It's natural to start seeing opponents and bad faith where none exist when staring down the maw of 800kb of raw text, unceasing workshopping and bikeshedding, and what might seem to us to be arguments that completely miss the main point.

  I do have a personal connection to this topic, and when I noticed myself having too many feelings to communicate dispassionately I took MOSBIO off my watchlist and moved on. My kind suggestion to anyone who feels themselves finding enemies in their codiscussants is to take a similar step away. Folly Mox (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'd support action against Cuñado here, but I do think they were being at a minimum at very IDHT with their most recent action. I don't think the "activists" language in itself is sufficiently problematic under policy to justify a sanction in these circumstances. It's not something I would personally use (it's just too likely to inflame and already heated debate), but the fact of the matter is that it's within a reasonable field of perspective on this one: there have been parties (on both sides) who have attacked this issue with some combination of bludgeoning, advocacy, and even borderline gamesmanship; these actions have been consistently well-intentioned, and any outright violation of process unintentional, but I think it is fair to say that at times in the recent discussions and related events, lines have sometimes been crossed by some of the more adamant hardliners on both sides.
  Feeling as they do about the underlying subject, I can understand Cuñado's view that some of the advocates for more stringent GENDERID protections have used aggressive tactics at points, but that doesn't obviate two major counterpoints: a) their wording should have been more selective, and b) they should recognize that they have been more than a little activist themselves in some respects, so glass houses and all that.
  What I am less ambivalent about is my concerns about how Cuñado approached the current nexus of dispute. As of the last few days, everyone on the MoS talk page, including the parties that Cuñado as seemed to identify as "activists", have been, through an effort of will and self-restraint, inching towards an agreed wording for a new proposal. Cuñado is one of about a dozen editors who made significant contributions to that process, but they had a very specific notion for how the final product should be presented to the community and which specific issues should be foregrounded as a part of that initial process.
  In at least one respect (whether to propose moving part of the policy language to BLP and when to propose that move), Cuñado was (I think) completely opposed by every other responding community member. Yet they either lacked the ability to see that counter-consensus or chose to disregard it. Attempting to the jump their version of the proposal on to VPP seems to have been an express effort to short-circuit the 'activists' from (as Cuñado saw it) controlling the narrative with their own proposal and thereby getting an edge in the next wave of discussion. Which is also in my book an understandable view (though not my own). But that being the case, Cuñado's appropriate responses could have come in the form of expressing that opinion on the MoS talk page. Instead they seem to have wanted to get ahead of the WP:GAME, which was not helpful. Cuñado should have read the room (including seeing that editors with more middle of the ground perspectives on GENDERID also opposed Cuñado's proposal as written).
  These issues were then further compounded by the ill-advised filing here, which occurred despite the fact that the VPP proposal was procedurally closed not just because Sideswipe, Loki, and FFF opposed it, but on the basis of a pretty uniform response from other community members at Talk:MoS/Biography and VPP.
  Personally, I would lean towards a trouting here, but I suspect we may be beyond that. CTOP or no, I don't think either a TBAN or a block is warranted, and despite some tenacity and myopathy, Cuñado has made valuable contributions to the discussion and I think the final discussion will be poorer for their absence. But at a minimum, they have to drop this categorization of their strongest rhetorical opposition into a monolithic camp. I'd urge them that this does not really reflect reality, and even if it did, it would not serve process or consensus to frame the matter in the terms they have chosen in recent discussions. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Cuñado, are you okay to voluntarily stay off the topic for one year? If you confirm, we close this discussion and extended scrutiny (for all our benefit). Let me know. Thanks, Lourdes 06:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  As I mentioned, I don't plan on being on this topic for a year, except as an RfC commentor. Everything is off my watchlist. I regret that this discussion became about my aspersions (which I also regret). I recognize CPUSH, and the MOS:GENDERID is an open wound on Wikipedia that needs to be aligned with core content policies, or maybe the Wikimedia Foundation needs to make another special resolution on this particular issue. Whatever happens, I'm out. Thanks Folly Mox, Snow Rise, Tamzin, BilledMammal, Locke Cole, and many others. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry you won't be able to participate in the upcoming discussion which you helped to shape, Cuñado. That said, your response to community concerns here has been admirable and I for one will think well of you for it, going forward. And I'm confident you will be useful wherever you end up contributing as a consequence of not focusing on this issue. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  Cuñado, the voluntary nature of topic ban will include prohibiting your comments on any RfC, current or future, or any gender-related topics likewise. Are you okay with that? Thank you, Lourdes 13:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I must admit, I seem to have missed the "except as an RfC commentator" bit of Cuñado's most recent comment (unless it was edited in after the fact). I hope I did not put words in their mouth as a consequence, but in any event, I'm glad you are clarifying the need to treat this as an all or nothing restriction. I still don't think I would be in support of a TBAN if this came down to a community ban !vote, but, even as a voluntary measure, no formal content-oriented TBAN restriction makes much sense to adopt if it has such a carve out. That said, I do think Cuñado willingly avoiding further involvement in the drafting while reserving the right to !vote in the resulting discussion is a wise decision, and a reasonable compromise (assuming they do not get formally TBANned in here, anyway). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Cuñado highlights a problem I see as well, and I agree with their invocation of WP:CPUSH. It feels like "activists" just keep reigniting the discussion hoping to push things a little further each time (in ways that clearly violate WP:NPOV). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Cuñado may be correct that this topic area is overrun by advocacy-based civil-PoV-pushing behavior, including proposals that sharply conflict with core policy, but Cuñado has also been very WP:ICANTHEARYOU about the RfC drafting process, and the attempt to launch the RfC equivalent of a WP:RIGHTVERSION after many of us made it very clear that the drafted language so far was a non-starter, was certainly not helpful. I don't think that's any reason to call for a topic-ban or other action. This is just a heated and rather polarized topic area, and people soemtimes lose their patience for a while. If we immediately turned to T-bans every time that happened, the topic would be a ghost town and the sanction log would grow quite massively in this subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Cluebat Cuñado, but don't go too much further; I don't think he's being maliciously disruptive, although I amongst others are just getting tired of the merry-go-round of continuously arguing MOS:GENDERID. It may get annoying, but being annoying isn't worthy of sanction in itself. I think we have a problem on both sides where someone on one side will see each other as calm-headed and neutral and the other as hot-headed POV pushers, and I include myself in this analysis. As much as I find the transphobic culture wars incredibly exhausting as a trans person (I am not looking forward to election season in winter 2024), as a Wikipedia editor, I find the to MOS:GENDERID debates to be downright collegial. Sceptre (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Per the two editors above, I think this thread has been warning enough for Cunado. I would have Cunado formally warned. Though if it is indeed a warning, more disruption would probably result in an indefinite topic ban. starship.paint (exalt) 06:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I just wanted to note as you might have been missed it above, Cunado was warned about casting aspersions on 10 August 2023. This warning was AE logged, Cunado acknowledged the warning, and yet this still happened a day later. Is another warning going to work here? I dunno, and I'm too involved to try and objectively figure it out. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you Sideswipe9th, I was not aware and rescind my above comment. In light of that, I still think a one year topic ban is too long, 3-6 months topic ban would be enough. starship.paint (exalt) 09:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Cunado is the one who suggested a 1-year topic ban, so I don't see how it's too long. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Cunado suggested a one year topic ban with a carve out for RfCs, but I don’t agree with carve-outs, instead preferring a shorter ban. starship.paint (exalt) 01:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree the carve-out is a bad idea, but I disagree that means the Tban should be shortened. I think Cunado should accept the 1-year tban, without conditions or exceptions. Failing that, we need a formal discussion of what to do as a community. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I can understand why that might be perceived as necessary, given how the discussion has played out. But at the same time, I think if we read the room here, at least with regard to those who have responded thus far, I don't think there's going to be enough overall support to sustain a TBAN, so I'm not sure it justifies the effort of having the discussion.

