Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

BoMadsen88

BoMadsen88 has been conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against me, with the most recent case being here. As you can see, the account does this via Talk pages that I frequent: Special:Contributions/BoMadsen88. There was an ANI raised about the account previously and the following was stated: "Other than that I don't think there's need for blocks or bans provided that the harassment stops. signed, Rosguill."

Also, the timing is almost too coincidental between this post on Reddit and the above mentioned Talk page edit. QRep2020 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do tell me how I am harassing you. Did I contact you? I am pointing out what might potentially be a very big problem. With your edit history and behaviour there is unfortunately a very great risk of a strong COI. This has to be addressed asap. BoMadsen88 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

BoMadsen88, please don't use article talk pages to post conduct reports, those belong on a conduct board such as this one. Beyond that, QRep2020, this report provides a poor summary. You don't link to WP:DIFFs but rather to entire discussion threads. You're expecting quite a bit from a reviewer here in that sense (WP:VOLUNTARY). And maybe someone will do it (delve deep), but if this thread goes stale, that'd probably be the reason why. Also, I don't know what you expect us to tell from linking BoMadsen88 contribs. At a glance, they just seem to be an Elon Musk WP:SPA. El_C 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What may also need addressing 'asap' is your continued use of an article talk page to engage in the harassment of a contributor, after being formally warned to stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Diff of warning? I must have missed it. El_C 19:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, a year ago, I see it. El_C 19:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:BoMadsen88#Indefinite_block. El_C 19:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

BoMadsen88 sitewide block converted to a p-block, the exact same one as QRep2020's. See my notes at the unblock request. While it doesn't negate some of the problems mentioned above, I'm inclined to give them the option of participating in this thread. El_C 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Look at their edit history. Their "purpose" was to get me banned and, hey, they did it. Only a matter before they come to my Talk page and gloat again. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You are not banned. WP:BLOCK ≠ WP:BAN. El_C 22:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

El_C Hello, as stated above my sitewide block has been converted to a p-block for the Elon Musk Article only. However, this should be removed as well.

I was banned because of “conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against QRep2020” (Qreps2020 quote). But the only thing I did was pointing out my observation that the behaviour of was QRep2020 had been very problematic. QRep2020 has now been p-blocked by the exact same reasons that my work and research unraveled. It is therefore fair to say that QRep2020s problematic behaviour has only been uncovered and stopped now thanks to my observations and persistence. The reason that I have was p-blocked in the first place is now not valid anymore.

I only tried to make one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia less biased because of very problematic behavior I had witnessed for a long time. I accomplished that and I believe that is what every good Wikipedia editor should strive to do - don’t you too?

QRep2020 had a lot of edits on Elon Musk which gave him an authority on the page - this meant that other Wikipedia editors did not dare push the matter whenever anyone tried to point out the obviously biased sections in the article. And there has been many editors throughout the last 2 years that has tried in vain to make the article less negatively biased - each and every time QRep2020 has immediately shot the attempts down.

I am sorry I had to post my observations on the Elon Musk page, but I did not know where else to go. That will not happen again. BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"The bridge crew remark sadly on their unwillingness to give up their hate"... Begoon 10:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"At a glance, they just seem to be an Elon Musk WP:SPA"

Refactored from my talk page. El_C 19:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The same applies to QRep2020. Their top ten most edited articles are all Musk and Tesla related. This editor's purpose here on Wikipedia seems to be to make Musk and his businesses look as bad as possible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Well shit, so the good and the bad. Symmetry? I'm gonna re-open that ANI thread and refactor this, as they might need to be shown the door, too. El_C 19:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is absurd. If you look at my edits, they are not all negative. I've contributed 10 entries of my own. Please do no feed into this castigation. QRep2020 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020, if by "entries" you mean articles, isn't it true that all the articles that you have created are related to Elon Musk and Tesla? Isn't it true that in the past 24 hours, you supported keeping the poorly referenced quote calling Musk a "total and complete pathological sociopath" in the article? Do you deny that your main activity on Wikipedia is to add negative content about Musk? Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I deny it. Hindenberg Research has nothing to do with Musk. I've contributed extensively to the Fraud "article" (I was a little upset when I replied before and used the wrong word) and to the Trevor Milton article. Ken Klippenstein rubbed up against Musk but he is important reporter in his own right - same goes for Lora Kolodny. I can be obsessive sometimes, yes, but I always try to follow the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020, Hindenburg Research is an aggressive short selling operation involved with the electric vehicle sector, and Tesla is the market leader. You also wrote and are the main author of TSLAQ, an aggressive short selling operation focused on criticizing Musk and Tesla. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on my limited interactions with QRep2020 I think they are a good faith editor who clearly has an interest in Musk/Tesla but also tries to follow the rules. Springee (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps QRep2020 should be advised (not instructed, advised...) that expanding their editing to a broader range of topics might be of benefit. It should make claims of SPA editing seem less credible, and maybe help build a sense of perspective. As fascinating/annoying Musk is, he isn't the centre of the universe (yet ), and I'm sure QRep2020 can find other topics of interest, if editing Wikipedia is their thing (which it need not be...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Strike that, per El_C below - I'd missed that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

On closer review, I've p-blocked QRep2020 indef from Elon Musk and Talk:Elon Musk (see block notice). There are so many other topics to write about besides just negatively, about Elon Musk and his companies. Too many red flags, like, in the edit (diff) about and header titled "total and complete pathological sociopath" (link) and the one that states [E]veryone in Tesla is in an abusive relationship with Elon (diff — quoting WIRED, but still). And these are just edits from April 18 and April 20, respectively! El_C 20:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add the sociopath remark, merely defended that it was used in accordance with the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't. See WP:BLP, and in particular the section on tone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

My initial impression is that this block was too hasty. ‎The "sociopathy" language went through a whole RfC and was present in the Good article pass version. Speaking of which, QRep appears to be one of the two main shepherds of the article through the GA process. There's been a lot of critical coverage of Musk over the past two years in reliable sources. I can't say I've reviewed QRep's editing pattern enough to say if they've outpaced the RS or not. I can say they've been quick to accept consensus and admit an error. I wouldn't be surprised if a warning sufficed to stem even the perception of disruptive editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If it's just negative material, though, isn't it more wolf than shepherd? I realize there are a lot cheerleaders, too, but is doing the opposite really any better? I'll keep an open mind, though, sure. El_C 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't all negative material. It's a balancing act. I have stayed out of plenty of matters concerning Elon Musk that I could have "fomented" if I wanted to turn the article into a hit piece.

Look, I got heated these past few days because I discovered people talking about me offfsite. And I shouldn't have focused on the stupid line about sociopathy - I just saw people coming out of the woodwork and was reactionary. I am a grownup, I can admit that.

Please give me a chance to show that I am not who you think I am. QRep2020 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the protection request yesterday, which I declined (RfPP diff), and which is partly why this thread peeked my interest. In any case, these are only two pages you are restricted from, out of millions and millions. Indefinite does not necessarily mean infinite, but could just be undetermined length. El_C 21:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that one page and its Talk page are visited by hundreds of thousands of people each day, that is why balance is so important. And yes I stepped over the line, like I said, but when the subject of the article tells people to modify the said, there is a constant need to maintain some semblance of critical ratio.

I would also like to point out the irony here that, regardless of what I am "answering to" here, I do not deserve to be libeled on a Talk page that is viewed by said thousands and now I cannot even answer to it because I elected not to give into a baser instinct. Given my status, can someone please remove the BoMadsen88 text from the Elon Musk Talk page about me. QRep2020 (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk can say whatever (he can maybe even buy Twatter to make sure that it's his hivemind friend), but the fact is, as I mentioned in my decline of the RfPP request, that most of the users involved in recent disputes were extended confirmed, so it's unlikely they came from unReaddit. El_C 21:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Firefangledfeathers; I believe the block should be lifted, with encouragement for the editor to spend a little less time editing Musk-related articles and a little more time editing other articles. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Uh, new comments go at the bottom. Weird placement. Had I not looked at the revision history in passing, I'd have not seen it. Anyway, I'm not unblocking either user. They both can appeal their block in the usual way. Appeals which I'm unlikely to comment on, either way (because because). El_C 01:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Just chiming in to add that I also believe QRep2020 is a good faith editor and valuable contributor to the project. When I started editing a few years back, all articles on Wikipedia related to Musk were extremely biased and promotional, failing to mention almost all of the well-documented criticism and controversies surrounding Musk and his companies. The number of trolls who still to this day try to change Musk's article to call him a business magnet is indicative of the "reality distortion field" surrounding Musk[1][2][3], and QRep has been one of the few active contributors pushing back to maintain neutrality. So while they may have been overly zealous at times, and a warning could certainly be warranted, I believe that the block was premature as they have made a very valuable contribution by providing some much needed balance in this subject area. Stonkaments (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

As noted on QRep2020's talk page, they should probably substantively address the possible WP:COI raised by Cullen328 (diff), who unlike me fumbling about, actually seems to have done his research. El_C 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328, were you raising the possibility of COI there? I just read that comment as an elaboration on the SPA point, tying all the articles back to Musk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, I have not had the opportunity to read those more recent links so will respond based on what I knew at the time. I have seen no evidence of a clearcut conflict of interest though I am aware that some editors have accused this editor of being a Tesla short seller. I literally have no idea and even no hunch whether or not this is true. But following my criticism, they posted a denial on their user page. What I do know that this is a highly skilled SPA editor who seems to think that Elon Musk is a "very bad person" and is determined to use Wikipedia as a platform to negatively impact Musk's reputation. In the spirit of full disclosure, speaking personally, I think that Musk is a bizarre person who has received a lot of legitimate criticism. I am not a fan. He is obviously also a highly successful person with major accomplishments. He can deploy a troll army to have the Wikipedia biography say that he is a "magnet" instead of a "magnate" and I have opposed such baloney when it has come to my attention. But what I see is that this is an editor who by all evidence is here only to add content that reflects negatively on this living person and his businesses. Yes, there are a lot of negatives about Musk. But accounts focused on praising or discrediting Musk are equally disruptive. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy and editors who are here to push a negative point of view about a living person are inherently disruptive even if they try, on the surface, to comply with policies and guidelines. Contrition when an editor is sanctioned should be evaluated with a certain degree of skepticism, and the "I blew my stack" defense is not too persuasive, unless accompanied by persuasive assurances thst the disruption will not resume. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I was mostly asking for clarification on COI, but I also appreciate your thoughts on the SPA-ness of it all. My angle is: could we have prompted similar levels of contrition and (hopefully soon to come) assurances against future disruption with a warning or temp block (though I know El C is allergic). I've said my piece, and I'd like to leave space for the opinions of others. So, I'd appreciate your contemplative thought on the matter, but please don't feel compelled to reply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I was planning to take a few days off of Wikipedia before appealing and making assurances, but I do not want to invite a COI over my head too so I will say the following in hopes that it shows where my mind is at the moment:

Though I do not agree that I have exercised a "special purpose" here on Wikipedia - often narrow, yes, but not exclusive - I have no doubt grown obsessive about getting in front of what I came to perceive as a bend in the encyclopedia towards promoting Musk and his endeavors. In recognizing this, I promise to reread NPOV immediately during my small break from the site and assure that, if granted clemency, I will not make any updates to Elon Musk for a period of a month and will not push for any changes via discussions on Talk:Elon Musk as well. I also promise to not make any updates on other Musk-related articles during this time besides reverting obvious acts of vandalism or disruptive editing as a way of forcing myself to try and upend these assumptions I have cemented. Finally, I will force myself to spend time contributing to relatively distant topics on Wikipedia like @El C hinted at and will figure out a way to record any such non-Musk related updates I make on my Talk page as a testament to what I am doing to fix my behaviors.

Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to assume good faith with your statement given that you do not agree that I have exercised a "special purpose" here on Wikipedia, given that your past 1,000 edits (dating back to April 2021) exclusively deal with Tesla and Elon Musk-related articles. Obsessive is one way to put it. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

No, they don't. Look harder. QRep2020 (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Really? You're going to flat out lie about your edit history now? See for yourself: here and here. You're really going to still maintain that you are not obsessed with Tesla-Musk-related articles? What a farce. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"Exclusively" has meaning to some. QRep2020 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not lying. "Exclusively" means all. Not all of them are. QRep2020 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I found two whole edits out of your previous 1,000 edits, my bad. 998995 edits out of your past 1,000 edits pertain to Musk in some shape or form pretty much constitutes exclusivity. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, if anyone can explain User_talk:QRep2020#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion and User_talk:QRep2020#Tesla_short-selling_group_WP:COI_username, I'm all ears. El_C 02:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Might as well link the COIN discussion itself too. Still reading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure El_C. Maybe SPA-like activity coupled with the letter Q is enough to say "this is a clear COI"? I think the COIN discussion came to no consensus on that point. QRep2020 clearly denies having a COI and has an explanation for their username. I get some real "small world" vibes from the cast of characters there, that's for sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow, Firefangledfeathers (RE: "cast of characters"). But just to clear things up: I am Q. Tremble before my stromzezes. El_C 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

El_C, you messed up your link. I think you meant Q. Springee (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh my God! He admit it!

I just meant that I see a lot of usernames in common between that January 2021 COIN discussion and recent discussions in the QRep2020-sphere, this one included. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: dude, I've already been called a god (fondly, I'm sure) once tonight. Or was it not-a-god? Anyway, I'm not tempting fate!

@Firefangledfeathers: that's right, I have QR clearance. Erm, I mean, you suck, Paul! El_C 03:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, there was a serious part: I dunno, at a gleence, it seems like it had fairly limited participation, either way. Not sure what prompted what by whom when. Mind you, like with the ANI report that QRep2020 provided in their OP, I see HAL's sig and my eyes sort of glaze over. No offense to him, nice guy and good content editor, and hopefully he returns to the project soon, but I just find it visually jarring. Damn, I'm terrible. El_C 03:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It is always either amusing or disconcerting to see such highly experienced editors stray so far from the substance of the matter being discussed. Is that the norm these days? Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

i mean, have you read the responses on long anis? 晚安 (トークページ) 06:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: for my part at least, notwithstanding the undoubtedly excessive levity (though hopefully not too tone deaf), I hope you know that I always give serious comments, from you or anyone, serious consideration. El_C 13:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Woah, this case is really testing the breaking point of WP:CANVASS. See my list of evidence: Post at reddit of QRep2020 got partially banned; and r/EnoughMuskSpam where the pinned comment is featuring Criticism of Tesla, Inc. article. All I can say (as an editor mainly edit about SpaceX articles) that both User:Stonkaments and User:QRep2020 has been civil to me, and I think they are either from the most to least likely: simply growing obsessive at the topic, an activist, or a SPI/LTA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this your first day at ANI? ;-) Levivich 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise is QRep2020 agrees that no more than 50% of their meaningful edits will be on Musk related topics. By meaningful I mean things other than minor edits/contributions/spelling corrections etc. My concern here is that, so long as the editor stays within the rules, I don't see a clear issue with an editor having only a narrow interest. It's OK to argue that some content is DUE etc so long as an editor is also willing to accept when consensus doesn't go their way.

Springee (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This block is warranted. There's a pretty big difference between "having only a narrow interest" and fixating on adding negative information. The latter falls into WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. Honestly I think QRep2020 is nice enough, but the editing behavior is clearly problematic. It has been problematic since COIN, and in fact has only gotten worse. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence there is actually a COI? Can you point to edits you think are over the line? Springee (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that they listed a few here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_167#QRep2020. Personally, I am not convinced, and giving QRep another chance and see how it goes would be much better (that however does not mean that QRep is free of problems, it is best left to others to decide). However, Elephanthunter have very strong evidences of canvassing outside of Wikipedia in Reddit ([4], [5], [6], search result of QRep2020 on Reddit). In fact, a boomerang may apply here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing all of that out. QRep2020 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Can you explain your last two sentences with a bit more detail? BOOMERANG against who, for what? --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Three questions:

1. The COI thread linked above resulted in no consensus and was from over a year ago. Does anyone have any new evidence of COI to present?
2. Being an SPA is not against policy. Adding negative information to articles is also not against policy. Can anybody post three diffs of "bad" edits by QRep2020? Because I'm not seeing the problem here, other than someone editing a lot about a particular topic, which isn't unusual at all.
3. Are we within WP:OUTING policy to link any Wikipedia editors to those Reddit threads about QRep2020? Because if so, that's a real problem that needs to be addressed. And if not, then it should go to arbcom via private evidence rather than be raised here on-wiki at ANI. Levivich 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• For what it's worth: A quick review of that WWW site indicates that people are not attempting to attach an identity or any personal information to the Wikipedia account, and are referring to it by the account name. Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment do apply, and the account-holder has said "Look, I got heated these past few days because I discovered people talking about me offfsite.", though, so I think that people should be cautious about this. I think that great caution should also be exercised in trying to link the Reddit accounts to Wikipedia accounts, to the extent of not doing it, not least because it appears that the Reddit accounts are just trying to take credit for what someone else did. "We" did this? There's no evidence there of their actually doing anything. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of the world that people have indulged in empty bragging. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Private evidence submitted to Arb. Schierbecker (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Breaking nonsense: James Randal buys Twitter (Shut up me). El_C 00:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. By the way, is Reaper_Eternal's interpretation, the one posted on on my Talk page, of what my violations consisted of accurate? QRep2020 (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know why people keep pointing to this diff as a BLP vio when

  1. the line had been in the article for a year (since Special:Diff/1018696069)
  2. it was supported in an RFC (Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 9#RfC about Musk's treatment of employees), and
  3. it was in the version that was promoted to GA (Special:Permalink/1026867820).

  All of these three points have been raised in this ANI thread and also on the talk page at Talk:Elon Musk#"total and complete pathological sociopath". Turns out, consensus changed, and the line was removed, but that was after. No BLP violation that diff. Above I asked for three "bad" diffs, and this ain't one of them. Levivich 17:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#Founders Certain users (QRep2020) involved in biographies policy violations participated in the conversation. I propose a new conversation about the founders of Tesla. A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders. --JShark (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It runs deep... I shouldn't have been involved in this thread. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This, and your edits to Tesla, Inc. come close to WP:GRAVEDANCING - Behaving as though a consensus is no longer valid simply because a blocked or banned editor contributed to it. Whilst consensus can change, the simple act of blocking does not change it - if you wish to overturn the previous consensus then further input should be sought. If you want to overturn the consensus, then open a discussion, but the status of QRep2020 is not relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020 isn't even being "blocked" in the usual sense, which further invalidate JShark's argument. I have fear that this ANI thread is becoming (or have been per off-wiki Reddit posts) a place for people hate and love Musk clash together, and I hope some administrator would lose this asap. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If We're handing out topic blocks I think JShark has also gone out of their way to earn one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support partial block. The last few edits include [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Actually they don't include that, those are literally the last few edits (no cherry picking). A single purpose account whose sole objective is to add negative information to a BLP should not be editing that BLP. Good block. Aircorn (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  You linked to six edits in reverse chronological order, let's look at them each.

  1. Sixth edit (Apr 16 21:41) was re-reverting a bold edit that was made at 07:41, reverted by another editor at 09:29, and reinstated by the first editor at 18:51; it was a good edit per WP:BRD and WP:MANDY
  2. Fifth edit (Apr 17 14:53) was implementing the talk page discussion at the time at Talk:Elon Musk#Should this material on racial discrimination be included?; good edit
  3. Fourth edit (Apr 17 19:57) was reverting a bold removal made at 17:25; the phrase that QRep restored with the revert, "stances and highly publicized controversial statements", had been in the article for at least on year prior in the form "stances and highly publicized controversies" (that's as far back as I looked); good edit
  4. Third edit (Apr 18) is the edit I talked about above, that was per an RFC result, and also was in the Good Article version of the article (the first edit C linked to in the comment above at 20:25, 20 April 2022); it's also a good edit, because it's backed by an RFC
  5. Second edit was implementing a talk page discussion from Talk:Elon Musk#Bad writing at end of lede; good edit
  6. First edit was a bad edit (it's the second edit C linked to in the same comment above)

  So five good edits and one bad one. Levivich 23:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Its not about whether the edits are good or acceptable. It is the simple fact that every edit is negative to a BLP. Taken as a whole this is someone whose only intention is to add negative content about Elon Musk, not to actively contribute to making the encylopaedia better. Aircorn (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's exactly about whether the edits are good. A group of good edits, taken together, are not a bad thing. It's not all negative (not all of those six were negative), there's a lot of negativity in the sourcing, and correcting constant whitewashing means introducing negative content. It's just how it is. Did you read the Slate article from a couple days ago about this by the way? It explains this. Let me quote a part for you: As the user Warbayx put it, “literally 1/4 of Musk’s front page is dedicated to criticism, how can anyone think this is unbiased and fair?” To which the user PraiseVedic replied, “I would say that more than 1/4 of the coverage Musk receives in the media is critical of him, so if anything Wikipedia is under-criticizing him, if that’s a thing.” Anyway, six negative edits on one day is not a lot. I've added a lot more negative stuff about people on this website than that. You know all my edits about the police are negative, for example. Because I edit articles about police brutality. It's inherent. If you edit about Musk or Putin or Johnny Depp or many other high profile people, it's gonna be a lot of negative. Levivich 13:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Page move user right revoked after good-faith RM close

Admin @El C: revoked my page move user right after my close of an RM at Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation (link to the RM see also User_talk:Vpab15#Page_move_user_right_revoked). I thought there was a consensus that "Russian" should be removed from the title so I chose one of the many options that corrected that. But even if the close was really bad (which I don't think it was), removing the user right for one mistake seems like a huge overreaction and totally disproportionate. To be clear, the revocation was done without any kind of discussion with me about the close. Honestly, if any mistake when editing will be harshly punished, I don't think I want to bother contributing. To sum up, I'd like to have my user right reinstated and I think admins shouldn't punish other editors for good faith edits without giving them a chance to correct or explain themselves. Vpab15 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't a punishment, it was to prevent future disruption (AEL diff). And I'm also not sure it's just one mistake, as they claim, seeing as pretty much the only discussion threads displayed on Vpab15's talk page right now are about contesting their closures. This user did not make a substantive effort to show that they understand the reasons for why it was a bad close and provide assurances against repeating it (here). They don't seem to understand what a WP:SUPERVOTE is, still. Which displays a fundamental misunderstanding on their part, one which I continue to argue needs to be sufficiently addressed if they are to be given back this use right (which used to be part of the admin toolkit, lest we forget). El_C 21:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I have just checked WP:ACDS#Awareness. I wasn't aware of the discretionary sanctions. Can I be sanctioned in that case? Vpab15 (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I realize this might be confusing, but I didn't invoke WP:ACDS for that sanction, but rather for the protection actions (diff). I just made a note of it in the log because it was an integral part of related events. Basically, this was a WP:CIR revocation. I had no idea whether your editing at WP:ARBEE/WP:APL is problematic (I still don't). Did the fact that it was a contested ARBEE/APL page (and currently at AfD) exacerbate the problem? Sure, but it wasn't about the topic area, specifically. And again, you didn't inquire about any of that till now. El_C 22:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I see. Any misunderstanding is my fault because I didn't inquire. On the other hand you can revoke someone's user right without giving them a proper explanation. Very reasonable. Vpab15 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The explanation was provided: WP:BADNAC WP:SUPERVOTE close/move, the basis of which I still don't know if you understand, even now. El_C 22:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I still don't understand it. Neither WP:BADNAC nor WP:SUPERVOTE mention anything about revoking someone's user rights. WP:SUPERVOTE explicitly says If you believe that a closure reflects the closer's own opinion instead of consensus, civilly ask the closer to revert their closure and !vote by their preferences. Vpab15 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, if any admin thinks you should have your page mover user right restored, well, I think it'd be a mistake, but I won't stand in the way. Needless to say, I'm concerned about non-page mover -related closes if this is the approach and your threshold of understanding of WP:CLOSE overall. El_C 23:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Supervoting seems like it would be covered by Wikipedia:Page mover#Criteria for revocation #1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Criterion #1 mentions a pattern of controversial moves. The revocation was done in response to a single move, so I don't think it applies. Vpab15 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Right, but then I saw your talk page where prior to me posting, displayed 2 of 3 threads that contested your closes/moves. And you still haven't demonstrated that you understand the problem with the move/close I overturned. You've basically just been arguing procedure about the revocation, but you've said nothing about why it was problematic, what you'd do differently next time. It's a wrongheaded approach which, I'm sorry to say, does not inspire confidence. El_C 23:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am arguing that the procedure to revoke the user right hasn't been followed. If so, I don't understand why it is not restored. Aren't we supposed to follow the procedures that are in place? Regarding the other contested closes in my talk page, I am happy to provide more info if needed. One of them was taken to a move review that was endorsed, so hardy a smoking gun. In any case, if there is a pattern of bad closes (which I strongly reject), the investigation into them should have been done before the revocation, not after. Vpab15 (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

but then I saw your talk page where prior to me posting, displayed 2 of 3 threads that contested your closes/moves on the other hand, only one of those (George I) was actually taken to MRV, and in that case Vpab's closure was endorsed by the community. Colin M (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Vpab15 The criteria for revoking page mover rights are laid out in the appropriate section of WP:Page mover, WP:Page mover#Criteria for revocation. This right generally does not require any process or notice prior to revocation. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I think El_C's log entry is really confusing; it mentions four separate actions 1) overturning close, 2) revoking page mover privileges, 3) ECP, and 4) move protect. They added that to Arbitration enforcement log without qualifying which actions were normal admin actions and which were AE actions. Any editor could reasonably assume that the log message was treating all actions as discretionary sanctions. If it is true that the first two actions were normal admin actions, they should amend DSLOG as soon as possible. Politrukki (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• This won't be a popular thing to say, but El C's made more than one mistake and no one removed any of his perms. Removing page mover over one bad close (or even three bad closes) seems overly harsh, and punitive, since removing page mover won't prevent future bad closes (you don't need the perm to close an RM). If there were to be a sanction, a TBAN from closing RMs would make more sense, and there are useful things one can do with page mover other than closing RMs. But I think we should respond to bad closes with education/advice rather than removing perms or other sanctions, at least as a first step. Levivich 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  (Not unpopular --> (in response to Levivich’s comment). I believe regular editors are cautious and detour criticizing an editor with more powers over them. Anyway, here is my humble opinion. So prompt removal of rights was a very bad administrative decision even if the action of the closer was a mistake (was it?) (sorry El C, people make errors in their judgements, yes, you too.) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• El C, I'm not sure this was the best way to handle this. If you think the close was bad, I think it would have been better to go through the established WP:MRV process. If you think there's a systematic problem of Vpab not having the competence to close RM discussions, maybe you could open a discussion to see if there would be community consensus for a topic-ban against them performing RM closures? Removing their page mover right doesn't actually prevent them from continuing to do RM non-admin closes - they can always close a discussion and then list the move at WP:RMT. If this were a truly clueless editor jumping in to RM closure and making an obvious mess of it, then unilaterally overturning their close would be reasonable, but this was a good faith closure by an editor who has been closing RMs for a couple years. (And I say this as an editor who has challenged Vpab's closures in the past, even taking one to MRV.) Colin M (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'm dealing with a medical emergency, so for expediency, I'll just quote myself: Anyway, if any admin thinks you should have your page mover user right restored, well, I think it'd be a mistake, but I won't stand in the way. Needless to say, I'm concerned about non-page mover -related closes if this is the approach and your threshold of understanding of WP:CLOSE overall. Thanks. El_C 20:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry to hear that, take care - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  +1 Politrukki (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Messy situation that could have been handled better perhaps, but ultimately it’s a terrible close that does not even begin to explain its conclusion and instead appears to rely on an articulated personal view that the move is “fixing a problem”. Per WP:RMNAC, an NAC should normally only be done in cases of a clear consensus which not even the closer claimed existed here. Even if such closes were allowed, there would still need to be a very thorough written articulation of how the consensus was interpreted, not just a simple declaration that the move is beneficial. I sympathize with the user and I’m willing to AGF, but competence issues with assessing consensus in the RM area is quite simply usually going to be disqualifying for what is one of the most restrictive user rights on the project. I would not regrant here personally. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • You've also made more than one mistake and no one pulled your PERMs. Arguing that the close was bad is straw manning: no one is arguing that the close was good. Did you want to address whether (1) this is a pattern or one time thing, or (2) why would we remove PM for a bad close, or (3) why we would remove PM for one bad close?
    Anybody here want to make an argument for why one bad close should result in PM revocation? Like how does that prevent bad closes in the future? Or that it wasn't just one bad close?
    Should an admin who makes a single bad AFD close be desysoped? Should we remove rollbacker for a single misuse of rollback? If the answer is no, then... I'm openly annoyed that the question is even needing to be asked here. Levivich 14:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

    One argument would be that all it takes is convincing an admin that you'll use the right responsibly in the future to regain it. An admin would have to re-run for RFA, which is clearly a whole thing. In this situation, likely all it would take is an honest "I understand how that close and move was a mistake. In the future I will be much more careful." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

    When we make one mistake with a PERM, we need to convince an admin that we won't make a second mistake, in order to regain the PERM? Levivich 14:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

    Depends on the severity of the mistake, and the consensus around it. I'm just saying that comparing getting page mover or rollbacker pulled to being desysopped is apples to bananas. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

    I went into this totally agreeing with you, I nothing short of shocked and outraged that an admin would revoke a perm over a disputed close. I was actually upset, and I shouldn’t have been. Looking into it, I think it’s actually an uncontentious revoke and I 100% agree with it. Discretionarily revoking a perm is a very aggressive, unpleasant action, and no admin does it lightly, but in this case, I genuinely don’t see how there was any alternative. When it comes to subjective close challenges, I’m usually pretty defensive of the closer’s discretion. But here the close wasn’t some sort of mistake, it’s either incompetence or willful misconduct. Framing this in the most favorable light, a page mover is demonstrating that they are not familiar with important policies and procedures in the area of page moving. This is quite simply incompatible with possessing the PM right. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    The reasons for revocation of page mover right are clearly stated at WP:PMRR and it is obvious that a single good-faith mistake is not enough reason. I must also say that I find the lack of civility by two admins quite shocking. Things could have been said much more respectfully. It was really not necessary to repeatedly call me incompetent. Vpab15 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    Per PMRR, the very first sentence, the permission can be revoked for “misconduct”, also I would argue that the issue lies within the purview of #4 anyways; a formal closure performed in your capacity as a page mover, so-designated in the closure statement itself, identifying as a highly experienced and thoroughly-vetted expert in this field. I would further argue that you have demonstrated that you do not satisfy the granting guidelines to begin with and thus a revocation is a procedural matter. I would further argue that none of that matters, per WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:NOTBUREAU, and WP:IAR, we operate based on common sense above all and this is supported by my common sense. I’m sorry if you feel offended, that is sincerely not my intent, but you asked for uninvolved users to investigate and this is my conclusion as an uninvolved admin. IMO you’re not in a position to ask to be coddled, you are the one who betrayed the trust an admin placed in you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Swarm

    My opinion (if that matters):

    1 - point out the incorrect close and illustrate the issue

    2 - issue a warning

    If the user argues (but is proven wrong) or is on the second serious (proven) error, then remove the rights.

    Is that too much to ask? GizzyCatBella🍁 00:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    PMRR #4 says one reason for revocation is: The editor used the permission to gain the upper hand in disputes. It says nothing about competence. Can a single page move be considered participating in a dispute, let alone trying to gain the upper hand? I think the accusation is unsubstantiated and violates AGF. I also think it is very problematic we are still discussing the reason for the revocation. It should have been made clear from the beginning. Vpab15 (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    This would be done under criteria 1, failure to determine consensus, or the catch all "misconduct" clause, criteria 4 is unrelated to the issues with your moves. Looking through a few of your other closures there does seem to be a repeating problem with failing to establish consensus properly. This RM [13] in another discretionary sanctions area (Israel-Palestine) is very unsatisfactory IMO, it should have been closed no-consensus. I don't see how that could have been closed as "moving to a more neutral name" when multiple participants expressed concerns that the proposed name was just swapping one POV for another. This closure of a RM here (overturned at move review) [14] is also extremely problematic. I don't see how that discussion could have been read as any kind of consensus at all let alone a "Clear consensus". From just a few days ago we have this closure [15]. Gender and sexuality is another controversial topic area under discretionary sanctions. When closing a discussion where two options are being debated along with the relative merits of COMMONNAME vs up to date terminology I would expect to see a more detailed rationale than "x has more support". 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    WP:NOTBUREAU. Procedural objections will never win when an action is in the best interest of the project. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    Multiple users have questioned whether this is in the best interest of the project, so I don't think this appeal to WP:COMMONSENSE/WP:NOTBUREAU holds up. Last month the RM backlog reached an all-time high. I don't think we should be pushing willing editors away from closing RMs unless a) There's clear consensus that their closes are doing more harm than good (considered as a whole - not just focusing on one bad close). b) Other less harsh options have been considered (e.g. mentoring, guiding the editor toward less controversial closes). Colin M (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

    Good news then, the user is not banned from RMs and may continue to participate there. I am not arguing in support of a TBAN from RM, I am simply explaining why I would not regrant PM at this time. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

    You're using the word "participate" but we're talking about closes. Vpab can not only continue to participate, they can continue to close RMs. That's why removing the page mover right doesn't prevent bad RM closes. Levivich 14:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, that’s exactly what I meant. Revoking PM does not even do anything to address the user’s participation in RM. It is a bare minimum intervention, and thus I view it as quite lenient, particularly with the caveat that any admin who sees fit can reinstate it without any further discussion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

    You think I made an unforgivable mistake closing the RM in question. It was so bad my PM right had to be revoked immediately and totally out of process. You also see no problem if I continue closing RMs. How does that make any sense? Vpab15 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Swarm has explained what was wrong with Vpab15's close. But I think removing page mover right was overreaction that makes very little sense in the context. If Vpabl15 would have been asked to temporarily stop closing (controversial) RM's, would they have said no? I don't think so. There was no immediate threat that could not have been resolved with discussion. As Levivich and Colin M argued, if Vpab15's close was so utterly incompetent that page move right had to immediately revoked, why should we allow Vpab15 to continue closing move discussions? I have not seen evidence for topic-banning from move discussions.
  El_C admonishes Vpab15 for omitting in-depth closing summary. I do think that the RM Vpab15 was sanctioned for should have been closed as "no consensus". However, El_C's summary does not specifically explain how that result was arrived, i.e. they are guilty of what they are accusing Vpab15 of.
  El_C should refrain from using CIR as a blunt instrument and remember what CIR does not mean. Even if Vpab15's rights were not to be restored now, we should provide them a path to regain the PM right, unless we think they are a lost cause, which is not the case here. Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, in addition to the removal of the page mover right, and the logging of it as an AE action, one of the stranger aspects of this is El C's closing statement which admonishes Vpab with Contested moves usually should have fairly in-depth closing summaries, but then goes on to close the RM with this as the closing summary: Either way, no consensus and back to the status quo ante, for now., and that's it, nothing else. In addition, C gives a substantive opinion on the title (I don't have an intimate familiarity with the historiography, but probably Soviet should supplant Russian if the current title is kept (?). Or maybe there's a better a title, I dunno.), which is a !vote. The close also references the essay WP:BADNAC, but doesn't mention the one applicable to RMs, which is WP:RMNAC. C full-move-protected the page, which is also an overreaction after one bad move. Finally, it ends with a reference to 500/30, which doesn't apply to this article. There are more mistakes in El C's actions than in Vpab's actions here. Despite numerous mistakes, nobody is suggesting removing any perms from El C. Levivich 14:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  With regards to your comment about 500/30, discretionary sanctions are Byzantine. Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation might be considered under Antisemitism in Poland topic. The talk page has Antisemitism in Poland warning template because it was added by GizzyCatBella on 27 April, right before Vpab15's close. Standard discretionary sanctions are not authorised for Antisemitism in Poland specifically, but it's a subtopic that falls under EE (standard DS). EE does not have 500/30 remedy, but Antisemitism in Poland does, see WP:APL50030.