  It's worth noting that Cunado was afterall told in the warning they received that this was a forum to bring their concerns if they though other editors in the space were contributing in bad faith or NOTHERE. That they chose to do so with this particular timing, and in relation to the reversal of a unilateral action on their part that consensus clearly was not supportive of is unfortunate and a bad look, but I get the sense that they have realized at this juncture just how clearly they misread the situation, and I don't think they are going to be confident enough of making another move like that.

  So, while it is a close call, I don't think there is a need for preventative action here. If the rest of Cunado's involvement here amounts to an !vote and maybe a couple of responses once the RfC goes up, and they avoid the "activist" accusations and anything like them while doing so (focusing solely on the arguments and not the rhetorical opposition), I don't see a likely problem. In fact, given their work in helping to frame the discussion (and the fact that even some of those they accused of being activists seem to agree as to the value of those contributions), I think their involvement will probably be a benefit for the upcoming discussions and increase likelihood of consensus for at least some aspects. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

IP editor English vs British

Howdy, Recently 51.6.6.209 (talk · contribs) has been changing the word British in the body and text of Wikipedia articles to English or Scottish etc.[267] Now IP editor 146.90.190.240 (talk · contribs) has joined in. In all of their edit summary's they are a bit abusive "English born and bred. when the home nations get their indepence back we will get our country back! no more of this vague 'British' nonsense": Special:Contributions/146.90.190.240. I left a Message on 51's talk page and have copied the same message on 146's.

51 does not want to engage in constructive conversation only to hurl abuse at the other editors User talk:51.6.6.209#August 2023.

I hope this is the right place to post about this/these individuals. Paulpat99 (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I've encountered this IP recently, too. I was the one who initially reverted the edit that had the edit summary OP lists. Their response to me was To the editor clled Cello. You need to stay clear of English people you biggotted selfish hyprorite! Representing him as English IS impartiality! To call him British is vague and IS partial and anti English! This is a public site for editorial freedoms and you do not own this site! you are merely an equal contributor! Other articles have people represented as English so whay can't he!!! Dammit you blind fool!! Petty freak! Power hungry egotist!!!!,[268] and then again on their page.[269] (ignoring the fact I am English). They seem to be here to right great wrongs / have an axe to grind. — Czello ^(music) 09:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

They haven't edited for three days, so I've given them a final warning for incivility. I'll block them if they kick off again. Also, why is it that people with these types of views inevitably (a) can't spell and (b) overuse exclamation marks? Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, did you see the second IP has edited the same pages with similar edit summary's. Paulpat99 (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked that one for a week. Calling other editors racist - not happening. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite They've been at this for a long time, They were doing the same thing as EnglishBornAndRaised way back in February. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I blocked someone for doing that a few months ago. Acroterion (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, they're editing from a UK ISP with a lot of ranges, so rangeblocks aren't going to be any use here. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good candidate for an edit filter? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Possibly, but we only really tend to do that for really persistent and disruptive vandals. I'll have a look, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

A new IP has started with this non-sense 87.114.46.81 (talk · contribs). Paulpat99 (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

CIR issue with User:Miner Editor

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 recently edited the page Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign for the first time on August 7th to add a paragraph about campaign financing. Since then, the content I added has been reverted or changed by Miner Editor (talk · contribs) 12 times. Here is an outline of their edits to the page:

1. [270] Adding incorrect donation timeline with no edit summary.
2. [271] Removing a sentence supported by multiple reliable sources by trying to claim it is somehow undue.
3. [272] Restoring incorrect donation timeline, this time with a misleading edit summary.
4. [273] Adding factually incorrect content that lead to this talk page discussion which was bludgeoned by Miner Editor and lead to their change being reverted by an admin.
5. [274] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
6. [275] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
7. [276] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
8. [277] Adds content that is unsupported by the existing sources.
9. [278] Removes a part of the lede that is supported by multiple reliable sources in the body, claiming "unsourced", as a result of this talk page discussion in which they claim they read the sources but completely missed the multiple occasions where it is verified.