  I don't think we have discretionary sanctions specifically for Byzantine Empire as of yet, but it might or might not fall under EE. Politrukki (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing how a discussion about the title of the article "Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation" could possibly be considered part of the topic area "Antisemitism in Poland", even if the article mentions antisemitism in Poland. (It definitely falls under "Eastern Europe", but as you say, EE doesn't have a 500/30 restriction.) Levivich 16:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  Page protection is authorized under standard discretionary sanctions. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

WayKurat and long-term, massive scale misuse of rollback

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

As outlined in the rollback usage policy, WP:ROLLBACKUSE, rollback with the default edit summary can only be used in a small number of predefined scenarios, the one applying most frequently being To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. Despite inappropriate usage of rollback being long established in policy WayKurat has for years been using their rollback rights to inappropriately revert good faith and constructive edits with no rationale or explanation. Their misuse of rollback has been repeatedly brought to their attention on their talk page (e.g. [16], the first message of this which they never addressed [17]), but they have simply ignored concerns raised and continued on with the same behaviour as before. A few examples:

• [18] Fixing a red link to point at an article the editor just wrote is a productive edit, this should not have been reverted at all, use of rollback was inappropriate.
• [19] [20] Adding links to a potentially notable TV shows is a useful edit, these should not have been reverted at all.
• [21] This was a good faith attempt to expand the article, use of rollback was inappropriate.
• [22] Changing "Newscast" to "News broadcasting" in the infobox is not vandalism or an edit where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear, use of rollback here was inappropriate.
• [23] Adding a list of "Fill-In Anchors" is not vandalism or an edit where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear, use of rollback here was inappropriate.
• [24] Piping a link so it matches the name of the TV station is not vandalism, use of rollback was inappropriate.
• [25] Adding a wikilink to an article is not vandalism, rollback was inappropriate.
• [26] Moving Armenia and Azerbaijan from "Asia" to "Europe" is not an edit where reverting with default rollback would be appropriate.
• [27] This edit by an IP was a good faith, though unsourced, attempt to update an article. Use of default rollback for reversion was innappropriate.
• [28] Splitting a paragraph to form a standalone section is not an edit where reversion by default rollback would be appropriate.
• [29] Adding genres to an infobox is not vandalism, use of rollback was innapropriate.

The diffs above only go back to the 27th April (i.e. the last 3 days) but show the problem. This kind of misuse of rollback appears to have been going on for years. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you mind checking the edit history of those editors I rolledback? Most of the given examples here are added by either longterm vandals or their socks. Also, most of them are IPs that are doing these edits are not reading the warnings I post in their talk pages and they pop out the next day using a different IP. -WayKurat (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

First, to follow on to WayKurat, in which case, per WP:BANREVERT it is acceptable to even revert constructive edits, in order to discourage the editors from staying around. The rationale is a bit more complex than that, but that's the basics. It is generally recommended to reference WP:BANREVERT or make some other comment in the edit summary to make it clear why you are reverting, but it isn't mandatory to do so, however, editors must be prepared to explain such use of the tool. (Paraphrased from WP:ROLLBACK.)

Second, mistakes happen. People aren't actually perfect. If a rollbacker makes a mistake, the expectation is that they fix it (unless it has already been fixed), acknowledge the error and so long as they do that, no issue.

Third, this seems the wrong venue for this, WP:AARV is probably more appropriate. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

WayKurat is a very experienced editor, but they are not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks, I was aware of that, however, isn't AARV also for review of actions using administrative tools, such as rollback? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right - I never paid much attention to AARV as I thought it was a joke from the get-go. The IP is right. It's dead.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't do anything these days, it's been completely dead for over a month. There was an push to turn WP:AARV into a place which would review usage of any advanced rights (including rollback) not just administrative actions, despite the massive number of RFC's held about it I don't think anyone managed to agree whether it was in scope or not before the place died. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:BANREVERT, however none of the IP's or users they have been reverting have ever been blocked for block/ban evasion. e.g. Elly Mar Banay Cuenca is not blocked as a sock puppet and is not suspected of sock puppetry at WP:SPI, why was it appropriate to use rollback on their link additions?

Mistakes do happen, but the shear number of problematic reverts here is enormous.

WP:AARV is both completely dead and a complete waste of time so going there is pointless. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO, unless WayKurat comes up with a way better explanation of their apparent rollback abuse they probably should lose it. Given the number and length of time they've been misusing it, combined with their initial response, I'm not convinced this is a situation where we should give them another chance even if they demonstrate a clear understanding that they've been wrong and need to change what they're doing. IMO might be better to remove the permission and let them convince an admin they will do better sometime in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the rollback rights was given to me by an admin after seeing me reverting a lot of vandal edits done by User:Bertrand101 since this vandal is an IP hopper. The rollback rights have been a helpful tool in restoring pages vandalized by these kind of users. Examples are Bertrand101, User:Joshua Saldaña, User:Philippinesfan, User:Shame on PJ Santos, all of them have a history of creating new accounts when blocked or using different IP addresses when editing. Right after 192.76.8.70 posted this ANI, a vandal by the name of User:Joshua Saldaña started an editing spree and restored every single edit he made while using a previous IP address. The old IP 180.194.49.27 was blocked for three months, while the new one 49.146.27.228 is currently blocked for 48 hours. If my rollback rights will be removed, chances are if the same list of vandals will go on an editing spree once again, it will be difficult to restore the pre-vandalized versions. -WayKurat (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• My 2 Eurocent: WayKurat is sysop on the Tagalog WP and knows more about cross-Wiki (Tagalog WP -> English WP) vandals from the Phillippines than any sysop on en-WP, and has been regularly removing such vandalism here for several years now, so he should definitely not have his rollback rights removed. And based on my multi-year experience of WayKurat and Phillippine vandals I'd say there's a 99.999% probability that the OP is one of the vandals/sockmasters that WayKurat has been regularly cleaning up after here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Thomas.W Are you going to provide any kind of evidence for your utterly ridiculous claim that there is a 99.999% probability that the OP is one of the vandals/sockmasters that WayKurat has been regularly cleaning up after here or shall we treat your comment for what it is, a personal attack based on completely evidence free aspersions?

  Use of rollback for reverting vandalism and LTA's is fine, that is what rollback is for as laid out in policy. What is not OK is WayKurat's misuse of the tool to also revert edits by IP's and newbies that are not vandalism and are often correct and constructive. I Provided plenty of examples of this in the OP, but if you want more here you go.

  • SuperZ003 is not blocked, has not been vandalising and does not appear to be a sock puppet. They made some typical newbie edits adding unsourced information to articles. What is the justification, then, for WayKurat to mass revert all their edits using rollback? [30]
  • Ryle Eddily Tugade is another typical newbie making changes to articles that occasionally break things. They do not appear to have been vandalising and do not appear to be a sock. what justification is there for doing a mass rollback of all their edits? [31]
  • Moving a news special from a section called "specials" to a subsection of "news" is not vandalism - this should not have been rolled-back [32]

  etc. etc. etc. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  • The edits of both SuperZ003 and Ryle Eddily Tugade are typical for the type of cross-Wiki vandals WayKurat regularly reverts: making totally unsourced edits to articles about actors, TV-series etc from the Phillippines, changing "antagonist" to "protagonist", changing years, replacing the name of a TV-channel with the name of another channel, etc etc. Doing such edits once or twice could be honest mistakes, making lots and lots of such edits is not good faith editing. So stay away from areas you obviously know nothing about, such as vandalism. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 06:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Thomas.W: IP192 (whom I think of as "the Oxford IP", as their IP is assigned to the University of Oxford) is a quite experienced editor and has been active in projectspace things for years. They've started a number of very helpful threads on this board in the past. If you don't have evidence for your claim that they are a sockpuppet, please retract it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    why these long term IP editors don't create accounts is entirely beyond me casualdejekyll 19:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Thomas.W Are you going to provide any evidence for your aspersion that I am a sockpuppet? This is the second comment you've left here full of Ad hominem attacks, first I was a sock, now I know nothing about vandalism?

    Did you actually look at the history of what had happened with those two editors? SuperZ003 added a statement to Magandang Gabi... Bayan that the tv show would be returning on various channels in 2022 [33]. Something that can be verified as mostly correct per reliable sources (the host has started a new show with a similar format on the TV channels listed in the edit, though with a different name) [34]. WayKurat decided that this was a blatant hoax [35] then proceeded to do a mass rollback of all their edits. This edit is not "changing" years" but adding an end date to the airing dates [36]. This edit was adding the second half of a name to a TV show [37]; a look at the official Twitter account of the show [38] shows that yes, they do use a second clause and that the full name of the show is "The Healing Eucharist TV Mass". This edit adding an international broadcast section [39] is correct and the dates can be verified in a variety of sources, e.g. the network's own website [40]. This edit is just copying information that is already in the infobox into the article text [41]. etc. etc. etc. None of these edits were vandalism. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEONING again by Telanian7790

A while ago on this page User:Telanian7790 was told by an administrator to stop bludgeoning discussions. He/she has a real problem with one article College of Policing and has a history of edit warring that has led to a block and numerous warning by various administrators. Telanian7790 is not a stranger to this page. The most recent comment by an admin to Telanian7790 about bludgeoning was in relation to his/her behaviour in an RFC that is open at Talk:College of Policing. Today Telanian7790 has popped up on the talk page and effectively removed my (perfectly valid) comments on the RFC. He/she has reinstated a {{Hat}} inserted by @JulieMinkai (diff) that had removed Telanian7790 responses to another user's RFC comments and (in my opinion) mistakenly hid my response. I reverted JulieMinkai's edit. Her response was to thanks me (see Thanks Log). She did not revert my edit. However today, Telanian7790 has repeatedly reinstated that Hat, thus removing my RFC comment. I tried politely engaging on Telanian7790's tak page (diff), and his/her response was to delete my user talk page comment and reinstate the Hat yet again. This is not an editor who wants to play nicely. I have made a good faith contribution to the RFC and I believe it should stand. --10mmsocket (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the hat to cot and limited it to the side-discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate that. I hope someone can have another chat to Telanian7790 about behaviour, especially civility. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

And I apologise for getting dragged into an edit war. I should know better. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It can happen to any of us. Assuming good faith, I'm going to presume that Telanian7790 was restoring the tags the way they were because that's how Julie applied them and didn't realize that it can be adjusted to only include a small portion of the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Schazjmd. I would just like to make four brief points.

I thought that what Julie did was the official outcome of my previous complaint. If I was wrong, I apologise. My perception, rightly or wrongly, was that 10mmsocket was simply unilaterally ignoring that outcome. In any event, it plainly has to be right that false accusations of dishonesty should not be permitted to derail the discussion and so should be removed from it.

It is rather rich of 10mmsocket to be suggesting that someone should have a chat with me about civilty. The whole point here is that that side-discussion has been closed because Hippo43 (implicitly supported by 10mmsocket) was falsely accusing me of dishonesty. You can't get more uncivil than that!

10mmsocket has already made an official complaint on this subject and been told by an admin that my conduct is perfectly appropriate and not uncivil: see link here: [42]. It is surprising that he continues to renew this complaint when an administrator has already rejected it.

10mmsocket's framing of the instant complaint is misleading, in that it suggests only I was found to be 'bludgeoning' previous discussion. That is incorrect. Hippo43 was also found to be 'bludgeoning' them as well, and we were both directed to leave the discussion for a while. Telanian7790 (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

He's at it again (diff) --10mmsocket (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Hippo43 is continuing to try to re-insert his baseless accusations of dishonesty into the page, in open defiance of Schazjmd's decision. His behaviour obviously violates the rule that good faith should be assumed [43]. Frankly, this is all getting very silly, and one might even say childish. I just want to be able to contribute here without suffering these utterly baseless and nasty attacks. Can someone please tell Hippo43 that this is inappropriate and has to stop. Is that too much to ask?Telanian7790 (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Basrasaab and IPs (likely the same person) not following Wikipedia policies on honorifics and WP:V

User:Basrasaab (using IP socks) is adding/readding honorifics contravening WP:NCIN and MOS:HON

• In Agra article - [44] [45] [46].
• In Jaimal Singh. - [47], Honorifics and unsourced content [48] after their edits [49] got reverted [50].
• Edit warred and restored back the unsourced content, honorifics as well as non-notables in the infobox here, here also notice the edit summary here, despite clear instructions given in the edit summaries and their talk page while warning them here. Possible WP:OWN and WP:CIR issues. Would request protection of Agra, Jaimal Singh articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive/edit warring continues [51], as well as in Jaimal Singh using IP-Sockpuppet [52]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour and addition of unsourced content continues [53] [54] [55]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Deepfriedokra: as well as @Lightbluerain: who are aware of the situation. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Discospinster: as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing continues with POV edit summaries like "He is a Spiritual Leader. Please respect him", disregarding WP:NCIN, MOS:HON → [56] [57]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Not really that familiar due to memory loss from Slow Covid, but after seeing what I saw, I partial blocked Basrasaab from article space, requesting they come here in my block notice. SP'd a couple of pages. Some already protected. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  As always, any admin can modify or reverse my actions if they feel it is warranted. ( A ping would be nice.) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Deepfriedokra. They are everywhere it seems (IP including). Just did cleanup in these articles. Wishing you good health. I can't see well thanks to Covid (2020). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

SP"d those two. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with Deepfriedokra's Admin action in the case, and I greatly appreciate Fylindfotberserk's sending proper warnings to the user —this gave them enough opportunity to know and correct their mistakes. I am not very aware of the ANI proceedings, (this is the first time I came here) but that, I think, having an ANI thread for just a few days/edits old account is a bit too much. Maybe the user didn't realize that Wikipedia actually had some policies that governed it. Deepfriedokra's block and your warning messages can definitely help them in it. Regards. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk💬 Contribs✏️) 18:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

All right! Right on! --PublicUserAccount0084 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrator threatens blocking and prevents any editing of wikipedia page

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

---

This dispute was escalated from DNR as it involved an administrator making block threats. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=1086001864

I reverted Graham87's mass deletion of information on the Sayre Area School District article. I objected to the deletion because although there was in fact too much excess information on the article I had made significant efforts to update, move, and remove information. There was also relevant information in the context of a wikipedia article that had been deleted. Upon this reversion I was threatened with blocking and arguments of "seniority" on determining what is applicable content were made. Despite my efforts to resolve this through the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sayre_Area_School_District) and DNR, Graham87 has prevented me from making edits and insists on any changes must go through him.

The DNR lead to comments on Graham87's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Graham87) which asked for clarification on his hard line stance, as he is an administrator. He did not address these questions/concerns and instead added a few sentences back to the school district page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delphinium1 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much more to say than what's already been said at Talk:Sayre Area School District, Wikipedia:Teahouse#Level of information on a given wikipedia page, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Sayre Area School District. Also, at the user's talk page, I rescinded the block threat. Graham87 20:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparent Block Threat by Involved Admin User:Graham87

Here is my view of what happened.

There appears to be a long-running content dispute at Sayre Area School District, which was being discussed at the article talk page, and had a slow-motion edit war. The disputants appear to have been:

• Delphinium1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Graham87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator

Graham87 posted the following notice on the talk page of Delphinium1:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delphinium1&type=revision&diff=1082098039&oldid=1078932312&diffmode=source

It appeared to be a threat to use admin tools in a content dispute. It refers to:

• Raindrop73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Raindrop73 has the following contribution history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Raindrop73 What is troubling is that Raindrop appears not to have edited for three years, and appears to have been blocked out of the blue, without discussion, for edits that, rightly or wrongly, were not discussed before blocking.

Perhaps User:Graham87 is apologizing for the admin warning. If not, I would suggest that should be the next step. The applicable policy is administrator accountability. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• The version that User:Delphinium1 is trying to restore has large amounts of data that is completely out of date, and also has BLP issues. It's basically a hit job on the subject of the article, and it can't be allowed to stand. However, this version was created by User:Raindrop73 five or more years ago, and they haven't edited since 2018, so I'm unsure why they've been blocked. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I explained why I blocked them at User talk:Raindrop73#Blocked. I did this as a preventative action (in case they come back again ... we aren't allowed to have user watchlists. I regret making the block threat to Delphinium1, given their previous engagement on the talk page. I think this discussion is a bit premature and the section titles are a touch inflammatory, but I'm obviously way too involved to do anything about that directly. Graham87 20:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I came across this purely by accident through reading the Teahouse version. What's happened here does seem a bit weird, particularly in relation to Raindrop73, who is still blocked, and shouldn't be. (1) As I understand it, admins use blocks to deal with immediate threats. Lesser mortals who ask admins to block someone will get short shrift if the editor hasn't edited in the last week or two, let alone several years. (2) If the idea of admins not having watch-lists of users is to avoid editors feeling pursued/harassed, I wonder whether getting blocked, and warned that the admin intends to audit all your other edits (User_talk:Raindrop73) feels any less like pursuit and harassment? It's not in the spirit of avoiding user-watch-lists. (3) Raindrop73 may be actively editing as we speak, after forgetting their old password, and starting fresh. If so, the new block will look bad should anyone ever associate their old and new accounts. It will look like evasion although they haven't been banned from anything and may be blissfully unaware of the block. (4) although the block isn't eternal, only indefinite, many of us have mess-ups in our past. We are forgiven, we read, we learn, and we do better. It doesn't create a great impression when our sins of many years ago are visited on us much, much later. It's not right to assume that if Rainbow23 logs on tomorrow, they won't be a very different editor to how they were when they logged off, those years ago. Okay, this is a trivial thing because Rainbow23 has probably vanished for ever (who knows??) but if the past must be dredged up, it shouldn't be dredged up wrongly. Sorry to make mountains out of molehills but the block on Raindrop73 looks to me like a very bad one. Elemimele (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

      I also don’t want to make mountains out of molehills because the immediate practical effect of the block is nothing. However, WP:NOPUNISH and WP:BLOCKP are explicit and I can’t see how it’s not objectively a bad block under the policy. The block itself may not be too concerning but it is concerning that an admin would flout rules that they should know like the back of their hand. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

      • Like Swarm and Elemimele, I do not want to make a big deal out of this, but it is worth pointing out that the blocking policy says Blocks should be used to: prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia. In this case, the blocked editor has not edited in well over 3-1/2 years. For perspective, they could have been a an imminent university freshman packing their luggage when they last edited and are graduating with a bachelor's degree right about now. Their offense? Adding excessive referenced detail to school board articles. I do not think that that is an actual offense, let alone a blockable offense. Graham87, I am confident that you were acting in good faith and am grateful for your contributions. I know the challenges that you face. But please review WP:BLOCK and WP:INVOLVED. A person who last edited in 2018 is hardly an imminent risk of damage to the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it isn’t my place but I have several concerns: 1) casually throwing around block threats and “resinding” them. 2) blocking inactive users and desiring watch lists 3) willingness to engage in an edit war (I realize I am no saint here but I am rather inexperienced with how to handle content disputes. Per direction I brought the question to the tea room.) 4) Per directions on the talk page not “allowing” me to further edit and requiring an extremely high burden of proof for precedent on what a wiki article should contain (see the example of strikes in a district in Mass.) 5) not answering clarifying questions to the DNR on their talk page 6) ignoring 3rd party input onto what content is valuable until the issue was escalated to DNR 7) referencing my experience as an editor as reason to ignore my opinions Delphinium1 — Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Delphinium1, your concerns are valid and you have the right to express them here. Now, let other uninvolved editors evaluate them. Cullen328 (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Graham87: I'm a little confused. How did you even know to block Raindrop out to nowhere like that? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Iamreallygoodatcheckers: To answer your question, I used WikiBlame to find out who added [some inappropriate text I found and went from there. Graham87 07:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I've unblocked Raindrop73 per the overwhelming consensus here. I knew it was unusual to block dormant accounts like that but I didn't know it was basically forbidden. I would bet just about anything that Raindrop73 is an adult well out of university. They edited as an IP as early as at least March 2009 and probably as early as March 2007. I would also bet just about anything that this user didn't come back after their last edit as Raindrop73; I spent about two months auditing their work under their account and their IP's (about 20,000 edits in all; see [this edit summary search) and would have known if they'd returned. I take a very dim view of single-purpose accounts, especially when they pad articles with highly ephemeral bureaucratic minutiae about grades of school students in standardised tests, tuition fees for students from outside school districts, and property/real estate taxes and how obscenely high they are according to this user, all in evidence at the above-linked revision of the Sayre Area School District article. Graham87 06:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Looks like Graham87 got a little over-eager in a good-faith effort to deal with some misconduct, made a few mistakes, fixed them, and regrets the error. We don't expect people or admins to be perfect. We expect them to respond to feedback and repair their mistakes, and Graham87 has done that. No need to overreact. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, misconduct? I certainly don't think it's appropriate to insert detailed statistics about the number of reported cases of potential child abuse into our article about Northumberland County, Pennsylvania; I think Delphinium1 was displaying poor editorial judgment by trying to insert that information. Part of what's happened in this instance is that we've treated poor editorial judgment like we treat vandalism. I think that potentially does amount to misconduct, and not on Delphinium1's part. But I also think Stifle is right when he says that there's no need to get overexcited about Graham87's decision there. The frowny face and waggy finger of mild community disapproval will suffice.
    Delphinium1, it's OK if Raindrop 73 was your account and you've abandoned it. Our rules say you can abandon your old account and starting a new one as long as you don't use two accounts at the same time. Was it you?—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Just a clarification: Delphinium1 wasn't editing the Northumberland County page; they were trying to turn the Sayre Area School District article into this and judging by the conversation at Talk:Sayre Area School District, they are not the same person as Raindrop73. (Stranger things have happened, of course, but I'd be absolutely flawed if I was wrong). My block threat was based on stretching "New accounts that engage in the

same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context ..." beyond its limits and probably warping it beyond recognition. I made the threat in the context of stumbling upon the reversion of my cleanup at Sayre Area School District while going through the top edited pages by a Raindrop73 IP. See my contribs at the time ... I didn't get a notification about it when the revert had been performed. I was not exactly happy to discover the revert and I probably let my emotions get the better of me. Speaking only of Raindrop73, I for one think consistently poor editorial judgement over many years with no redeeming features can become almost indistinguishable in effect from vandalism, but maybe that's just me. Graham87 09:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• • As Graham said, I'm absolutely not Raindrop73. I find it strange to insinuate given that I have stated I agree that Raindrop's versions of the school district pages were inappropriate. The fundamental disagreement was on how to best approaching fixing the issue. Delphinium1 (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• non-admin comment (since I was one of those who complained above): so far as I'm concerned, the matter's over. And I do have a lot of sympathy with the view that consistently bad editing can be as disruptive as genuine vandalism. I'm grateful to all admins for the work they do. Elemimele (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It sounds by Graham87's reply you have invested considerable time into the auditing of this editor's work, which leads to obvious emotional involvement, which again explains your actions. Although the threat of blocking is serious and a breach of policy, an apology was issued and if the offended editor accepts it, I do not think any further action needs to be taken here. As has been pointed out, the offended editor is not a saint either, per their reply above, so I see this as a kerfuffle you may learn from. Oz\^InterAct 12:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The complaint discussion seems to have devolved into blocking of Raindrop, which wasn't even my initial concern.

I still think there is a fundamental disagreement on appropriate content for the page (and similar pages) and I honestly have little faith that Graham87 will work with me to come to a consensus. He mostly ignored 3rd party input on DNR and tea house. He has (sort of) apologised (more like tried to unring a bell). His emotional investment causing threatening and "pulling rank" on a dispute about what is relevant for a topic's page (that is extremely far removed from him and not his area of expertise) still concerns me. Per his recommendation, I looked for simple open ended guidance on content guidelines and wiki conflict resolution practices on tea house and he inserted himself into the conversation in a hostile manner. I don't want to get into the content dispute too much here, but Raindrop's edits, although highly problematic, have also contributed greatly to my knowledge of school districts, education, and government in PA. I wished to preserve this information in an appropriate form, and began to do so by creating "Teacher Strikes in the United States." I'm honestly nervous to do ANY work in wikipedia anymore as I feel there is now a target on my back. From my perspective, Graham has shown some introspection about his past actions but zero assurances that he won't continue them going forward. As other's have previously weighed in on this, the burden is on him to justify large edits if someone objects and it should revert and be further justified. Instead of engaging on the talk page an edit war was started. Obviously, his reasoning has now been fully flushed out but I want to be clear that my second revert removed half of the content as I took into consideration what Graham was trying to do. I have seen the issue and been willing to compromise from the beginning, all while being bullied by an admin.

I feel I have not been assured going forward that there won't be a target on me. Graham has picked through my entire wikipedia history (including finding my old abandoned account Jalsing88 I mentioned offhand) and criticised my previous (quickly and peacefully resolved) editorial choices with the teacher strike page. Delphinium1 (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

In light of the behavioural patterns from the below comment, I at least would like to hear from Graham on this. Oz\^InterAct 13:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is not happening for the first time. Back in September 2020, Graham87 had blocked an editor who made nearly 1,200 edits, after edit warring with him.[58] The editor's talk page access was revoked by Graham87 after he mentioned that WP:INVOLVED is being violated by Graham87.[59] This happened after he was already criticized back in May 2020 for imposing indef block on an editor with more than 15,000 edits after edit warring him.[60]   I am confident at this stage that Graham87 does not understand WP:INVOLVED.  Srijanx22 (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I was not aware of the history here. I see that Graham87 apologised and unblocked in at least one of those situations, but this pattern is troubling. Oz\^InterAct 12:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I just stumbled upon this on Graham's talk page as well as far as a history of behaviour add. Maybe not my place but the "we don't care" seems concerning to me. Delphinium1 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Reading through the above situations, it does seem like Graham87 toes the line far too often on WP:INVOLVED than I am comfortable with. I would like to see some concrete assurances from Graham87 indicating how they intend to avoid these problems in the future. Yes, admins make mistakes, and yes Graham has, from time to time, cleaned up after themselves, but I would like to hear how they are going to avoid the mistakes in the future, now that we've seen a clear pattern of problems. --Jayron32 14:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

To respond to various points:

• Delphinium1, as long as you don't trigger a revert/mention notification on my end, I will not seek contact with you, except in the course of normal editing (i.e. I stumble upon an article you've written and copyedit/tweak it, I end up doing vandalism/spam reversion on one of your pages, etc.) Re the Raindrop73 edits, I think it's incredibly unwise to revert to them ... as I said at Talk:Sayre Area School District, if you're going to use them as a reference point, please either user your userspace or your own text editor for that. I don't *want* to be taken back to Raindrop73's pages if I can help it. Re your old account: you said you'd forgotten about it so I thought it was OK to bring it up again. I also think it's a good idea to model new content off similar articles in other states/countries.
• Wikipediocracy is a wonderful thing. Re the September 2020 block of श्रीमान २००२, the thread there provides a better summation of what actually happened than I ever could. Re the May 2020 block (also mentioned on Wikipediocracy), yes I walked that one back after sleeping on it and apologised for it.
• I have once again read and reviewed the WP:INVOLVED policy. If I feel too close to a dispute to perform a block myself, I will ask other administrators for assistance. I have done this previously (example) and would do so again.

Hope this resolves the major concerns here. Graham87 15:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Graham87: If you read WP:INVOLVED like you said then you should unblock this user. You indeffed this user right after you edit warred with this user and revoked their talk page access despite no abuse of talk page. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

::@Srijanx22: No, I shouldn't. I don't understand why you are only taking in this user's side of the story. I revoked talk page access because, do to this user's nonsense justification of their refspamming (which was the final straw in a long list of problems with that account), I thought subjecting the people who monitor Category:Requests for unblock to more of that would be cruel and unusual punishment. They did appeal to UTRS twice but were knocked back (admins, see UTRS appeal #34865). Graham87 04:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Graham87: You are justifying your actions the same way you were justifying your block of Raindrop73. I am only stating that you violated WP:INVOLVED by wrongly issuing indef block and wrongly revoking talk page access of the user you were edit warring with. Your diff says I agree I had to avoid reverting you but your block violates WP:INVOLVED.[61] There was no abuse of talk page per WP:GAPB but clear indication of remorse by the user over his action and correct mention of you violating WP:INVOLVED but even after so many lectures above and your own claim that you "have once again read and reviewed the WP:INVOLVED policy" you still don't seem to be understanding WP:INVOLVED. You are supposed to undo this involved block and leave a note to the user's talk page that you have unblocked them. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I was not involved in the WP:INVOLVED sense because I had no disputes either with the user or on the page. Even if I were, that policy provides leeway for blatant vandalism, which is what link-spamming is. I will not take this order seriously unless it is endorsed by at least two admins or highly established non-admin users who are well-known to the community on a major process such as the admins' noticeboards, featured article candidates, etc. I know, that's more of an I know it when I see [sic] it definition, but you certainly don't qualify for it. I will not be entertaining any more messages from you on this issue. Graham87 12:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you understand that you just revealed that you don't understand what is a WP:VANDALISM? None of your explanation prove that the user was engaging in vandalism. This edit was not a vandalism, but you abused rollback to revert it two times.[62][63] While I am sure that they had to use a better source than Youtube link, the information they were adding is a well-known fact,[64] and you were edit warring over a reason that couldn't be considered anything more than content dispute. Yet you indeffed the user and revoked their talk page for saying I agree I had to avoid reverting you but your block violates WP:INVOLVED[65] and it shows that you engaged in textbook violation of WP:INVOLVED. Your rest of the explanation only shows that you won't accept your clear-cut mistakes until drama ensued. Nevertheless, I can ping Jayron32 and Inter to verify my statements that you violated WP:INVOLVED. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Um, those are from 2020, almost 18 months ago. Perhaps until this thread started, Graham did not fully understand WP:INVOLVED, but you dragging up old blocks from several years ago doesn't change anything we've already established here. I've already noted that Graham needed a better understanding of involved, and also needs to have a less "itchy trigger finger" when it comes to blocking users, but dragging up additional examples of the same problems Graham has already been chastised for and has agreed to work on fixing does nothing to help the situation. In short, we already acknowledged the problem exists, and Graham has already agreed to improve going forward. Bringing up more examples, from my point of view, doesn't really help us move forward. It strikes of being "out for blood", and I don't really like that. Yes, Graham has exhibited problematic behavior as an admin. They screwed up. Let's stop belaboring the point and see if they have learned by backing off and letting them get back to their job. If they screw up again in the future we can deal with that. --Jayron32 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC) 

@Graham87 & @Delphinium1 I support @Jayron32's opinion concerning the block history if you feel the non-content grievances have been properly addressed and aired. As I have mentioned before, the next step in this process is a big one and I for one would see if it was possible to come to an understanding given the assurances from Graham. I would also like to add that we all screw up, but at least some of us try to learn from it and move on. I am not fond of any three strikes you're out rule in these sort of disputes but they do add up and will hopefully be a reminder. Oz\^InterAct 19:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I do want to say that I acknowledge Graham's pattern of WP:INVOLVED behavior has been problematic for a while, but they've also never been called to task about it. I don't, in my view, think this is an emergency situation that requires immediate action, like removal of the admin bit, or anything like that. Graham had never been so admonished in the past, and now they have. This discussion is a document of such admonishment, and as such, I propose it's is probably time to close the discussion down, let Graham get about their business, and if there comes a time to revisit this issue because it hasn't been fixed, then we can discuss such problems. If Graham does what they are supposed to do and becomes a better admin as a result of this discussion, nothing has been lost, and much has been gained. --Jayron32 12:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Delphinium1 @Graham87 @Jayron32 I concur with this assessment. Oz\^InterAct 16:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a convoluted and difficult case, with many opinions of what exactly has been violated and what hasn't. There's also two parts to it, the edit warring and the blocking. This discussion evolved into focusing on mostly the present and past blocking of which I was probably a driver for. I feel I have made my thoughts and concerns about this behaviour very clear. I think also most people who frequent this board, whether admins or editors, know what the potential next step would be. As we serve the community, in my view, the community should decide this one. Feel free to disagree, but the mediator heart in me is as ever cautious. Oz\^InterAct 16:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• I originally closed the DRN case, but rolled it back when I realized it was an admin and passed it off to Robert as the most experienced DRN volunteer- but I am also concerned that in the light of the larger issue of blocks and threats of blocks- the WP:OWN behavior will be overlooked. Specifically- this comment here [[66]] where they say that Delphinium1 is an unestablished user and implies they are not qualified to edit an article. This behavior is distressing in any user, especially an admin. Length of time and number of edits alone should never be used to disqualify an editor from editing. While Delphinium is certainly not as experienced, they seem to be making good faith efforts to improve pages and should be encouraged instead of this. I would appreciate Graham87's assurances that this type of behavior will not continue as well. WP:AGF applies to admins as well as us mere mortals. However, I do believe Graham had the best of intentions, they just are going about it wrong and too aggressively. I appreciate the above assurances- but beyond this one case- will you also agree to avoid the appearances of WP:OWN moving forward as well? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  (Here's a diff of my comment rather than a revision link, which is more convenient to view). Yes, I will not make such broad sweeping statements about an editor's fitness to contribute to an article based on their seniority. What I was trying and failing spectacularly to convey was that more senior editors have more nuanced ideas about what is and is not worth adding to an encyclopedia. The other side of the coin is that more senior editors can be more jaded re this sort of thing, and I guess that's at least partially what happened here. Graham87 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You may say it is unwise to revert them but third party opinions in DNR disagreed. I believe since you have played editor and admin on the same article, you should abide by the 3rd party decisions of DNR. I don't appreciate being further dictated to. Delphinium1 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Graham87 I appreciate the assurances and the clear message of being more careful in the future. What have me concerned is the troublesome behavioural pattern. Given that this has happened before more than once, what makes this time different? As I am sure you know, and which Delphinium1 have pointed out, being in an argument with an administrator over content/anything may be intimidating for a regular editor, hell, other admins may feel the same. In light of that, it's very important as an administrator to stop and think before speaking and especially before acting. In my opinion blocking somebody then "sleeping on it" and in the morning unblocking are very emotionally invested decisions. I hope you see what I am trying to convey here. Oz\^InterAct 18:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I will take the gravity of blocks/block threats more into account in the future, especially with content disputes. Graham87 04:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Also see this new thread on the teahouse. Graham87 13:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I closed that thread down. The teahouse is poorly suited for discussions about user behavior. It also unnecessarily splits the discussion into two venues. --Jayron32 16:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Reporting Mohammad asfaq

A recently created account (23 days ago) of Mohammad asfaq kept on doing disruptive editing in articles under Discretionary sanctions. They were warned by Sajaypal007 before on talk page but to no avail. Please, take a look on some of their disruptive edits and removal of scholarly sources without proper discussion on talk pages. Take care, Thanks.diff, diff & diff. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 07:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

You're first diff has them adding text from an existing source in that article, what is your objection there? The other edits seem within policy as well, though there may be some disagreements; the talk page is needed to hash this out. By policy, contested material does not have to remain in an article. Per WP:ONUS, "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (bold mine). Merely having references does not protect some information from being removed; maybe it belongs, maybe it doesn't, but I don't see where you've politely requested a discussion on the talk page and waited for a response before running here. You really need to do that first. This looks like a normal content dispute, and I don't see any behavioral issues from the person you are trying to report, just normal editing behavior. If you are disputing their changes, then use talk page, try dispute resolution procedures if necessary, and give the process time to work itself out. --Jayron32 14:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: So according to you pushing for preffered version, although not correct from history point of view is normal editing behaviour ?? Look at their recent edit history at Paramardi Special:MobileDiff/1086422466, Special:MobileDiff/1086309584 & Special:MobileDiff/1086243821 they don't mind responding on talk page either (discussion which I started) Special:MobileDiff/1086240982, They were warned of three revert rule on their talk page to no avail Special:MobileDiff/1086198799, Special:MobileDiff/1086264228. This is obviously disruptive editing. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 03:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for anything. I have no dog in this race. What I am saying is that, when there is a dispute over the inclusion of some text in an article, the default is to leave the text out. You, or them, or anyone else, can still be blocked for edit warring to enforce that. Perhaps the person in question is misbehaving. But the mere fact that they removed text is not a priori a misbehavior, even if that text has sources. Other behaviors may actually be problems, but in your initial post, you made no mention of any other misbehaviors than "removal of scholarly sources"; I was just telling you that that, in and of itself, is not a misbehavior. If there is a problem, please restate the issue so we can deal with an actual problem. --Jayron32 12:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: No issues, We can discuss the issue again. Thanks. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 14:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:TENDENTIOUS by Reem898

Reem898 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rabia Balkhi - Changed 'Persian' to 'Arab', no edit summary nor added source [67] [68] - Removed sourced 'Persian' [69]

Vaballathus - Added 'Arab', no edit summary nor added source [70]

Ibn Duraid - Added 'Arab', no edit summary nor added source [71]

Abdelaziz al-Malzuzi - Added 'Arab', no edit summary nor added source [72]

Refuses to engage in the talk page [73]. This seems like WP:TENDENTIOUS to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

resolved secondary issue --Jayron32 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Possibly, but your May warning that told them they were vandalizing is incorrect. HistoryofIran, please change your tactics and never, ever, ever again calls something vandalism which is not. A difference of opinion is not vandalism. The user in question may be editing disruptively in many ways, but they are clearly not vandalizing here. When you use the term inappropriately, it distracts from the actual issues at play, and also dilutes the meaning of what vandalism really is. Please read WP:NOTVAND. --Jayron32 14:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC) You could've just left user:HistoryofIran a note on his talk page. What you are doing right here is literally a copy of what you are accusing user:HistoryofIran of: "distracting from the actual issues at play". - LouisAragon (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC) No, OP user issues are open for discussion. We don't unnecessarily split discussions between venues. WP:BOOMERANG applies here, and filing parties need to be aware that their own behavior in a dispute is subject to scrutiny as well. We don't bury such discussions elsewhere, and its part of what we need to assess. --Jayron32 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC) I apologize. It was an innocent mistake - I accidentally used the wrong template and didn't pay attention to it. I am very well aware of what a vandal is. Is there anything else that needs to adressed regarding that? If not, I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC) All good. Mistakes happen. Carry on. --Jayron32 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Another example. Here[74] user:Reem898 added "Arab" to the lede of the Ibn Quzman article without edit summary nor explanation, even though the body clearly explains (with sources) that their origin is uncertain. So far, every single one of user:Reem898's edits, since registering on Wiki, have been of a deliberate WP:TENDENTIOUS nature. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that they are WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia.- LouisAragon (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• I agree these edits are problematic, but have we tried less strident methods of dealing with the situation than indeffing the user? At this point, no one has actually explained what is wrong, and no one has tried to discuss the matter with them. This looks like terribly misguided, but still good faith editing, and I'd like to at least try having a civil discussion with them before reaching for the banhammer. --Jayron32 15:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should indeff him either, but he keeps doing the same type of edits and is still not using the talk page. I have already told him what is wrong several times, and also asked him to use the talk page. The only time he has ever posted in a talk page was a WP:OR reply in Arabic to a well written comment supported by sources [75]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I can’t find where you reached out or communicated directly to them, and if you haven’t, that’s the next move. If you have, please provide the diffs so we can not waste any more time and block them indefinitely. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I have asked him to use the talk page thrice [76] [77] [78] --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, "Reem" is a feminine Arabic name, so chances are this user is not male. Better to use non-gendered pronouns unless you know, for sure, in the future. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe any blocks or sanctions are appropriate at this time. I think these edits are in good faith, and just a bit misguided. Not on the level of vandalism for sure. I say and admin should give them a firm warning and some direction. If they refuse to cooperate and the behavior continues maybe a topic ban could be a good idea. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. I think a better solution is to impose an extremely narrow restriction on making this very particular kind of edit in the future (ascribing ethnicity to historical personages), rather than a slap on the wrist that most are unlikely to even remember. It isn't overly restrictive, and would allow them to expand their editing repertoire without it being focused on this likely good-faith POV-push. This isn't a topic ban (it's essentially a warning), and it's not punitive, but preventative. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

After finally sitting down and discussing with this user, I can confidently say that it's pointless [79]. They seem to have WP:TENDENTIOUS and perhaps WP:COMPETENCE issues as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of "block" threat from administrator

Per WP:BLOCKNO. I referred to the repeated changing of a series of train station articles to inaccurate names in spite of references suggesting otherwise to as "vandalism," mostly because of the repetitive nature of the edits. An administrator proceeded to go to my talk page and threaten to block me, calling this a "personal attack," and suggesting that it is inappropriate for me to characterize any edits as vandalism at all.