Warning provided: User talk:Miner Editor#August 2023

So as you can see, Miner Editor has been haggling me over a single paragraph from this article for days now, and not one of their twelve edits was productive. When an editor can't figure out how to find a citation and read the source to verify a claim, they clearly do not have the competency to edit in a contentious topic area. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a tad bewildering, and I'm not sure how FormalDude things this is a case for incompetence, but they're on the warpath, so here we are. Every cited edit has a context which is easily obtainable and obvious and which I stand by. If anyone has any specific questions about an edit I've made, I'll be glad to answer them, but I'm not going to provide a narrative for every cited edit when I'm not seeing the necessity. Miner Editor (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wanting to be able to contribute without being hindered by disruptive editing ≠ "on the warpath". ––FormalDude (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll be glad to address every one of FormalDude's points tomorrow. Just not now. I'm in too good a mood. Miner Editor (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the CIR issue here. I am seeing you making the same error twice about campaign versus superPAC, and acting indignant about Miner Editor correcting you, including a claim of harassment and an insinuation—repeated in this posting—that this is "a single paragraph" and thus, apparently, not worth getting correct? I'm not saying ME's conduct here is perfect—consensus seems against him on the "frequent donor to progressive candidates" bit—but I'm seeing you causing more trouble than him.

Also, a passing {{plip}} to Zaathras for the strange claim that a source's reliability can only be assessed at RSN. An experienced editor should surely know that the suitability of a given source for a given claim is determined on the article talk page, and that reliability is never guaranteed just because a publication is considered "generally reliable". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

making the same error twice about campaign versus superPAC – I made that error once. The second time I did not attribute the superPAC donations to the entire campaign.

acting indignant about Miner Editor correcting you – Indignant? All I said to them was "In that case your version is not correct either."

I say it's a "single paragraph" in order to provide context to the number of edits and talk page discussions that have been started about it. Seems a lack of good faith from you to take that as meaning it's not worth getting corrected, especially since I have accepted corrections to the paragraph and would welcome more.

How do you not see a CIR issue when they've made so made so many unproductive edits? And how exactly am I causing more trouble? If I hadn't challenged Miner Editor, they would've introduced multiple factual errors and removed two instances of reliably sourced due content. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Miner Editor, may I request you to provide clarifications for each of the diffs posted by FormalDude above? I am interested in seeing your response to the claim that you have repeated added unsourced material on a BLP, interpreted reliable sources to your benefit, attempted to misrepresent words (such as "long-term" versus "long-time"). Would appreciate your response on each of the diffs. Thanks, Lourdes 05:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, at first opportunity. Miner Editor (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Answers to Formal Dude's objections

1: I added "in July 2023" to the article as it seemed to me after a reading of the sources that that was the purport. You'll notice that the source's title is "RFK Jr. - aligned super PAC raked in $6 million in July" so on the face of it it does not seem unreasonable. Regarding my not leaving an edit summary, that is a fair criticism. I tend to do that sometimes when I am making several edits in a row, as I did here. Going forward, I will strive to include edit summaries for all appropriate edits.

2: After FD created a new "Financing" section, I dug into it and began verifying and copy editing. FD added material describing Steve Kirsch as being a supporter of conspiracy theories and an antivaxxer which is true but he is also a frequent contributor to Democrats and Democrat causes including Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Stacy Abrams just a couple of years ago. Just highlighting the negative and ignoring the positive seemed like cherry picking and a matter of balance so I removed it, citing WP:WEIGHT. I don't think this edit supports FD's case for incompetence.

3: Same rationale for 1: (above). The article title clearly said "in July", so I changed the article to say "in July". My edit summary was "ce" indicting that I considered it a typo. I did incorrectly marked it as minor. I will strive to do better with my edit summaries.

4: I added that Kirsch was a "frequent donor to progressive candidates". The source said, Kirsch has been a longtime donor to progressive candidates and causes; in the early aughts, through his foundation, he supported many liberal groups, including the League of Women Voters, the liberal watchdog group People for The American Way, and the disinformation monitoring outlet Media Matters for America. The foundation is no longer active, but records show tens of thousands of dollars in donations from Kirsch himself to the Democratic party over the last decade—to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, among many other candidates for various offices.. I changed "longtime donor" to "frequent donor" to avoid accusations of plagiarism/copyright. I think my edit was perfectly reasonable and don't believe it to be "factually incorrect", however, FD and @BD2412: (the admin FD refers to) disagreed, which lead to my ::gasp:: "change being reverted by an admin" (BD2412) A talk page discussion ensured where, in the end, I pointed out that Mother Jones is considered reliable but biased by almost all editors and not the best source. FD agreed, they removed it and the disputed text and we all moved on.

5: The article mentioned Abby Rockefeller, with no description about who she is. Her article title is "Abby Rockefeller (ecologist) so I added "ecologist" to "Abby Rockefeller". This seems reasonable to me and not needing a source. With Gavin de Becker, likewise, there was no description about who he is. So I went to the article, found out that he is first off an "author" so I added "author" to "Gavin de Becker". This seems reasonable to me and not needing a source.(note that the lead for the Gavin de Becker article did not include the word "billionaire" until FD added it later that day).

6: See 5: (above)

7: Prior to this edit, FD seemed to be insisting that if the immediate source did not describe a subject in a certain way, that it could not be included (e.g., because Abby Rockefeller being an "ecologist" was not in the immediate source at hand, therefore that was objectionable as being "unsourced"). So after FD adds "billionaire" to the description of de Becker (which was not in the immediate source at hand either) I gave tit-for-tat and removed it as "unsourced". With that same edit, I described Rockefeller as an "activist" which is how the immediate source at hand described her.

8: See 5: (above)

9: This is boomerang territory. FD repeatedly insists on inserting incorrect, inflammatory material to the lead and then when the material is challenged, does not respect WP:ONUS but instead immediately re-inserts it, calling me "incompetent". I ended up "dispute inline" templating the material. That seems to have gotten their attention... they have removed it and substituted material which seems at first glance to be actually supported by the sources.