If this user thinks this doesn't constitute vandalism, they are free to explain why, but this seems a bit ridiculous given the circumstances. I don't really need that stuff on my talk page, and it's not really clear why this administrator is being so aggressive. Thank you.

Talk page discussion: User_talk:Middle_river_exports#"Vandalism". --Middle river exports (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism has a highly specific meaning. Any editing in good faith is not vandalism, and repeatedly calling an editor's good faith edits vandalism is generally a bad idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I used the term "borderline vandalism" once to describe edits that were not made in good faith, before this admin started posting on my talk page. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Acroterion is correct. It appears from your usage, you are using the word "vandalism" to mean "edits to Wikipedia that I think are bad". That is not what vandalism is. Vandalism is "edits to Wikipedia that the person who does them thinks is bad". You should never call vandalism anything which the person who did it thinks they are trying to help out and make Wikipedia better. There are literally dozens of different ways someone can screw up at Wikipedia, but almost none of them are, stricto sensu vandalism. To call edits vandalism when they are not is a violation of WP:AGF, because you are claiming that the person in question is trying to damage Wikipedia intentionally. If the person in question is damaging wikipedia, but doing it through ignorance (they don't know what they are doing is bad), bullheadedness (they are not willing to learn what the right thing is), or really anything else where the person in question thinks they are right, it is not vandalism. Vandalism means doing stuff like writing random curse words in Wikipedia, replacing the text of articles with gibberish, etc. etc. If the other editor in question is editing tendentiously, if they are edit warring, if they are ignoring established consensus, if they are feigning ignorance, or if they are actually ignorant, if they edit articles with an inappropriate level of bias, if they don't provide sources, none of those things are vandalism. You may call out and warn other editors for any of those things, and if the evidence supports it, they may be sanctioned. If you call it vandalism and it isn't, then what happens instead is angry administrators will lecture you on misusing that term, and will ignore any misbehavior by other people, until such time as you acknowledge the correct meaning of vandalism, and agree to change how you use the word. See also WP:NOTVAND for more information. --Jayron32 12:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not what I mean by vandalism. I definitely did not call anything vandalism which was done with the intent of improving the content at hand.

> , if they are ignoring established consensus, if they are feigning ignorance

> if they don't provide sources,

These three items are the primary issue, and I am fine to agree if those don't constitute vandalism for the purposes of this site. The admin in question did not provide this distinction, nor did they really have much basis to resort to telling me I should get blocked for the disagreement. There are plenty of edits to Wikipedia I think are bad which I have not called vandalism, as I stated it was the repetitiveness of the edits for which I was inclined to use the term. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

None of those things justifies calling other editors vandals. That is the point you're consistently ignoring, and watering it down with "borderline" doesn't provide you with absolution. Please stop, and listen to the advice and admonishment of other editors, rather than just talking past them and setting conditions for your own satisfaction, or filibustering. You are treating everyone who disagrees with you as an opponent. That, too, is disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You never made that point to me, your point was about vandalism being writing "poop." I have not talked past or set conditions and so on, I think I have been fairly clear. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

<ec> As I explained on their talkpage, calling editors with whom one disagrees vandals in order to win a dispute is disruptive and constitutes a personal attack.. I expect Middle river exports to stop doing that, now that they have been warned. They have been moving pages to their preferred titles without gaining consensus, and have chosen to ignore advice from other editors on how to gain such consensus, choosing instead to quote from policy at great length, presuming that their reasoning is self-evident, and that their perceived opponents have malicious motives. I also note that they have gone on to an extensive move spree concerning Baltimore bus routes. The correctness of those moves I leave to others, but having been admonished to find consensus, doubling down on undiscussed moves is concerning. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The Baltimore bus routes in question have not been updated in years. There is no way to fix them without moving the articles. Route 40 was out of date so long that it was canceled and brought back in the years since it was last updated. I find these sort of accusations to be absurd, and the idea that there is anybody who would prefer that these articles exclusively describe the status of the routes in question in 2011 does not really have any common sense basis. I have also not violated any rules about how to gain consensus, as I regularly go through more formal channels for more controversial moves. (See London Trams heading for example.) However, I do not think anything that I moved boldly is even a tiny bit controversial which is part of what is so confusing about this dispute. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

My observation that you have made a whole lot of moves is just that. I view it as potentially problematic in view of your other moves, which have been repeatedly reverted. They may be correct, though the right way to do it would be to methodically go through and update the article and then move them one by one, rather than just simply moving them and leaving the content for later. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure you appreciate how challenging it is to edit out of date bus articles without moving them first. If the same route has been referred to by several numbers, and there's a 50 of them, it becomes very confusing trying to find which route to update with the information you have if you have a list of 50 numbers which don't match the current ones. I think the fact that it is so difficult is the main reason they haven't been updated in so long.

For example, I was able to put an updated photograph I had set aside of LocalLink 80 (BaltimoreLink) in very quickly after moving it - before it would have been difficult to tell which of the several links would have been the correct one to put it in.

I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while and only a few of my moves have ever been reverted. The Baltimore Light Rail ones are unusual in that regard. --Middle river exports (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You do realize that changing the names of a bunch of articles without changing the text in the body at all just results in articles that don't make sense and confuse readers? The onus is on you to make sure that you are properly changing the text in articles when you move them. LocalLink 80 (BaltimoreLink) still says Route 91 in the body and makes no reference to the name change. This is poor editing practice and part of why other editors are raising objections to your moves. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This in progress and will take some time as I can only edit one article at a time. Part of the reason why they have to be moved first is that bus route number changes overlap each other. Route 29 pre-2017 for example is not route 29 post-2017. If you edit the bodies before changing the titles, you end up with two articles called route 29. The result of that situation is quite a bit more confusing to both readers and editors than the bodies temporarily mismatching.

If you are genuinely interested in making the process go faster, I would be happy to send you some resources to help you do so as I would like to update everything as fast as possible as well. Editing is of course always better than arguing about nothing.

The main reasons other editors are raising objections are likely unfamiliarity with bus routing and editing related articles, which is fine, but if they had more familiarity with the subject they wouldn't have found the moving of articles first unusual as that is standard practice for avoiding naming conflicts. I think most of this is likely just a misunderstanding initiated by people making hasty edits to subjects they aren't familiar with. I was wrong to call it vandalism, rather just a user who doesn't know much about these topics was continuously making changes that weren't accurate, including mixing up the names of two train stations that already had them correct in both the body and the title. --Middle river exports (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Middle river exports' behavior – undiscussed page moves, bludgeoning discussions, and following me – is disruptive and needs to be stopped. The "borderline vandalism" comment was directed at me for reverting their undiscussed pagemove and telling them that controversial moves require an RM; relevant context is here and here. It is clear they do not believe rules (particularly WP:V and WP:RM) apply to them, and that anyone who disagrees with them is malicious. They then followed me from my talk page to Cuervo, New Mexico, where they reverted my removal of a verifiably false claim, then argued about it. (Note that the sources they've added to the article don't support their claim, as I noted – one source is about a location 230 miles away.) Now they've shown up at move discussions (here and here) outside their usual geographic area of interest – that just happen to be the last two RMs I commented on. Given that those are the only RMs initiated by others that they've commented on, this seems a lot like hounding. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no point arguing and perpetuating this "hounding" claim since you seem convinced of that despite it's irrelevance here. I have factually commented on a number of other requested moves and merges, which I'm guessing you didn't see. I didn't even notice you participated in a couple of the same ones but I don't remember your involvement on the Croydon Tram article.

Saying this to clear the air here for other people, I still have nothing against you but I would rather not have incorrect information about me or my edits floating around in here. Middle river exports (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I expressed on Pi's talk page my belief that Middle river exports was hounding him, and that was before they commented at Talk:Santa Clara station (California) and Talk:MBTA subway. That's classic hounding. I'll also note the discussion at User talk:Mackensen#Justification for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Mount Royal station, where Middle river exports shows a painful unfamiliarity with WP:BRD, despite quoting from the essay. It's not a question of whether Middle river exports' views on page names ultimately carry the day. They may well. The issue is that they don't understand policy and process and they're rushing around like a bull in a china shop and need to slow down. They're also hounding another editor, and that needs to stop right away. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Both of those articles I followed links from the move discussions underway page, not user Pi's page. I'm not sure Pi has a connection to either of those articles. If you have a problem with people other than Pi writing about transportation, this isn't really the place for that.

"They may well. The issue is that they don't understand policy and process and they're rushing around like a bull in a china shop and need to slow down."

Sorry you're frustrated but I don't believe this. Middle river exports (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak for you, but if a half dozen editors all told me that I was in the wrong I would at least consider the possibility. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I've interacted with more than half a dozen editors recently and this is the first time I have ever encountered a "dispute" like this. I would consider the possibility too, if there was a reason for it that made sense. There really isn't one here however, since quite a few of these "criticisms" hinge on arguments that are clearly not true. That I never edit outside of Baltimore is not true, that I typically use accusations as a method of handling disputes is untrue, the claim that the 80 route and 91 route are the same isn't true (one serves Garrison Boulevard and the other serves Greenspring), the claim that I'm "hounding" or particularly care what another user thinks of the MBTA discussion isn't true, or that there's a way to update a bus network's articles without moving them first also isn't true. You would run in to naming conflicts due to number duplication, like two route 29s, anyone who edits bus articles regularly would know that's the only way to do it. There's not really I can do with things that are obviously not true like that other then dismiss it out of hand.

I don't think you or anything else made anything up, I think you probably just got frustrated on behalf of a friend. It's also fairly common for people interested in trains to get possessive about the topic; I've never had anybody engage this way related to any other topic. (Even buses, as evidenced here many editors have never given buses much thought before.) I think this has run its course because if there was anything pertinent to bring up it would have come up by now, and the original concern was never addressed in favor of bickering about other articles not even related to the dispute (That it is not standard policy for someone to threaten a block off the basis of a dispute they were involved in, which is still true as far as I know). Cheers, and thanks for fixing the Lua module for the light rail Middle river exports (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I also note that they're replacing decent pictures of buses with pictures where you can barely see the buses. And in at least one case, they misattributed an upload to the person who had taken the picture they had previously uploaded. I'd also suggest double-checking the moves - the description for Route 91 in the body seems to match the description on the MTA website, not the description for Route 80. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Middle river exports is one of many Wikipedia editors who, for some reason, seem to think that they can Yell Vandalism to "win" a content dispute. The inappropriate claim of vandalism is, and always has been, a personal attack. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. I am glad that User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:Jayron32, and User:Acroterion agree that the loose use of a serious allegation must be stopped. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SarekOfVulcan I am going to follow up on this on your talk page since it isn't relevant here but there are a number of things you brought up which merit discussion. Middle river exports (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability of bus routes in Baltimore

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

---

I'll raise the question here of, are these articles actually notable? Not every bus route is notable, just because it's in a city and passes landmarks etc. Is this editing actually on a symptom without addressing the cause that the articles maybe shouldn't exist here in the first place? For instance that Locallink 80 above, what's notable about it? It has no claims to notability, no real third party sources, it's just a bus route. Canterbury Tail talk 13:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I would argue to say most of the routes in Baltimore would not meet general notability standards, as they are just that, a bus route. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd also ask whether the 'bus route' described above (Locallink 80) is even a single thing at all. The article starts off describing a streetcar route, and goes on to describe a succession of different vehicles, identified by different numbers, serving differing locations. We seem to be describing some sort of Bus of Theseus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless they have a bus route to go round the locations in The Wire. Anyone remember the pandemic...? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Prior to the OTHER pandemic, the route I took to work went right through those areas. I swear we're more than just murder or The Wire here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

They're probably not notable, but good luck trying to AfD them. Bus lovers will appear to swear that every bus route that has every existed is automatically notable and must be kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to go out a few inches on a limb the size of a sequoia and say that none of them are notable. Looking at a few of the WMATA articles, there's essentially no information that doesn't come from generations of schedules (plus, as with the case described above, the engendering streetcar line) except for some very incomplete listing of NN accidents involving buses driving that route. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Based on my look-see as well, I would agree. Maryland Transit Administration can easily carry any germane information about these routes (right now it basically just covers that they exist, which might be all they have.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

So who wants to take the plunge? If someone wants to start here, I'll happily do the same for anything similar in my home state. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• The OP may have a point, but ANI is really not the venue to discuss this. There are other talk pages where content and notability issues are discussed. This is not a user behavior issue, and really should not be discussed here. This may be an important discussion to have, but please have it in the correct place. --Jayron32 17:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Sailee5 - WP:NOTHERE

Sailee5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user clearly has a COI with https://aniruddhafoundation.com. The last 7 edits made this year [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85] (and every other edit in all the other times) is simply promoting that website/foundation and their preachings thru WP:CITESPAM. Clearly WP:NOTHERE — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This seems pretty clear-cut. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Spamming and Socking over at Chaos Magic

tl;dr - Spam was added twice to the Chaos Magic article. A new user accidentally revealed they were the person who readded it. A quick look at the basics shows... Let me pre-redact.... originator of the spam.

Original spam add [86]

the readd [87] [88]

the signature change to reduce scrutiny [89]

A thread where the potential spammers account is discussing the article which was spammed can be found here: [90]

If this wasn't clear enough, I can send further confirmation of /stuff/ out of band.

This account should probably not be allowed to edit in this general subject area at a minimum. 73.6.77.46 (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If it helps gain any traction, the editor is editing from the same city as the previous person to add the same spam. The spam is for a subscription to learn magic to help you get rich, and was used as a source. The person who runs the scam magic lesson site lives in the same city as the two ips. That person runs a podcast and is now using an account to avoid being noticed as the person dropping scams in the article. This may get redacted. 73.6.77.46 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Date format audits

As some may have noticed (and plenty that don't) I do a ton of date format maintenance in the DMY space. I've been doing this since July 2019 and have amassed an absurd edit count in the process. There are times when uninformed editors post a query on my talk page on the ins and outs of what I'm doing and I had one in the last 24 hours by admin Nihonjoe. I'm staring at my screen with very wide eyes at his response to my response.

• Page history [91]
• Nihonjoe's talk page User talk:Nihonjoe
• My talk page User talk:Dawnseeker2000

Dawnseeker2000 00:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the original edit in question. Dawnseeker2000's edit summary was "date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script", but all they did was change the date from "November 2012" to "May 2022". The edit summary was false, and there was no valid reason for changing the date like that. That particular template has the date in it to indicate when it was originally placed there so people know when the date format for the article was set. Dawnseeker2000's edits are basically disruptive since the edit summary is blatantly false (no date format was changed, just the date itself) and the date in the template shouldn't be changed in the first place. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, it looks like I'm not the only one being confused by these edits. It appears SSSB has also expressed concerns about these edits. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Fyunck(click) above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like you read the template documentation for {{Use dmy dates}} as Dawnseeker suggested you do in his message on your talk page. The second sentence of the docs says: Use the parameter date for the month and year that an editor or bot last checked the article for inconsistent date formatting and fixed any found. Colin M (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears you are correct. I had understood it as I described above as that's consistent with other such templates with dates. I apologize for the misunderstanding, Dawnseeker2000. In the future, I'd suggest including such an explanation in your edit summary (something like "checked article for inconsistent dates, updated date last checked" as it's definitely more than me misunderstanding your edit summary. Again, I'm sorry for the confusion. I've removed the warning from your userpage, Dawnseeker2000. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The edit appears valid per Colin M, and I find Nihonjoe's use of a template at User_talk:Dawnseeker2000#May_2022 to be unnecessarily condescending for an long-time editor, and the threat of a block highly unnecessary escalation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the only thing to ultimately come out of this is that Dawnseeker2000 your edit summaries could be a bit more informative that's all. Maybe append an "updated the last checked date" or something to make it a bit clearer. Everything else is good here I think. Canterbury Tail talk 12:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is that Nihonjoe exclaimed that he knew how date formats worked even after I provided a link to the information that would have settled the issue, but instead he doubled down. That is contempt prior to investigation and is unsettling coming from an administrator and bureaucrat. Everyone understands that the initial edit [92] was done via the MOS:NUMDATES script that is maintained by Ohconfucious, right? At this time I am unable to accept Nihonjoe's apology (and may speak to him directly about this) but if he (or anyone else) truly believes that there is an issue with the edit summary for the tool I would suggest speaking directly with Ohconfucious. Now, I'm a fan of his work and support him when I can, so this isn't about me throwing him under any sort of bus. It's the idea that the supposed issue is being thrown back in my face rather than acknowledging the egregiousness of Nihonjoe's words and actions (thank you Colin M and Gablotter). Use this talk page to contact Ohconfucious about that particular tool: User talk:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates. Dawnseeker2000 14:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've chosen not to accept my apology. As I said, I was wrong in this case, and I'm sorry. It would have been helpful if you'd pointed me to a specific location on the page you linked rather than tell me to go look at a fairly long page. Regardless of that, you have my apology. Do with it what you will. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've suggested a change to the automated script at User talk:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've now modified the script edit summary to read "script-assisted date audit and style fixes per MOS:NUM". Hope it's a bit clearer, although judging from the exchange above, a clearer edit summary is no substitute for fellow editors reading the script or template documentation. Hopefully the issue can be resolved with a trout -- Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 19:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Ceahjlazco1882 - NOTHERE

Ceahjlazco1882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly WP:NOTHERE - they've made several edits recently adding unnecessary vandalism notices, changing redirects to random, unrelated articles, and other minor vandalism, despite having received numerous warnings. — Chevvin 06:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think they should be indefinitely blocked. Their account is nearly exclusively disruptive editing or vandalism. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

More mass edits without consensus

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

User:Amigao has been warned and blocked before for problematic mass edits without consensus, and a similar problem is happening again. The user is mass-changing "Communist Party of China" to "Chinese Communist Party", even though both forms of the name are common in reliable sources and it is perfectly fine for different forms to be used in different Wikipedia articles.

I've asked Amigao to get consensus before continuing the mass edits[93][94], but to no avail; they have stopped responding on their user talk page but are still[95][96] making the edits. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger:, the WP:COMMONNAME is Chinese Communist Party, per Talk: Chinese Communist Party/Archive_4#Requested move 16 July 2020 and Talk:Chinese Communist Party/Archive_5#"Chinese Communist Party" nonsense. That the user appears to be inserting the common name in a bunch of places where the official name was previously used. There are certain contexts in which alt names are better suited to describe an entity than the common name, but those seem to be the exception rather than the norm. Is there a particular topic area where you think that this is the case for this entity? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources, in which both forms of the name are commonly used. If you or Amigao disagree and think all Wikipedia articles should use the same form of the name, we can discuss that content issue (maybe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China?). I brought this to ANI because of the behavioral issue: Amigao is persisting with the mass edits without getting consensus. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think I have said that all Wikipedia articles should use the same form of the name. If there is a particular topic area where the official name dominates over the common name, I would say that this would not be the case. What I am asking is whether or not such a topic area exists. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, the proper venue for naming convention on China-related stuff is probably the talk page of MOS:CHINESE. The page already has guidelines on how to refer to China/PRC/Mainland China, so it seems like a natural place to have guidance on how to refer to its ruling party. I can open up a discussion there if you think discussion might be fruitful. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point – I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles to address the content issue. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruption of consensus building process on List of political parties in Italy

This is a long running content dispute which Robert McClenon has tried to resolve at WP:DRN and, after forty-odd statements by both sides, eventually closed as unsuccessful. The disputants now propose a long series of RfCs. We (S Marshall and I) believe that Checco and Scia Della Cometa are bludgeoning, owning the talk page, and sealioning to such an extent that the dispute has become totally bogged down.

• Scia has been proposing changes to the list repeatedly since July 2020, but there recently has been an overwhelming number of proposals by the two editors about the criteria for inclusion on the list:
  1. June 2021, from Scia — Archive 1#Revision of some criteria
  2. July 2021, from Scia — Archive 2#Listing of defunct parties
  3. August 2021, from Scia — Archive 2#Issues of the page
  4. September 2021, from Scia — Archive 2#Disruptive removals
  5. October 2021, from Scia — Archive 3#Revision of criteria (2)
  6. November 2021, from Robert McClenon — Archive 3#RFC on Regional Criterion (begun as part of his dispute resolution attempt)
  7. February 2022, from Robert — RFC on Inclusion Rules for Italian Political Parties, withdrawn by Robert after complaints about the wording, and so followed up by,
  8. February 2022, from Robert — A new RFC on the previous question, which was voted on by 11 editors and gained consensus for more inclusive criteria
  9. April 2022, from Robert — RFC on Structure of Lists of Italian Political Parties. Both parties have asked for the RFC to be withdrawn but both Yakme and I have protested against that both as I have provided a vote and because at this point the two editors are splitting hairs. Robert closed the DRN (see below) as failed with the following statement: Although the moderated discussion has resolved one issue, which is eliminating the detailed inclusion rules, the principal editors do not make progress on their own toward resolving content issues. It does not appear that I will be able to facilitate a resolution of this case in any predictable amount of time.

  This overwhelming amount of proposals makes it near impossible for new editors to participate in the discussion.

• A number of inconclusive dispute resolution processes have happened to which Scia has refused to accept or has found "major faults in" that "must be resolved":
  1. September 2021, WP:3O provided by Firefangledfeathers — Third opinion
  2. November 2021, DRN case started by Scia — Archive_211#List_of_political_parties_in_Italy, which was closed "for timing reasons" as an editor did not respond in 48 hours.
  3. One of the longest DRN cases in WP history, with FOURTY STATEMENTS. It lasted from January until May. The dispute isn't even as complex as WP:DRNMKUCR, as Yakme pointed out in this comment.
• A number of editors have tried otherwise to help out or refused to provide a 3O but gave some advice:
  1. January 2022, from Usedtobecool — Archive 3#Criteria conflict
  2. October 2021, under a proposal from Scia, advice from Kvng — Archive 3#Approval of the inclusion criteria

What should be done about this civil yet disruptive behaviour? These two editors are wasting so much time from other editors in their petty dispute because they refuse to give ground. As I said to Scia before, it's like every time they want to change a lightbulb they feel compelled to demolish and rebuild the house. We feel this is excessive and it should now be stopped. I am sharing this issue with the community because wider community input is needed to stop this issue from continuing. I hope editors more familiar with the dispute are willing and able to provide diffs if the community thinks that is necessary, but the level of reading it would take me as an unfamiliar editor to the year-long dispute prevents me from doing so. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Countersigning this: I endorse and support Ixtal's words.—S Marshall T/C 15:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

1. Be grateful that the dispute is confined to this narrow topic
2. Don't provide any additional oxygen for it

Maybe not the type of advice you were looking for ~Kvng (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I will briefly summarize (if possible) what happened: a year ago I realized that the list of Italian parties was far behind the other pages. I also noticed that there were some inclusion rules (some extremely complicated or extremely inconsistent with each other). The entire set up of the page had been decided exclusively by a user a few years earlier who kept the page de facto blocked. I tried to involve other users right away to improve the page, to no avail. So I tried for 6 MONTHS a compromise with the other user involved to simplify the rules. In vain, almost every proposal was rejected by him. So I realized that those rules had to be removed. A Drn was launched in January: following an RFC, the rules of that page were finally rejected. A new discussion has begun on wikitables and the organization of the lists, with him always intent on maintaining the status quo. The DRN was declared failed, but other RFCs need to be started, with the puropose to have a consensual set up of the page. And now Am I accused by Ixtal of wanting to own the page? Me, the one who tried to involve other users to find an agreement? It is simply absurd, I don't want own anything. Frankly, such an unfounded accusation offendes me... And now even other obstacles are being placed on the road map that was designed to reach the consensus with other users on this topic...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Scia it would be helpful if you mentioned who the other user is, as we cannot really do anything if we're left guessing. I also mention that your efforts are in good faith and we mention above the civil character of your behavior.

I'm not saying that you haven't been trying to improve the page, I'm just saying that the way you are going about it currently is disruptive towards the collaborative consensus-building process that leads to long-term improvement. That's what it felt like to me when you say that (emphasis your own) The thing that worries me the most are the technical problems of this RFC: it lacks the main topic (politics, hovernment and low), so the potentially most interested users will not intervene; it lacks the preview of the 2 Plans. [sic] Insisting on an entirely new RfC and demanding the old one be withdrawn because it is missing a tag (which can be added during the RfC) and you disagree with its preview (which has no effect on the resulting consensus) is the type of nitpicking that is unhelpful when trying to reach consensus and incredibly confusing to editors trying to participate in the talk page (is the RfC going to be withdrawn? Should I vote in case it won't? Is it worth participating if the past eight RfCs have been ineffective at creating consensus?). While you may not have asked those questions to yourself, I had to when voting in the last RfC as someone new to the dispute. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

With respect to the RfC closure request. I reviewed it last night, checking both the state of the RfC and that of the discussion in the subsequent section. While I haven't formally marked it as "not done", as I would appreciate a second opinion on it from another more experienced closer given the circumstances of that conversation, aside from the comments by Scia Della Cometa and Checco at WP:CR I did not see a consensus for an early closure. I have no other comments to make about the underlying dispute, other than agreeing that it appears to be both messy and long in duration. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal I have now reread some of your questions: I thought it was explicit that I was referring to the user with whom I have been discussing for months, that is Checco. And not all RFCs have failed: The New RFC on Inclusion Rules for Italian Political Parties has been the key to unblocking the page, as it removed all the quibbles that had been imposed on the page for years.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

At Wit's End

Unfortunately, I agree with Ixtal and S Marshall that these two editors are part of the problem, or are the problem:

• Checco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scia Della Cometa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As a long-time DRN volunteer, I prefer to look for the content portion of any dispute, and if the content dispute can be resolved, any conduct will either subside or at least be contained. I would prefer to try to resolve a dispute in almost any other forum than WP:ANI, but at this point I don't think that there is any other forum. We tried DRN, which went on much longer than DRN is expected to last. I asked for ideas at Village Pump, where one conclusion seems to be that sometimes certain editors are the problem. I was unable to get these two editors to agree even on how to try to agree to resolve the content dispute.

I am thinking of a principle that the ArbCom has occasionally adopted, known as "At Wit's End":

In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

The draconian measure that I suggest that the community consider is to topic-ban the two editors from the area of Italian political parties, broadly defined, for three months, and see whether other editors are willing to work on the topic in their temporary absence. I think that part of the problem is that each of them, for some reason, will not agree to anything that the other one proposes or even agrees with.

Do the two editors have any ideas that will permit them to continue to edit without requiring a third party? Does anyone else have a different idea? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I do. I think the key to this is that the content dispute is between options that are not mutually exclusive. We can, and arguably should, have several lists of Italian political parties each with its own inclusion criteria. There could be a list of current ones, a list of historical ones, a list of notable ones (i.e. Italian political parties with their own articles), a list of parties with seats in the national parliament, and a list of parties with seats in the local parliament -- all valid lists that meet WP:CLN. Therefore we topic-ban both of the disputants from the main list and put a two-way iban on each, thereby forcing them to work on separate lists of political parties in Italy. One possible end state is to turn the main list into a disam page.—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If a topic-ban is required, I think that may be too broad. Perhaps a topic-ban from lists of Italian political parties would be better, and if required later expand and/or extend that ban. I also don't think an IBAN is warranted. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 18:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

With regards to scope, you (Ixtal) and Robert seem to be the most recent DRN volunteers (that I recognise, there may be others) active in this dispute. If the editors are t-banned from just lists of Italian political parties, or perhaps even just the page at the locus of this dispute, is there any risk that this dispute or a similarly intractable dispute between these two editors will spill over into other Italian politics articles? Or are these editors able to edit well together on other related topics? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't want anyone to miss how much of a major red flag it is that Robert McClenon is at his wit's end when it comes to dispute resolution. I threw in the towel much sooner, and am sad to see how long it's continued. My alternate proposal is that Checco and SDC voluntarily agree to abstain from dispute resolution processes higher than just talk page discussion – excluding ANI. Echoing a point S Marshall made at the talk page: the time of experienced volunteers is expensive, and this dispute has consumed a lot of it.
  I'd be saddened to see both editors sanctioned identically, as in my view SDC – as the editor pushing away from the status quo ante – has more egregiously failed to drop the stick and done more damage while holding it. Regardless, please count me in favor of whatever approach is the closest to consensus, as we owe it to our dispute resolution veterans to do something. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  Concur with FFFffffffffffffffffff. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Rather than a broad TBAN, wouldn’t a partial block/narrow TBAN from that one article be more narrowly tailored towards preventing future disruption? Looking at it, I think that there is clearly an intractable issue with ownership and WP:SEALIONing, but if the scope is limited to one article, I can’t see why a ban or block should be broader than that. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• I was involved in this Dispute.... but I could not stay fully engaged for the six months it raged on and on. The two main combatants kept reversing positions, arguing over even the smallest details, and just generally keeping any genuine progress from happening. There is complete WP:OWN behavior going on and any dispute that has caused Robert McClenon-, one of the most patient, level headed editors- to quit mediating out of frustration, deserves some admin attention. These two editors are not contributing. Yes they are making good faith efforts- but they are so stuck on their chosen point of view that they have actually hindered that page being improved at all for over six months. Please- this needs to stop, and I agree that a TBAN is appropriate at this point. I won't go back to working on that page as long as I have to deal with either of those two- I just don't have the mental energy for it. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think that a ban is necessary for me? Do you think I can't take a step back on my own? You underestimate me. If you invited me and Checco to abstain from discussing the improvement of that page, I would accept, but Checco should accept too. Don't you realize? That page has been owned by one single user for years. Why do you think the discussion lasted for months? For his stern opposition to making any changes to a page that he had made subject to his will. And because almost all the other users have often refrained from expressing a clear position: if other users had intervened, we would already have a consensuual set up of the page. Instead many have preferred not to get their hands dirty and act as spectators to the discussions between two users with completely opposite ideas This is a fact. Do you think I want to decide myself on that page? You are very wrong if you think so, I just wanted to free it from setting and rules established by a single user. I did a dirty job, but if I didn't, that page would still be controlled by one user today. What User:Firefangledfeathers describes as my demerit (trying to change the status quo imposed by a single user), honestly for me it is a merit!

I more than willingly step aside in the discussion (but Checco must do it too), a ban is certainly not necessary, who did you take me for? But in this case all of you will have to discuss yourselves the new set up of the page. All those who have intervened so far. Me and Checco did not agree on almost anything, but finally we had agreed on a road map to follow in order: RFC on the organization of lists, RFC on the format of Wikitable, RFC on the separation of lists of coalitions and parliamentary groups on a separate page. If this process has stalled, it is also because Robert McClenon refused to close or modify that RFC, stating litterally that it was no longer his problem (but now he intervenes again by asking for a ban). Do you all want to put an end to this endless discussion? So far I have seen very few concrete proposals: I invite you to come forward, to propose changes, to improve that page yourself. I have my ideas on that page, but I never pretended to decide on its layout and content. I will be grateful to be on the sidelines with Checco, my only goal was to free the page from not acceptable constraints, now discuss and decide how to improve that page yourselves, but you really have to do it! .--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've closed one of the more recent RfCs, and read part of the discussion that had happened until that point. It's unfortunate to see that things didn't settle down. I think a topic ban for both editors would prevent further waste of time, and, as mentioned before, could allow for other, interested users to take a stab at improving that article. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 22:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I thank User:Isabelle Belato for closing the substantive RFC, which she and I both hoped would permit progress, but it didn't.