If there is anything further I can do, please let me know. Miner Editor (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems some of this dispute was a misunderstanding. I don't agree with most of Miner Editor's characterizations, but I see their point of view better, and I no longer feel this is a valuable use of the community's time. My apologies to Miner Editor for coming to ANI too soon. I'm going to step away from editing the article. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Section re-opened for obvious reasons. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no doubt that FD "no longer feels this is a valuable use of the community's time", as they were about to receive some well-deserved scrutiny for their actions. Also, in case anyone was wondering, I did not accept FD's "apology" because I do not care about the forum I care about his edits which were abhorrent. Them calling me "incompetent" was none too charming as well.

They said they were going to be "Stepping away" in their edit summary. They seem to have stepped away exactly as long as I have, plus the time require to revert my edit. I have asked on their talk page that they revert it, and threatened to ANI them if they didn't, but I am doing this now because I think you should all be aware that this editor does not follow through with what they say they are going to do at ANI, and going forward, their promises should be looked with suspicion. Miner Editor (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I was going to step away, but then I saw that you took that opportunity to ignore the existing talk pages discussions and insert your preferred version, acting like a dispute never existed. I changed my mind at that point. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Why did you say you were going to "step away" yesterday. Miner Editor (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I will ask again: Why did you say you were going to "step away" yesterday? Miner Editor (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I already answered this below. Because it was my desire and intent at the time to step away. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

No you didn't. You are literally begging the question now, and have not answered it at all. You saw fit to say not only in your edit summary, but in text at ANI, that you were "stepping away". A reasonable editor would conclude that you realized the error in your ways, and decided to take some time to reflect. Miner Editor (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because you're not satisfied with my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer. I've told you that I felt no pressure to step away or "reflect". I admitted no "errors in my ways", I merely wanted to stop having to interact with you. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The only one questioning my edits was you. They were reviewed. There was nothing in the ANI, or anything that anyone said, about me or any of my edits, that criticized them or which precluded me from resuming editing the article. YOU, on the other hand... You need to revert your edit, and I recommend removing the article from your watchlist. Miner Editor (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

ANI works best when formal sanctions are not necessary. When the parties can come to an agreement and then walk away, resting assured that each side will do their best to abide by the agreement. You have done completely the opposite of what you told the community you were going to do, and I find your behaviour disgraceful. Miner Editor (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It's incredulous that this, along with your 6 edits to my talk page, is how you choose to respond to me apologizing and withdrawing my report.

And really, you're gonna refactor my comments now? [279] I said I changed my mind, and I explained why. You can feel however you want, but I'm allowed to change my mind. I was not under any pressure to step away from the article, and I only said I was going to because that was what I wanted, and still want for that matter. I'm just not willing to let it be at the expense of the article as I didn't expect you to use it as an opportunity to game the existing dispute.

As for your edit that I reverted, I brought it up at the talk page, and I see you've already responded by calling me "a disgrace to the community". ––FormalDude (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

You edited a closed discussion. That is a newb error. By striking your words in a closed discussion, a reader could think that I was unaware in my replies that you had taken your word back. Miner Editor (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's not good. As for Miner Editor's threat to "I will be asking for formal sanctions at ANI on them today unless they knock it off" - well, I've re-opened this thread so there's now a venue if you really want to do that, but I'd point out that having just read the article and the talk page I can see nothing sanctionable on the part of FormalDude. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC

1) WP:TENDENTIOUS. I have had to spend an astounding amount of time to prevent him from inappropriately framing everyone involved with Kennedy as a "conspiracy theorist" while refusing to include any other descriptions about the person, and it still continues. 2) They insisted on repeatedly adding to the lead the claim that a majority of his financial backing is from Republicans for which they could only find one very shaky source, after having been challenged, and ignoring WP:ONUS. This is a big deal. There is nothing more that foes of Wikipedia would like to cite as an example of our alleged unreliability than us saying RFK Jr recieves most of his money from Republicans when it is not true at all. I have more, but that's along the lines of my thinking at the moment... I have other stuff to do, but I'll be back. They have no business editing the article and are not only impeding it's improvement, they are jeopardizing it's reliability and reputation. Miner Editor (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It's still a content dispute. There are a few people who want the article to say one thing, there are others who want it to say another. And there's only one person being incivil on that talk page at the moment, and it isn't FormalDude. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Insisting on inserting inflammatory, challenged and incorrect material into the lead is more than a "contet dispute". A pattern of tendentious editing is more than a "content dispute". Now, with that, I really DO have to get something done today. I'll be back later. Miner Editor (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not "insist repeatedly", I restored that content to the lede only once. After the talk page discussion, I did not object to another editor changing the same content in the body, and I would not have objected to them changing the content in the lede. In fact I've gone ahead and changed the lede myself to match the body. [280] ––FormalDude (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

This thread has been reopened for Miner Editor, but Miner Editor has provided no evidence here and is making conduct accusations against me at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign, including claiming I am WP:NOTHERE. [281]

I also want to provide this timeline of events for anyone reviewing:

• Last week, Miner Editor removed content which was reverted and started this talk page discussion that seemed to have resulted in stable content.
• I then started this ANI and withdrew it shortly thereafter saying I no longer want to edit the article.
• Barely 24 hours after I said I'd step away from editing the article, Miner Editor removed the same content that they had already tried removing last week. In trying to justify their second removal attempt, they completely change their mind on whether a source should be used, going from calling it "hilariously bad editing" and "amateur hour" to "it is a good source".

Changing their entire opinion on a source to try to justify their edits gives the impression that they don't actually care about the sources so long as they can be used to push their personal POV. Stating that the source can be used for the claim they agree with, but not for the claim they don’t agree with, appears to be blatant cherrypicking. Note they’re not saying that the source doesn’t verify both claims, just that they only want to use it for the claim they like. [282] ––FormalDude (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

FD mischaracterizes and misrepresents, as is their wont. Anyone wanting to know the real story would be advised to go to the talk page for the article, if you have the stomach. I have addressed their misunderstandings there and I do not have the time to do it again here. Miner Editor (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

After giving it some thought and reading some threads, I have come to conclude that FormalDude probably was not attempting to evade a boomerang, and genuinely believed they were doing the right thing for all involved by withdrawing their complaint against me. I will strike those accusations/speculations of boomerang evasion, etc., at first opportunity with apologies to FormalDude. I still believe he is unfit to edit the RFK Jr Campaign article, though. I will give it some consideration, and if I come to the conclusion that FD needs formal sanctions, I will open a new case. Miner Editor (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I will not be asking that FD be warned or sanctioned in any way, at this time. That would be an exercise in futility. I still believe they are a hazard to the reputation of the encyclopedia (at least when they edit topics for which they are obviously passionate about) but I am going to drop the stick. Miner Editor (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to walk away from ANI at this point, but Miner Editor calling me "unfit" and "a hazard to the reputation of the encyclopedia" is a personal attack since they're not providing any evidence/diffs nor seeking any warnings or sanctions.

Since declaring that they will drop the stick, Miner Editor has already gone on to levy other personal attacks at me on Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign, such as:

• Calling me "a danger to the integrity of the encyclopedia, and an impediment to its improvement". [283]
• Accusing me of "bullshittery" and having a "reading comprehension issue". [284]

If they're just going to keep up the uncivil personal remarks, this ANI may as well stay open. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

And they're still at it, now accusing me (without evidence) of stonewalling and tendentious editing. [285] Note that I have previously informed them that article talk pages are not the proper venue for conduct accusations. [286] ––FormalDude (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Striking, this is better covered at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Miner_Editor. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:21, 15 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.

Poochasaurus and unsourced BLPs

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.

---

Poochasaurus (talk · contribs · logs) has been creating WP:BLPs with no references in mainspace. Editors have draftified some of these [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], PROD'd one [293], and deleted two as copyright infringement (B.K. Davis, Thomas L. Moser).

Editors have posted repeatedly on Poochasaurus's talk page, but Poochasaurus has continued to create unsourced BLPs. The first two notes, which pointed out the lack of sources as a problem, were left at 18:40, 6 August; Poochasaurus created seven unsourced BLPs after that.

Poochasaurus recreated one of the BLPs, Robert Sieck, after it was draftified (Draft:Robert Sieck).

This might be a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. However, Poochasaurus ignored maintenance templates, editing a page with both a PROD notice and a BLP unsourced template without adding references: [294]. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a BLP, but their latest creation, Carver Kennedy, is an unsourced copyright violation. Fram (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted that article and the corresponding draft as copyvios. Deor (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

(add) It looks as though Poochasaurus has been going through the redlinked names in Rogers Commission Report and attempting to turn the links blue. Deor (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Poochasaurus added all of those redlinked names in their many edits to that article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Also unsourced defamatory content on a BLP.[295] The Robert S. Ryan article they created is simply a copy-paste of the NASA bio (I think those are public domain so not copyvio). Their non-copied edits are unsourced and poorly written. (example) I think this editor needs to be blocked from mainspace until they communicate, acknowledge the problems with their edits, and demonstrate through talk page edit requests that they understand how to source encyclopedic content. Schazjmd (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week to give the user a chance to respond to editors' concerns. Anyone who wants to reduce or extend the time of the block is welcome to do so without informing me. Deor (talk) 15:33, 17 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.

Rangeblock sought for Colombian IPs

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/CaMI!oWave2015

We have a long-term abuser in Colombia who jumps in with profanity every month or so on various IPs. Can we put together a rangeblock that will stop this person with as little collateral as possible? IPs from the past couple of years listed below. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• 186.31.216.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.31.219.29 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎186.31.210.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.31.209.77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.31.210.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.31.212.107 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.31.217.135 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.31.211.20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎186.31.213.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.31.216.6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎186.31.211.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.31.211.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎186.31.211.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎186.31.219.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think 186.31.192.0/19 should take care of the whole lot of those. There's maybe 3 edits there from the past year or two that aren't our profanity-loving numetal friend, which is pretty low collateral damage. --Jayron32 17:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and pulled the trigger and blocked that range for 3 years. If anyone objects to my block, feel free to undo it, but I think at this point, the signal-to-noise ratio coming from that range is far to lousy to keep it open. --Jayron32 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, that'll do it. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 17 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.

User:Sgt. Mad

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.

---

Sgt. Mad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user is being transphobic over at the teahouse. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked them as WP:NOTHERE. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:33, 19 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.

User:Milkias gebremicheal

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.

---

Obvious WP:NOTHERE, judging from all the editing history of this user, this user is only used to promote a so-called virtual YouTuber, and according to WP:CIR, this user hardly communicates with other users and is unwilling to improve his own editing ability. I believe the community gave him a chance to improve for quite a long time, at least three months, but he never corrected his problems. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 11:19, 20 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.

Yousefsw07 edit-warring, pushing unsourced POV changes

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.

---

Yousefsw07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Account has been consistently making unsourced POV edits across multiple articles (generally to infoboxes of military history articles concerning Libya). All have been reverted and they frequently edit-war over them. They received multiple warnings about this on their talk page, with no change in behaviour.

• Examples of unsourced POV edits: [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], etc.
• Examples of edit-warring: at Chadian–Libyan War ([301], [302], [303]), Battle of Wazzin ([304], [305], [306], [307]), Second Italo-Senussi War ([308] and [309]). All continuing after they were already warned about edit-warring on their talk page on 13 August. R Prazeres (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours: User talk:Yousefsw07#Block. El_C 14:27, 19 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.

Long term issues with user Kinfo Pedia, redux

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.