I don't think that an interaction ban will be useful or necessary. Interaction bans are required when two editors are uncivil to each other, or when two editors are reverting each other's edits vindictively, or for a few other reasons that do not apply. These are two editors who did not try to collaborate, which created more work for the mediator, who eventually gave up. An interaction ban might require another mediator, and I don't think that it will be easy to find one. The question is what the scope of the topic ban should be.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi all. I have been involved in many Italian political parties articles, and I know Checco and SDC well enough as WP editors, so that I feel that I can contribute to this. I have also been directly involved in the DRN on the "List of Italian political parties" and in the latest RfCs. These two editors edit mainly politics articles, and they are two of the main contributors to virtually all Italian politics articles (they are also quite active on it.wiki on the same topics). They come in good faith, and with a sincere will to make WP better and more accurate, obviously each according to their opinions to what is "better". And I think I am not overstating it when I say that more than half of the discussions of the latest years on these articles have featured Checco against SDC and viceversa: they are somehow always in contrast on almost every issue. (I am also no saint myself, I also had many harsh discussions, sometimes with Checco, sometimes with SDC.) Checco has been editing on WP since much longer than SDC, and therefore he is the one who often originally started many Italian politics articles, and probably gave the structure that he liked to many of them – something that might justify the WP:OWNish behaviour that some of you attribute to him. IMHO, this is why he is usually on the side of keeping the current status quo. SDC on the other hand usually has a different idea on the structure and content of these articles, and he usually has very good and thoughtful proposals, but he tends to be aggressively stuck on his position and shows just a small will to compromise, even on tiny secondary things. The two editors do have something in common though: (1) they write long and wordy explanations of their positions, often repeating themselves many times: this is why we have huge talk page sections and this is why the DRN was 40 iterations long; (2) they (in good faith) do not always follow the rules, for example I had to stop SDC and Checco from unilaterally editing Robert McClenon's RfC header without his permission. I have no opinion on what is the best way to go forward in solving this issue. I just know that they as editors are very passionate about this topic, and this explains their perseverance on every issue arising about it. Yakme (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you. This means that if a topic ban for either or both is part of the solution, then it needs to be a narrow and well-defined one, because a broad one in this topic area would lead to an unacceptable amount of collateral damage by stopping key article maintainers from doing their work.—S Marshall T/C 13:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I also feel that it bears repeating that the options they're fighting over are not mutually exclusive. We can and should have several lists.—S Marshall T/C 13:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Yakme: for the summary. I was only involved at List of political parties in Italy and didn't know this behavior affected the broader topic area. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I can support much of what Yakme has written -- for at least as long as I have been involved with editing articles on Italian political parties, Checco has been contributing, as he has always been involved in good faith discussions. He has strong opinions at times, but that is merely because he has a clear desire for strong quality control of wiki articles, a MO which can step on other users' toes at time, but to my view he has never acted as anything but a well-meaning editor. As for SDC, he is also a sincere editor who has strong feelings on issues and formatting, so there is bound to inevitably be a clash with other editors at times, not helped by (IMO) SDC being more often reactive to constructive criticism from others. I have to admit that I suffered from mental exhaustion on this topic and found it difficult to contribute much as time went on, becoming unable to expend the mental energy to keep up with the ongoing discussions. I have at this time no exact solution I can suggest to solve this impasse, but I honestly think that with some compromises, a consensus could eventually be reached.--Autospark (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Yakme's account is mostly fair and correct. Before getting to know User:SDC, I was not particularly involved in talks in en.Wikipedia. After, I have always played by the rules and I have been patiently answering to any proposal or question (even though User:SDC often complained that I could not answer in real time—same with User:Autospark). That is no mistake to me and I would do it again, despite my preference for mainspace editing. I should be credited for User:SDC's evolution from his initial and instintictive edit-warring to a more consensusal attitude. I am much more of a consensus-seeker and –builder—as such, I usually avoid total rollbacks and sometimes wait years before editing (see 1 and 2). After User:SDC quit edit-warring at List of political parties in Italy, some of his proposals were accepted by other users, others were rejected. User:SDC has every right to think that his opinions are the best, but most efforts were doomed by his "all or nothing" approach and his little ability to compromise (as shown lately by the "preview" issue). As User:Firefangledfeathers correctly pointed out, I had every right to reject some proposals and defend the status quo—and I was not alone in doing that. As I said, I played by the rules and I participated in any discussion I was asked to. I really appreciated the Moderator's effort in the DRN, but I have to say that most interactions were repetitive because the questions were repetitive. My answers in the DRN were always short and focused: I put confidence in the process and I even accepted RfCs, despite not being a fan. Now that the DRN is over, I still think that compromises could be easily reached by the editors most involved in the discussion, notably including User:Yakme, User:Autospark and, albeit not recently, User:Nick.mon. I would accept a topic ban or a pause from the List (better a voluntary one, per User:SDC), but I agree with User:Firefangledfeathers that a better proposal would be that User:SDC and I "voluntarily agree to abstain from dispute resolution processes higher than just talk page discussion". User:Firefangledfeathers and User:ScottishFinnishRadish are also right on principle that I should not be sanctioned identically as User:SDC: I was not the one edit-warring and, later, insisting with proposals and calls for other users' interventions. This said, I feel very sympathetic to User:SDC, I agree with most of what he wrote here, I am confident (as I have always been) that we can solve this through debate and compromise, and the fact that User:SDC and I agree on a path forward should be accepted and encouraged by the "community". In a nutshell, I equally accept three options: 1) User:Firefangledfeathers's proposal plus debate and compromise in the List's talk page involving all the users, old and new, interested; 2) the road map designed by User:SDC above (first of all replacing the current RfC text—I would accept both his latest proposals); 3) a voluntary topic ban / pause from the List by User:SDC and I. --Checco (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Ehm, it is quite easy to say "I had every right to reject some proposals and defend the status quo, and I was not the only one to do so" when you had established the entire page layaout yourself, taking advantage of the general disinterest of the community and with the usual support of one user. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, not to appropriate a page. No list except the one on Italian parties is controlled by a single user. Continuing to claim that my approach was "all or nothing" is equally inaccurate: you rejected almost every compromise proposal of mine, claiming that you were "fine with the current form of the list" anyway. The first valid RFC rightly rejected those rules you had kept on the page for years. Then it is true, in the past, after having failed with the attempts of cooperation (since sometimes I had to wait even more than a week for your answer), I tried with some bold edits, but where it was decided that that page could not be changed by a comma? Unlike what you were saying, the setting of that page was nowhere established. Is my fault that I tried to give a consensual layout to the page? I think not. And it is difficult to find a compromise if you place all those vetoes: compromises do not come with vetoes. However, I really appreciate your willingness to take a step back. The same willingness to take a step back also applies to me, if that can serve as a turning point. Anyway, a ban of any kind would mean no confidence on my willingnes to stand on the sidelines.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• • Our purpose here is to stop the disruption this dispute is causing. The section called "at wits end" means we've tried being fair and nice and the disruption hasn't stopped, so now we've got to be unfair. And whatever we decide, it isn't going to be "voluntary". It's going to be something that we can enforce.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Scia Della Cometa wrote:

      Anyway, a ban of any kind would mean no confidence on my willingnes to stand on the sidelines.

Some editors don't want to rely on a voluntary statement that you and Checco will stand on the sidelines, when you couldn't make progress with a mediator. Indeed, some editors don't have confidence in your willingness to stand on the sidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Limited Topic-Ban and Partial Block

In response to the discussion above, I propose that the two editors in question:

• Checco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scia Della Cometa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

be topic-banned and partially blocked from the specific article and its talk page for three months:

• List of political parties in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:List of political parties in Italy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

They may edit in any related areas such as more specific lists of parties, or AFDs to delete parties not having a reliable source, or any other topic. They are not interaction-banned, except that they will not interact on the main list and the main list talk page. So-called voluntary bans are ineffective. After other editors have made progress in three months, the ban will expire. If other editors do not make progress in three months, the ban will expire. If there is disruption in the meantime, the ban can be extended, or Community General Sanctions can be imposed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Like User:SDC, I would be very unhappy with this solution, if not voluntary, and I hope we could avoid it. My wrong was to answer to each proposal, question and community effort I was asked to. I hope that more moderate solutions, like those proposed by User:Firefangledfeathers and User:SDC, can be applied. --Checco (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Rephrased 16:18, 8 May 2022

The fact that this proposal would make the participants unhappy indicates we're on the right track. The goal here should be for these editors to learn how to self-regulate this behavior so I like the option to extend the ban if disruption continues. I'm past trying to attribute blame for the disruption to one or the other editor and we don't have reports of problems except when both are involved so, although it won't seem fair, it makes sense to apply the remedy equally to both editors. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

User:SDC self-regulated his behaviour by not edit-warring anymore, making proposals and, lately, asking for help from the "community" as there was no consensus for some of his proposals in the talk page. I appreciate his efforts and his evolution. My impression is, more than ever, that User:SDC and I, along with other users interested in the issue, can either 1) sort this out or, otherwise, 2) go to the sidelines voluntarily, with the civility that marked our discussion over the last months. I understand User:SDC's disillusion in the process and, more than before, I feel sympathetic to him: he looked for help, but he was completely let down by the process. He is right when he writes that "almost all the other users have often refrained from expressing a clear position: if other users had intervened, we would already have a consensuual set up of the page". In different ways, sanctioning him for asking help and me just for playing by the rules of the DRN and giving focused answers to each question is not fair. --Checco (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, the dispute between the two of you involved DRN for six months with no conclusion other than an RfC that both of you wish withdrawn, and Robert losing patience. What has changed in the last seven or so days that would indicate to us that should we do nothing that we will not be back here, in a similar thread, in another 3 to 6 months time? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand that Robert is a very respected user and that criticising his conduct will not help me in this proceeding, but, frankly, the main problem of the last months was the quality of his moderation and, in the end, his push for the latest RfC. The DRN involved some questions repeated many times. Along three/four other users, I put confidence in the process, I carefully respected the rules given and I answered to virtually all statements in most cases in 48 hours (sometimes real life made it very difficult). I am now criticised precisely for having played by the rules. My confidence and, yes, my patience were not rewarded—at all. --Checco (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I have not read nor will I read the DRN, but you enabling SDC's issues with the last RFC and expecting what is really a very simple issue to need multiple months more of discussion paints a different picture, Checco. At some point it's not you being patient, it's you continuing a discussion which should not be continued. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a pity that you did not read it. The latest sequence of events precisely shows how much I was open to multiple solutions and I was accepting basically every proposal by the Moderator and User:SDC in order to go forward, even though I would have preferred fastest paths and the Moderator could have easily found a middle-of-the-road solution, as other three users were consistently contributing with their opinions. --Checco (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Checco "accepting basically every proposal" might have been the issue that led to the dispute taking so long. I think also you and SDC trusting your own opinion more than the community-at-large (from what I saw in my brief interactions in the talk page) also played a part. You'll probably find more clarity once the page block ends (if enacted). — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This is the minimum real remedy that I can think of, for two editors who didn't agree on anything except that it would take them several months of further mediation to reach agreement, so they can wait a few months to see if other editors can accomplish something while they are kept on the sidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - It seems that the two editors are just asking the community to be patient with them for a few more months. (I think that I was patient with them too long.) Maybe they can be patient with the community for a few months instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Over the last six months, User:SDC and I refrained from any controversial edits to the List and duly followed all the indications we were given, especially in the DRN. Consistently with this behaviour, we can easily abstain from editing the talk page too, voluntarily. Once again, before being caught by real life for a few days, I prefer User:Firefangledfeathers's solution ("voluntarily agree to abstain from dispute resolution processes higher than just talk page discussion"), but I would also accept, as also User:SDC indicated he would, a voluntary abstention for both the List and its talk page for all the time I would be asked. User:SDC and I are passionate, but truthful users. --Checco (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above in this thread. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - From what I understand, it appears thatRobert McClenon has hardly read anything I've written lately. I have already stated that I want to step aside to allow for a more constructive discussion, and Checco said the same. When I read Robert writing "two editors who didn't agree on anything except that it would take them several months of further mediation" it means that he hasn't read anything I've been writing lately. This discussion seems to me to be a waste of time: you are here discussing whether to ban me and Checco from that page when we have already given the willingness to take a step back to allow you to discuss constructively how to improve that page. It's okay with me if you continue the discussion, you free me from this commitment, the topic ban would be quite useless since I would be the one to withdraw. Instead, I confess that I agree with all of Checco's latest statements. I had honestly appreciated Robert's effort to mediate the dispute, but we had 40 statements without a final solution because he frequently repeated the same questions (leading us to repeat the same answers) and never took matters into his own hands. Finally, the most serious mistake in my view, was to push on an RFC in a writing stage and the subsequent refusal to withdraw it (because it was no longer his problem). Frankly, it didn't seem very fair behavior to me. After Robert's step back I had to pick up the situation again and Checco and I had already agreed to start 3 very specific RFCs that would finally give the page the definitive structure. The process would have taken some time, but no mediation would have been necessary. Do you want to exclude us from that discussion? Very well, no problem, we have already stated that we stand back on our own. Give us a time limit in which we will have to refrain from that page, if we do not respect it, please ban us. But rather than waste time now with bureaucratic quibbles, like topic bans, carry that discussion forward. If, on the other hand, you want to waste time discussing this forcing, well, it will be a useless ban anyway (and time stolen from that discussion).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Having read through statements 30 to 40 on the DRN, as well as all of the comments made here, I concur with what Robert McClenon has said. I'm also particularly concerned about the questioning of Robert's competence as a moderator at DRN by both SCD and Checco in this thread, as well as by Checco at their fortieth statement in DRN thread. Both SCD and Checco seem to have, at various points in the statements that I've read, have either forgotten or were unaware that DRN is not there to act as a content arbitrator. However both wanted Robert to act as one. I have a strong suspicion that if these two editors are temporarily topic banned and paged blocked from those pages, that after a short period for the other editors to recover from the exhaustion caused by this very long and drawn out process, progress towards finding a consensus on the actual content issues will rapidly become unstuck. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

User:TheKurgan

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

User:TheKurgan has been harassing me. I usually pay little attention to these things, but this editor won't stop.

• May 3 - [97], said that removing information from an article is "the height of white supremacy" and "people who don't know these things shouldn't edit these things about which they do not know".
• May 4 - [98], inferred that User:Floydian and I are white supremacists.
• May 4 - [99], cautioned by User:Floydian.
• May 5 - [100], angry message to me.
• May 5 - [101], angry message on my talk page.
• May 5 - [102], I replied, "Your edits are abusive and harassing. Please stop."
• May 6 - [103], TheKurgan contacted another editor who they saw on my talk page, and with whom TheKurgan had never communicated, "Saw you had a tiff with Mr. Holier Than Thou. Sorry that you had to deal with "Mr. Edit War" himself. People like him suck the joy out of everything. He's a narcissist and a bully who thinks his bodily waste doesn't stink. Well, I say, "Let him have his personal virtual fiefdom." After all, children should be allowed their toys. Cheers for now!"

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll just add that when I asked them to redact their allegations of white supremacy, it was met with deleting the entire talk page section in a huff with a tinge of WP:OWN (diff). While I can sympathise with this editors frustration, I feel they need to realise that a Wiki is collaborative by nature, and that taking your ball and going home isn't going to change that. The user is clearly learned on the topic and has much to add, but needs to work better with others. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

While they seem to be correct on the content issue and calling something "white supremacy" isn't the same as calling someone a "white supremacist", ANI isn't for content issues. There is a behaviour issue here - we're not required to be kind or polite, but we are required to be WP:CIVIL. TheKurgan - civility isn't optional. When you get angry at perceived injustice, you need to take a break and remember that we're all here for the same purpose.

Floydian and Magnolia677 do need to grow a thicker skin, and stop taking comments about the effects of their actions as a personal slight. It is white supremacist that most of our articles start about places in the Americas start with European "foundation" and ignore the entire history up to that point. Taking personal offense at structural critiques isn't helpful. Guettarda (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

"Your white-supremacist views have no place in deciding what is or is not in this article." Seems pretty clear cut on the personal attack front, and the place to right great wrongs is not on Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of the area or the city, but the content that TheKurgen added (same diff as the personal attacke above) appears to be more about the sounding area and not the city. So there appears to be a question of WP:DUE. As every the place to discuss such matter though is on the talk page, with a lot more WP:AGF and a lot less calling people white supremacists. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I am taking a break. In fact, I have chosen to chuck the entire matter. I will no longer edit the Sarnia article nor any of the articles associated with it. As I told the person who was civil to me on my talk page, both my mental health and blood pressure are far more important to me than being "right." Magnolia677 and Floydian bullied me and accused me of impropriety that was simply not the case. That's the reason I bristled. What I should have said was that they were ACTING like narcissists and bullies and not that they were such. They most certainly acted that way and did not assume good faith. I choose no longer to engage with either of those two editors or with the page that has taken hundreds of hours of work over the last 10 years since I brought the article to "good" status. Regarding "taking my ball and going home," that is what I choose to do, so that is what I'm going to do. To Magnolia677 and Floydian, I apologize. Have a good day, all.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested No, that's not a personal attack. And while "righting great wrongs" gets thrown around a lot, that's not what WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is about. Wikipedia's mission is to right a great wrong - that of unequal access to information. And the idea that's it's important to counter systemic bias has been around far longer: the WP:CSB page dates to October 2004, and the importance of the idea is, iirc, quite a bit older.

As far as WP:DUE goes - you're probably right, but as I said, this isn't the place to make content decisions. That's what the talk page is for. But taking a comment about a systemic issue and using it to bludgeon an editor - that's a different issue. Guettarda (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I could never accept that saying someone has white supremacists views, when a good faith agrument can be made for their decision, is anything but a personal attack. But as you've said the situation appears to be resolved. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:WeAllSeekTheTruth is not here to build an encyclopedia - ethnic slurs and personal attacks included

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

---

This is a user I've encountered who seems to be here with a clear WP:AGENDA, largely by promoting pro-CCP propaganda or other authoritarian talking points. I first encountered this user on Democracy in China where they edit warred to introduce PoV. They've also made politically biased edits to Taiwan and Donetsk People's Republic. They've also shown hostility to other editors ("fuck you lmao") and the project at large ("this hellsite", "yall at wikipedia do be drinking the koolaid"). I could see the direction the user was going, so I left them a message advising them to reconsider their edits, and the response was do it pussy go on, continue to consume the State Department rhetoric like the lapdog you are, all while promoting Western propaganda, you khokhol[104]. Keep in mind "khokhol" is an ethnic slur. In short, I can only conclude this user is WP:NOTHERE and would rather engage in racist personal attacks and pushing of anti-Western propaganda. — Czello 15:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. And the rule that any account with Truth in its name will inevitably be indefinitely blocked in short order continues. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

might change my name to "casualdetruth" just to prove you wrong ^[Humour] casualdejekyll 15:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I was considering "Truthmuzid," but I get the sense I would, in fact, be blocked. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmph! Truth69420 (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Logokalog

Logokalog (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Vandalized my page with stuff like this [105], abused other users in edit summaries like this , this and this (used abusive language in Hindi plus some nationality related attacks) plus There are constant claims of Working for Turner [106], [107], [108], [109] . Sid95Q (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Please translate what the edit summaries say; Google Translate doesn't do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: In the first one they are saying that user should handle their Pakistan, there is no need of them on India pages and why are they there to get their ass fu__ed on India Pages. In the second one they used words like bsdk (child of a sex worker) mc (Mother fu__) kutte (Dog) and they are saying "Why a Bangladeshi is here to get their ass fu___ed on Indian page, Go handle your Pakistan and Bangladesh page I will write whatever I want to write on this Indian page as I am a proud Indian" and he used words like "Gandu" (a__hole). Third one is same cuss words plus go edit your country's page stuff. Sid95Q (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've indeffed them for that and other reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

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

---

A relatively recent account is indulged in disruptive editing inspite several warnings on their talk page:- Mohammad asfaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• They are pushing for their historicaly inaccurate prefered version by denying all other editors;

Special:MobileDiff/1086422466, Special:MobileDiff/1086422466 & Special:MobileDiff/1086309584.

• I asked them politely to explain their changes on talk page, which they ignored & again pushed their prefered version despite being warned by other editors, Special:MobileDiff/1086240982

• Same issue can be seen here as well, Special:MobileDiff/1085936569 (deceptive edit summary as well), got reverted Special:MobileDiff/1086194224, but instead of taking it to talk page as bold, revert & discuss cycle, they pushed their prefered version again Special:MobileDiff/1086240789, (accusing other of unecessary edits) Special:MobileDiff/1086428767

• They were warned of three revert rule on their talk page to no avail, Special:MobileDiff/1086198799.

• I doubt their image addition as well which quite probably are copy righted. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 17:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the second report I've seen of this user. The first was on WP:AIV, although I do not know what became of that one. The block log shows no entries. Since they either won't or can't engage with other editors, and due to the disruption this editor is causing, I am blocking them for 72 hours to prevent further disruption. Perhaps that will get their attention unless WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Oz\^InterAct 17:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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

WorldWar1989

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

---

WorldWar1989 is dedicated to restoring the versions he prefer per his own admission,[110] but he lacks the proper judgment, communication skills, and reading skills to understand how his edits are disrupting the article space. Some recent examples of his edits include this restoration against consensus here, restoration of a very old version that included lots of rejected content, edit warring at Korean war,[111][112], false claims that his edit concerned "Vietnam and Korean wars " at here when his restoration changed a lot more of the article.