---

• Kinfo Pedia (talk · contribs) has long caused immense difficulties for those trying to clean up damage at Glenn Miller, with perhaps hundreds of edits reverted. I had sort of hoped for a topic ban last year, but I don't think that will solve this, as can be seen at [310], [311], [312], [313], and external links under 'see also' [314]. Previously there were lengthy disruptions at [315], [316], [317] and [318]. The earlier issues culminated in my report here [319], but really not much has changed since. To mix metaphors, a lot of leeway has been given, and the batting average hasn't improved. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Given them a two weeks' block from the article space and have given them some essential reading. Do come back in case they resume editing articles in the same manner after the two-weeks' block. Thank you, Lourdes 07:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Lourdes. Back in December, I think they made a vague resolution to learn more about editing here with respect to guidelines. We'll see in a few weeks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:54, 19 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.

User: Bluthmark

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 has been given multiple warnings to explain edits.[320] The disruptive behavior continues.[321]. Nemov (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a single person, not you nor anyone else, has tried to start a conversation with them. A bunch of hard-to-understand, barely applicable, and not-obviously-useful "warnings" have been left on their talk page. They did try to communicate themselves with another editor, this conversation shows they are clearly trying to edit in good faith, but no one is even trying to help them be a better editor. At best they have received a few curt replies, and a bunch of inapplicable warning templates accusing them of things they aren't doing. Before you go dragging someone to ANI to get punished, maybe try talking to them first. Maybe try to help them learn how to use Wikipedia. They aren't a vandal. They aren't disruptive. They just don't know how to do the right thing because no one is teaching them how to. --Jayron32 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They've had 15 edits reverted in the last 24 hours and several editors have left messages on their TALK. When I see an editor remove a note from an article without explanation and then check their TALK/edit history and all I see is carnage then what else is there to do about it? The edits are disruptive. Nemov (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What did they say, to you, when you asked them directly about it? Not a warning template, I mean, what happened when you said, politely as possible "Hey, I don't understand what you're trying to do here but I think your edits aren't helping the article. Do you think we can maybe talk it over and maybe come to some way to improve the article together?" When you did THAT sort of thing, what was their response? --Jayron32 17:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you see on that TALK page that suggests that anyone should waste more time trying to reach out to an editor who isn't responding to any messages in 4 months and continues to make disruptive edits. It's an issue, this issue noticeboard, sorry that it bothers you. If you don't want to deal with it that's fine, but this isn't someone who started making edits a couple of days ago and just needs a hand. Nemov (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:AGF is the lens I look at their editing history through. What I see on that talk page is basically zero attempts to talk to them in all the months they've been here. Just stupid, useless warning templates that are no good to anyone. --Jayron32 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What's goin on Bluthmark (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. Maybe Nemov can explain what the issue is. I think that there's been some issues with some recent edits you've made, but Nemov has neither explained to me, nor apparently to you, what the specific matter is. Nemov, can you patiently explain the specific problem you're having and what Bluthmark can do to fix it? Thanks! --Jayron32 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you find templates stupid if you're confused about the issue. Nemov (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bluthmark You are not explaining any of your edits or responding to anyone leaving messages on your TALK. You could be blocked in the future if you don't change your behavior. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Nemov, can you explain why you left the templates in the first place? It isn't clear which edits Bluthmark has made that are the source of the problem, what is wrong with them, and why you and others are reverting them and leaving the warnings. Please explain so they can get better. Some diffs, and an explanation would help Bluthmark to understand the problem. --Jayron32 18:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't left a template. I came to the TALK page to leave a note and noticed several other editors had already done so... apparently I didn't know the templates and warnings were not approved by Jayron32, the admin who thinks they are stupid. Had I been familiar with the Jayron32 policy, I would have left notes on every editor's TALK who used the stupid template and let them know that templates are stupid. Nemov (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

My point is, Nemov, we aren't going to block someone acting in good faith and just not understanding how to use Wikipedia. You've provided no evidence that Bluthmark is acting in bad faith. You've said that a bunch of oblique, hard to understand templates are evidence of that. I am saying that templates left by others are not evidence of bad faith, they are evidence of impatient Wikipedia editors who have better things to do than be friendly and helpful. If you want Bluthmark blocked, provide some diffs and an explanation of what they should be blocked for. If you can't be bothered to do that, well, then I'm not going to block them. Feel free to wait around for another admin to do your bidding if you want. I've made it quite clear that you should probably be a little better about assuming good faith, even on editors who have a bunch of useless warning templates on their user talk page, and also that if you want admins to respond to a situation, you have to actually explain the situation in detail and actually provide diffs showing the problem and actually show where you and others have tried to fix the situation previously (and not just left a bunch of warning templates). If that's too hard for you to do, don't bother with ANI in the future. We're busy enough around here without having to figure out what you want without any explanation or evidence on your part. --Jayron32 18:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ask for anyone to be blocked. I brought an issue here. While you're asking others to act in good faith the same could be asked of you my dear admin. Maybe you should dedicate your precious time on removing stupid templates from Wikipedia if you find them so unhelpful. Nemov (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Some german guy didn't like that I added the producers, the people credited for writing Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order, rather than just one of them, and the fact it's in a series and said he would ban me or something. Also I forget to explain my edits which I didn't know you had to do, but I'm trynna get better at that. And the reason I don't respond to stuff on my talk page is because people have just sent me statements. What, should I just reply "ok, i get it"? I'm not some evil supervillain trying to spread misinformation. Bluthmark (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're still continuing to make edits without an edit summary.[322]. Nemov (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

My bad I'm working on it Bluthmark (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

You're still[323] doing[324] it.[325] Nemov (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I promise I will do it next time Bluthmark (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

On 5 August 2023, you changed

• "vous" to "vois" in French personal pronouns[326]
• "In Spain, northern dialects" to "In Africa, east-western dialects" in Spanish language[327]
• [[Urdu language|Urdu]] to [[Urdu language|Durdu]] in Official languages of the United Nations[328]

That was all "misinformation", as you call it; we call it vandalism and you were rightly warned for it.[329] You did not respond. Would you care to do so now? NebY (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Bluthmark (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bluthmark Can you provide a more substantive reply? Shells-shells (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the editorial distruptivness Bluthmark (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, you changed the infobox entries for programmer and artist at Steep (video game), without explanation and contrary to every source I can find. Is that also "editorial disruptiveness"? NebY (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Check Mobygames Bluthmark (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The video game infobox guide WP:VG/MOS says the person who is credited as technical director should be credited as the programmer in the infobox, and two of the people credited as artists where concept artist. I removed those two and left the person credited as art director for the game, and I added Renaud Person who is credited as "world director". I feel as if his work on the game is pretty important since the game is pretty much just an open world, and since world design is a part of the artistic process, I found it fitting to credit him as an artist. Bluthmark (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

concept artists* Bluthmark (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Mobygames does not explicitly support your changes. You made arguable choices as to how to interpret the Mobygames listing, choices not based on WP:VG/MOS (though Template:Infobox video game/doc could apply to one), you did not provide any edit summary or link to any source, even though you have been reminded of that on your talk page and here, and we have seen that when we find you've vandalised articles, you first don't respond and then only say "Sorry". If you want to be trusted, if you want your edits to stick, you need to do the work to show that they're reliable and not just vandalism again. NebY (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It absolutely does explicitly support naming Grégory Garcia as programmer, given the guidance in the template documentation (which is incorporated by reference in WP:VG/MOS). But that's a bit beside the point; communication and referencing are absolutely important, and it's good that more of it seems to be happening now. Shells-shells (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"Some german guy", pardon me? If you're going to refer to me in a veiled way, at least do it correctly: I'm from the Netherlands, not Germany. I didn't say I would ban you, it's not something I can do and it's not Wikipedia jargon, but I did issue you a warning for edit warring. When you've been reverted so many times and I've pointed you to the fact that per WP:VG/MOS we only list the head writer or someone in a similar position, the message should've been clear: stop adding it back in. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Whatever man. You never told me anything about WP:VG/MOS, and there are several games where not only the lead writer is credited, including Jedi: Survivor. Bluthmark (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No, not "whatever man". I am a person, a fellow editor. You should not refer to me, or anybody else for that matter, as "some [x] guy". That borders WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. And you are still edit warring. WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soetermans Can you point out where you linked to WP:VG/MOS as an explanation? All I see is a series of five rather poorly-explained reverts (four by you, one by another) at Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order with no attempts at starting a discussion. Shells-shells (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Shells-shelss, I mostly edit on my phone, I guess I forgot to mention it. But again, they're still edit warring and as NebY pointed out, several of their edits are plain vandalism. Edit warring isn't a beginner's mistake. They've been here for over half a year, they should know better. They've been issued several warnings, not just by me. Even if you consider those to be poorly explained, they should've at least gotten the message they're doing something wrong. Like adding writers and producers to an infobox. Ferret, care to chime in? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soetermans In regards to Bluthmark and infobox credits? Nope, not really. I reverted one change, and they accepted my revert. I'm on team "we should remove credits from the infobox" :P The rules for those fields on {{infobox video game}} are arcane, and barely defined in relation to modern large scale video game production. Just context-less lists of non-notable BLPs, with no prose or reliable secondary coverage. Changing the producers to senior producers, when the infobox doc says "exclude executive producers", is really an edge case call. Disclaimer: I didn't read the rest of this ANI post, just responding to the immediate ping for where I crossed this editor's path. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Soetermans, I absolutely agree they should have gotten the message that they were doing something wrong; the problem seems to me that they had little way of knowing exactly what they were doing wrong, since nobody made any effort at communication besides the sublimely unspecific stock warning templates. They even asked you directly for help and received little more than a hand-wave towards 'consensus' and 'the guidelines'. And maybe it's true that they should have known better than to edit war; but doesn't that apply doubly to you? You violated WP:3RR on that page as well (also, what's up with this unexplained revert?). I guess I would just like to see more helpful communication here. Shells-shells (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the editor who made the most effort to communicate here was Bluthmark. They made multiple attempts to address the other editors' concerns, despite the others refusing to explain it. That he was taken to ANEW and ANI doesn't look good for those other two editors. That said "some German guy" was uncalled-for, but if I was Bluthmark, I'd be fed up, too. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe sanctions should be taken towards @Bluthmark per the two threads above.

TL;DR:

The persons involved have done negligible effort in creating constructive criticism with @Bluthmark to improve his editing and has given, at most, modest evidence of vandalism but no evidence of bad faith. Furthermore, some persons involved have also been found to be hypocritical of their own accusations towards @Bluthmark in regards to edit warring. Among editors, @Bluthmark has given the most effort to create dialogue though has made an uncivil remark. UnironicEditor (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I still think I'm right about my edits on Jedi: Fallen Order but, like misrecognizing his nationality from a glance at his user page, they seem to really upset Soetermans so I'll quit it out of respect. It's an infobox about a Star Wars game after all, it doesn't mean the world. I'm sorry if I've broken any other of these rules that are hidden in secret articles with names that sound like abbreviations of mental disorders (WP: VG/MOS, wtf?). My bad for not giving a "substantial apology" for putting the letter D infront of "Urdu" that one time, and a big sorry for any other misunderstandings caused by me not always understanding this outdated ass interface. I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text. Plus I've had an account for like 7 months and I don't really edit often. Bluthmark (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC) (sotermans taught me to sign like that instead of explaining why he reverted my edits)

Unfortunately, the only visual puns I could muster for outdated ass interface are not publishable under current US law. (For those not familiar, see WP:ASSPERSIANS for the general idea.) EEng 21:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Y'all are taking some Swedish guy adding nonessential info about a game he likes and calling some guy "some guy" waaaay to seriously. A bit sad tbh Bluthmark (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you strike that. user:Soetermans has already indicated that they find that form of address uncivil. Meters (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Comparing Wikipedia Guideline shortcuts to mental disorders isn't a great look either, on top of doubling down on referencing people by nationality. You've had some folks in this thread come out in your support, but this last response is really... not great. This "outdated ass interface" didn't cause you to deliberately disrupt past articles. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"I'm not in my 30's like y'all, I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text."

Sir, I'm 21. I wasn't around when the internet was just plain text either. In my opinion everything you have said after my previous post was unnecessary. We are not taking these things "to [sic] seriously". Communication is the art of understanding how details in dialogue can cause or resolve conflict.

The reason why people deem your use of nationalities in addressing others as uncivil or offensive is because it implies you perceive others superficially and it negates their humanity. I wouldn't like it if you referred to me as some American because I am just as human as you. My nationality doesn't make my real emotions, complex life, and vulnerability to suffering any different than your. No single noun is complex enough to describe a person. When you do this you're taking the first step in the march towards being racist. Not to mention bringing up someone's nationality is irrelevant to the heart of what we are trying to convey to you. As the idiom goes "missing the forest for the trees."

And nodding towards the previous point, its just ignorant to perceive any abbreviation as akin to the abbreviations used in medicine for with mental illnesses. Would it be a safe presumption to believe that you would also call ASL and IMF abbreviations for mental illnesses too? You are perfectly capable in using sympathy.

Currently your optics show real insensitivity and, though not overtly uncivil, you are treading precariously close to crossing the line. You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism. Still, being ignorant is not a crime but I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence before you say something out of emotion that will cause me to retract my previous post above.

Remember, I stated that you shouldn't be sanctioned and I believe this event should be something to learn from as feedback in your time here at Wikipedia — not punitive. If you sincerely don't like Wikipedia, you have the choice to leave. There are many other amazing things waiting for you other than Wikipedia. Please use your faculties and agency in making good choices. ~~~ UnironicEditor (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Some human guy just gave me a whole life lesson cause I was being slightly rude at someone I though was sabotaging me. No shit you're life is complex, but this isn't life, this is wikipedia, and the only reason I brough up mental disorders is cause I was at the psychiatrist the other day and I swear to god there was an illness called WP:VG/MOS. I'mma go now goodbyyye x Bluthmark (talk) Bluthmark (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"I was at the psychiatrist"

That explains a lot.

"No shit you're [sic] life is complex"

I'm genuinely curious to why you're so hostile?

"Some human guy...I though [sic] was sabotaging me."

So what are you trying to accomplish from all this? What is your endgame? I'm actually really curious.

It legitimately seems you are unhappy with Wikipedia but you're still here. Unironically ironic. UnironicEditor (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Now I'm curious what does it explain Bluthmark (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wait who ever are you? You showed up to wikipedia like two weeks ago and you're here talking big shit. Half of what you've done on wikipedia is THIS, talkin bout sumn "I strongly recommend you exercise your right to silence". Like just tell me to shut the fuck up you don't have to do all that. Bluthmark (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

UnironicEditor, in response to someone saying they see a psychiatrist: "That explains a lot."

UnironicEditor, mere hours before posting that: "You are perfectly capable in using sympathy. [...] Currently your optics show real insensitivity [...] You don't know who here is living with mental illnesses or racism."

Sarcastically jabbing at someone else's mental health right after proclaiming the need for sensitivity does not make you look like the bigger person. Nor does pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them. If you're going to go that route, it helps to proofread your own words; "any different than your [sic]", "its [sic] just as ignorant", "used in medicine for with [sic]", "perfectly capable in [sic] using"...

You've been on Wikipedia for two weeks, and already 50% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at ANI. May I kindly suggest spending as little time in the WP:CESSPOOL as possible? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:1054:F245:2910:3A5A (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm quiet flattered you made an account just to respond to me. Not sure why you need to hide behind a sock. Considering 100% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at the "cesspool" is very ironic.

How was I "Sarcastically jabbing" at mental heath? By just stating that gives a lot of context to the behavior seems pretty neutral.

"pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them", like you just did in the following sentences?

Not sure how being this ironic is accomplishing anything. And may I refer to you that this thread is not about my behavior... not a very concealed attempted of derailing the conversation. UnironicEditor (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm quiet flattered you made an account just to respond to me. Not sure why you need to hide behind a sock. Considering 100% of your non-userspace contributions have been here at the "cesspool" is very ironic.

Don't flatter yourself. I have no accounts, nor am I a sock. IPv6 editors' IPs change regularly. You can just check my /64 to see that I've been editing at my apartment's IP range long before you ever made an account.

How was I "Sarcastically jabbing" at mental heath? By just stating that gives a lot of context to the behavior seems pretty neutral.

Sure, Jan.

"pettily inserting [sic] every time you quote them", like you just did in the following sentences?

Yes, that was indeed the point — that using [sic]s to make someone sound less cogent than you is A) petty and pointless, and B) not a wise strategy when your own prose is just as prone to error.

And may I refer to you that this thread is not about my behavior... not a very concealed attempted of derailing the conversation.

Please don't cast unfounded aspersions about someone more experienced than you gently and genuinely suggesting that spending the bulk of your time on the drama board isn't a good way to start your editing career here. (And while I have no intent of making anything about your behavior, for future reference, boomerangs don't discriminate.) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:F020:6764:843A:8FD5 (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Would someone uninvolved like to close this? NebY (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem with that is despite this being a travesty of an AN/I where almost nobody seems to be able to keep their head on straight, there is genuinely problematic behavior here. For what its worth, Bluthmark has made multiple deliberate attempts to inflame another user ([330], [331], [332]) but I can understand why people might not be chomping at the bit to MOP up this mess considering how messy it is. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Bluthark at least needs a serious WP:Civility warning, and to realize that antagonizing people on the admin notice board is a really bad idea. Beyond that, I don't think we need specific action. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Please. This thread is 10% rational discussion and 90% tangential sniping. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:06, 17 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.