He never used the talk page or any other platform for explaining any of the edits I mentioned above because he does not understand WP:COMMUNICATE even after being warned about it.[113]

While Drmies warned the user above on February 2022 over editing while logged out,[114] it seems that De728631 already noted editing while logged out back in December 2021 by this user.[115]

With a talk page full of warnings and this ongoing disruption, I believe that this user should be either blocked from article space or indeffed. >>> Extorc.talk 17:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've come across this user before, had to warn them on several things, and there's a real question around general competency here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well that certainly is an impressive amount of warnings on their talk page, over a long period of time. Clearly they are not here to work with anybody else, and that simply won't work around here. Indef blocked due to egregious behaviour continuing over a long period of time. Oz\^InterAct 17:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 18:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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

User:समता1988 and repeated re-creation of articles about Uday Mandal

Previous instances of articles about Uday Mandal have been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uday Mandal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uday Mandal (2nd nomination). The editor was warned about recreating articles about this person: [116], but another instance was then deleted as a CSD G4 repost, after which Sdrqaz marked the title as requiring administrator access for re-creation. The editor has now created another instance under a variant title at Uday Mandal (Bihar Politician), indicating an unwillingness to accept consensus. AllyD (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I suspect socking as well Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uday88mandal — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

24.145.43.218

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

---

This IP continues to vandalize pages that they will think are humorous, but they are vandalism. I suspect this IP to be a vandalism-only type.

Here are all of the contributions, which are reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.145.43.218

BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan: I've also forwarded the request to the specific noticeboard for vandalism reports. In future, please consider reporting problematic users there if the vandalism is clear cut, rather than here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

They have been busy, let’s give them some time off. Obvious vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV for faster service in future. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Canvassing

User:Tatsuro22 added negative content to Angana P. Chatterji in the very first edit by adding random news incidents as controversy while those did not become controversial. Now has Canvassed at least three people to help in his quest.Special:Diff/1086531714 Special:Diff/1086197854 Special:Diff/1086136189 Also calls me a sock puppet of another person.101.50.2.74 (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

This very dispute is already at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Angana P. Chatterji, note. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Olaitan2022 self-promotion and competency issues

Olaitan2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The activity of this user has wholly consisted of adding their blog (cf. their user page) to various articles [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] and creating useless and redundant articles that only refer to their own blog as a 'source' [122] [123] [124]. While these three have been draftified, two others have lead to rather superfluous AfDs [125] [126].

I don't believe there's any ill will here, and if the only issue were self-promotion, that could probably be solved by engaging the user. But the extremely poor quality of the content convinces me that this user simply does not have the required competency to positively contribute to Wikipedia at this time. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor. Cullen328 (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

S201050066 has returned as Tenryuu 2.O

• S201050066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tenryuu 2.O (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#S201050066_and_COVID-19_timeline_pages

Summary: On May 1 2022, S201050066 was initially blocked 31h for edit-warring, topic-banned from Covid-19 topics, then indef blocked for declaring intent to violate the ban. @Tenryuu:, you apparently made quite an impression on the lad, as Tenryuu 2.O was created at 11:00 May 7 2022, and within 3 minutes went back to the topic area restoring all of S201050066's preferred text, and adding more. Zaathras (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

that's right I told you I would be back and wen now have 2 accounts now. Tenryuu 2.O (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And how do you envision that working out for you in the long run? Zaathras (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked and tagged the sock, as well as tagging the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I've undone some of em, looks like another is hitting the rest. Zaathras (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  I checked in case there were other accounts. This account can be considered CU-confirmed, I don't see any others at present. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The first thing I saw when I jumped onto Wikipedia today was that I had 20 alerts, so I suspected it was related to this. I personally found the edit summaries of these two edits hilarious, and am amazed that I am now living rent-free inside this person's head. Looking at my watchlist, the COVID-19 timeline pages seem to have been reverted to back to how they were before the sockpuppet's activity. I wonder if semi-protecting these pages would prevent them from being altered by these impulsive actions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Harassment by Knight N529

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

---

Hello. I'm sysop on french wikipedia. User:Knight N259 blocked indefinitly there is harrassing me here. See [127], [128], [129] so I warn him to stop before coming here. Then he continues and at least, warns me... Please do something, it's enough. What is done on french wikipedia should not come here with harrassment. Supertoff (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

he says you blocked him for no reason?can you please tell me what happened? Airtransat236 (let's talk) 17:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Supertoff blocked me beacause i made a helpul edit (vandalism for this user) :(( Knight N259 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked as they are not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE) but only to harass someone who blocked them on another wiki. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

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

OR edits and name change without consensus

Šitādālu keeps removing information based on reliable references about the modern Kurdish mastiff dog and enters OR territory when they can't prove the link between the modern dog called "Kurdish mastiff" and the ancient "Assyrian mastiff". This edit summary is also a plain lie,[130] just look at the version prior and its referencing. I've warned them on their talkpage, explained to them on the talkpage of the article that they shouldn't remove RS-based info and linked the OR site to them so they could understand the issue. Moreover, I explained that they should refrain from changing the name of the article without consensus/support. None of this has been effective. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: Your diff link is incorrect — it leads to the edit window for creating a new ANI section. They recently overwrote the article contents to be about only the Assyrian Mastiff and not the Kurdish Mastiff, and also moved the page to Assyrian mastiff. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I meant[131]. The main problem here is the lack of reliable references pointing out that the ancient Assyrian dog and the modern Kurdish dog is the same. They can create an article called "Assyrian Mastiff" pertaining to the ancient one instead of doing what they are doing now. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Why would a new article for an Assyrian mastiff need to be created when the dog is native to the homeland of the Assyrians? How can the dog be Kurdish when Kurds are originally from Iran and the dog is native to Iraq? There are also little to no books even referring to a "Kurdish mastiff". Šitādālu (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:EEng, isn't it time you added dog breeds to User:EEng#EEng's half-serious list of topics on which WP should just drop all coverage as not worth the drama? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Why? Has there been any WP:HOUNDING or WP:BITEY behavior? EEng 06:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Semsûrî is playing a nationalist agenda game. This dog is clearly older than the kurdish identity and is referenced in many books including works by Charles Darwin. The stable version had the name Assyrian mastiff used before another kurdish nationalist changed it here: [132]. This is the version prior to the other nationalist user changing it which even calls it Assyrian mastiff: [133]. What makes it so obvious that the dog is clearly Assyrian in origins is the fact that there are endless books and works referring it to an Assyrian mastiff but little to none calling referring to a Kurdish mastiff. Also, the dog is native to northern Iraq which is the homeland of the Assyrians that they still inhabit today. Šitādālu (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This appears to be part of a long-runnig content dispute on the history and name of this dog breed, which is linked to the broader Kurdistan controversy, but it is clear that Šitādālu should not have overwritten the content without discussion. For timekeeping, this July 2021 version is likely the last stable revision, under the title Pshdar dog and about the modern breed, before users started adding content that attempted to link the modern Kurdish mastiff to an ancient dog breed of Assyria and changing the breed name to "Assyrian Mastiff". The IP editors are likely different users, as they geolocate to different countries and have different ISPs, and it is likely that the non-OP. The nominator restored a March 2022 edit by HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) which attempted to reestablish NPOV. This edit by Semsûrî is the last before Šitādālu, where they correctly removed unsourced content and non-inline refs that did not mention this breed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Kurdistan is an autonomous region created recently. Clearly the dog predates that. Also this user uses rudaw which is a biased kurdish nationalist news source. The Assyrians still exist today and I see no books stating that the mastiff disappeared. Also, the dog is native to northern Iraq, which was majority Assyrian until the mongols arrived. This "Kurdish mastiff" is even described exactly like the Assyrian mastiff. I have no issue with him removing the unsourced content. He completely removed the Assyrian mastiff part. The word kurd is only a few hundred years old. How can anyone think that this dog just appeared in the homeland of the Assyrians just a few hundred years ago? Šitādālu (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

That's about as lame as they come.

-EEng

I must have had more to drink today than I thought I did, because I am clearly hallucinating. Are people really getting into a nationalist conflict over the name of a breed of dog? I thought I had seen some pretty lame disputes since Wikipedia started but this must be the lamest. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

To the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars page! casualdejekyll 22:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

---

At this point its not content but behavior. An admin should either protect that page or block the editor per this edit[134]. --Semsûrî (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

You are adding sources that are unreliable and riddled with grammatical errors. Anyways I already found a source that confirms it is an Assyrian dog and it isn't only found in the kurdish region. The fact that you're begging an admin to block me just shows you don't want anyone correcting your nationalist vandalism. This user should be blocked for vandalizing and erasing the facts on Wikipedia. Šitādālu (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop with the rants and go and read about how Wikipedia works. You have called me a nationalist and a racist, doomed an academic article unreliable because it is written by Kurdish academics, removed information that was referenced and still don't know what OR means. Now that it is mentioned that the dog is also called "Assyrian dog", what is your issue now? Semsûrî (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

No I never called you a racist. Your "academic article" is full of grammatical errors and lies because the dog isn't only found in the kurdish region. So that alone should raise red flags. Your entire edit history is removing information that either makes kurds look bad, or tries to kurdify everything. You even removed the previous source that states that it is called Assyrian Shepherd here: [135] which clearly shows you only care about furthering your agenda. The source I added states the dog is 5000 years old which further proves that it's an Assyrian dog. The article name should be either Assyrian mastiff or Assyrian Shepherd, not Kurdish mastiff. Šitādālu (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The Rûdaw source says "Assyrian Shephard" not "Assyrian Mastiff". For the tenth time read about OR on Wikipedia: "The source I added states the dog is 5000 years old which further proves that it's an Assyrian dog"... This is not how Wikipedia works. And " The article name should be either Assyrian mastiff or Assyrian Shepherd, not Kurdish mastiff." goes against Wikipedia:Article titles. Semsûrî (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There are only a few books that even mention the term "Kurdish mastiff" compared to the many that use Assyrian mastiff. So what if it says Assyrian Shepherd? It is referring to the same dog. Thta's why it says Kurdish mastiff OR Assyrian Shepherd. The article also says it's 5000 years old, so why should the article title be Kurdish mastiff instead of Assyrian? As another user stated, WP:COMMONNAME applies here and Assyrian mastiff is the more common name if you check sources. Šitādālu (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

---

I think my new findings should bring this debate to an end. Here is the exact same kurdish nationalist website that the user Semsûrî cited stating that it is indeed an Assyrian dog as they call it an Assyrian Shepherd: https://www.rudaw.net/english/lifestyle/18022020 or https://archive.ph/nZG4f. They even state that the dog is 5000 years old which is long before the kurds even existed. Šitādālu (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The archive.ph reference doesn't work and yes now you can add "Assyrian shephard" dog to the page as another name. Semsûrî (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Smuckola and AIV

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

---

Who can consider this diff: [136] acceptable? The unblock is over seven years old, and the edits that triggered the report are not vandalism. As such I think that Smuckola should be blocked. ConcordGrapes (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

ConcordGrapes, in the 13 minutes your account has been active, every one of your eight total edits has been to defend the sloppy edits of User:RMc, who has just returned from an eight year block, and was quickly reported by Smuckola at AIV. Are you familiar with the phrase, "quacks like a duck"? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:RMc was blocked for three months. Furthermore I am no duck, and CheckUser can confirm this. Cast your aspersions somewhere else. ConcordGrapes (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

CU does not indicate that you are RMc. It does, however, indicate that you are evading a block for BLP violations and trolling, and so this is a poorly executed joe-job. Buh-bye. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

So, who’s the real sockmaster? Huh, you figured that one out yet? 2600:100E:BF16:E69:F06E:A80F:1363:3E0D (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

And so my theory that ANI filers who can't even follow some really basic instructions to notify the reported user of the discussion actually being at fault/WP:BOOMERANG-eligible continues. Quite grand. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

You have failed to notify Smuckola of this ANI report, as required by the top of the page. I have done so for you this time. Additionally, you have not presented any credible evidence of why this is a policy violation, nor why would we block them per our blocking policy, which requires an editor pose an urgent or continuous threat to the project. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

ConcordGrape did actually give the appropriate notification.[137] Schazjmd (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I apologise for not checking the history. I have undid my own ANI notice and will be striking out my related comments shortly. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

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

General question about people who just revert things because they like other (inappropriate) things more.

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

---

Is there a procedure for disputing stuff like this without feeding into it? I don't want to name names (partially as it's pretty obvious it's meant to start something). I'm not an admin; if I were I'd consider a (at least short-term) prevention of such things on the particular user who is doing it towards myself. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.133.234.46 (talk • contribs)

If it's an inappropriate use of rollback, you'd report it here but you'll have to be more specific. PRAXIDICAE💕 00:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Novel thought, have you tried the talk page of the editor or the article? Also, this should be closed and if editor needs general information, WP:TEA or WP:HD are better suited venues.Slywriter (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Celestina007's secret tools

Celestina007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On a few occasions, User:Celestina007 has claimed to have access to secret tooling that gives them information about Wikipedia editors and their identities. The most recent example I could find is [138]. They used to brag about it on their user page, but it has since been removed ([139]). There are a few possibilities: (1) They have unauthorized CheckUser permissions that need to be revoked (2) They have external access that they are using in violation of WP:DOX (to say nothing of the Wikimedia TOS, the GDPR, and who knows what other laws) (3) They are lying to create a chilling effect, which is also harassment. There simply isn't any option here other than indeffing this user - to say these claims are incompatible with editing privileges is the understatement of the week. 207.38.145.230 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a legitimate complaint about a matter of genuine concern. It might possibly have been preferable to raise it with ArbCom first, by email, since Celestina007 seems to be claiming to be acting on their behalf. I very much doubt that this is true, but before we can act further, we should probably ask for clarification from them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Celestina007 is a member of the Volunteer Response Team FWIW. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 03:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

That makes it more concerning, in my opinion. We need clarification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Celestina007 miswrote. She doesn't have secret tools. She has a secret talent. She has a gift for reading an editor's identity from the verbal nuances of the editor's writing. This means that she can infer what blocked user is writing from an IP address. So don't post from an IP address if you are a blocked user. That is already block evasion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon If it were a one-off I'd buy User:Celestina007 miswrote—we've all been there—but the comment Meters has pointed out on her userpage makes it clear that "I've been secretly granted the CU permission" is what was intended by I belong to a small group of trusted editors who possess access to very sensitive non public information. As far as I can see someone is engaged in serious misconduct (and potentially illegality) here; the only issue is whether the someone in question is Celestina007, Arbcom, or the WMF. ‑ Iridescent 04:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought I knew something. I don't. I have no idea what Celestina007 is trying to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I second AndyTheGrump here and have no idea why this thread was removed without explanation. There are only four ways I can see to interpret I have access to certain tools which are clandestine and mostly reserved for serial anti UPE editors which aid me in nabbing unethical practices, please do not take this to mean I believe you are engaging in any form of unethical practice, but using my anti UPE/spam tools, certain things which are relatively worrisome about you did pop of, unfortunately this are things I I can only share with Arbcom; either:

1. Such a secret toolset does exist (speaking as a former arb, CU and OS I can assure you that it as of my time at least it didn't) and Celestina007 has been entrusted with it, in which case not only is Celestina007 is committing a gross breach of trust by disclosing its existence, but Arbcom is engaged in a cover-up so serious that I'd argue it would be a matter for immediate resignation and sitebanning of every member of the committee which authorized it;
2. Such a tool has somehow been created externally (vanishingly unlikely as it would either need high-level cooperation at the WMF or the resources of an intelligence agency), in which case we have a security breach that urgently needs addressing;
3. Celestina007 is intentionally lying in an effort to harass another editor; or
4. None of this is true but Celestina007 is a fantasist who genuinely believes it.

In the case of 1 or 2 this needs immediate investigation; in the case of 3 or 4 then at minimum Celestina007 should probably be indefblocked as a protective measure. I won't take any action unilaterally either to revoke permissions or to block just in case there somehow is a good-faith explanation for this, but I certainly can't think of one. ‑ Iridescent 03:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

(ec)I'm more than a bit curious about this too, and why the report was initially blanked with no explanation. I note that Celestina007 is not listed as having VRT permissions (that may be perfectly normal for VRT members, I don't know) and does indeed claim to have special access to tools. See User:Celestina007#What I Predominantly Do As An Editor On This Collaborative Project: Having shown proficiency in accurately detecting UPE in the last three years, coupled with my dedication in serving the collaborative project, trusted system operators and functionaries entrusted me with anti-UPE tools. Meters (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record, at the time of writing Celestina007's full range of permissions is autopatrolled, page mover, IP block exempt, mass message sender, new page reviewer, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, two-factor authentication tester; unless there's some kind of global permission she's been granted from Meta which isn't showing up on her en-wiki logs, there's absolutely no indication that trusted system operators and functionaries entrusted me with anti-UPE tools. ‑ Iridescent 03:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

(ec) (VRTS Admin hat on) Celestina007 has access to the VRT system, specifically the info-en role. The VRT global permission is only issued to users who work in permissions (to help with edit filters.) See also meta:Volunteer_Response_Team/Users ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 04:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Matthewrb: I don't want to step on VRT's toes, but you (plural) may want to consider temporarily suspending Celestina007 until it's clarified what's going on here. As per my earlier comment the only potential explanations I can see are either that she's involved in a serious security breach or that she's giving out seriously misleading information about the way Wikipedia operates; in either case, she's probably not someone who should be the first point of contact for new editors who are likely to be unfamiliar with how we operate and will reasonably assume that whatever she's telling them is true. ‑ Iridescent 04:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iridescent I have sent an email to my colleagues, discussing that question. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 04:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Matthewrb: Following on from that, could you perhaps clarify what information info-en VRT team members have access to, if any, beyond what is publicly available? I'd assume it doesn't include clandestine tools, or means to "link an IP address to a specific registered account", but would she say have access to email addresses of people she was dealing with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump VRTS Members have access to email addresses and any information that a user chooses to provide (Some send their passwords for example, though those are redacted). There are some specialized queues with more information (Think Stewards), but Celestina007 does not have access to any of those. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 04:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Presumably Celestina007 would have been required to sign the Wikimedia Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information [140] then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Celestina007 appears to have signed it, as they are on the applicable noticeboard. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

(ec) @AndyTheGrump Yes, all VRTS members sign L45 (which is the Confidentiality Agreement for Nonpublic Information) before their account is created. FYI, L45 does require a Phabricator account to view. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 05:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, looking at the history, you appear to be (or at least, to have been) Celestina007's mentor. Given that you'd presumably need to recuse from any putative arb case in any event, are you able to shed any light on what exactly is going on here? ‑ Iridescent 04:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve notified the Arbitration Committee of this discussion via email. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This appears to have something to do with ACC?. Pinging Stwalkerster to see if they know what Celestina007 is on about. SQL^{Query Me!} 05:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I may be missing something about how ACC works but Celestina does not seem to be listed as someone with access to that tool. The tool does reveal the requesting user's IP address, which seems to be what they are implying they have access to. Sam Walton (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Another note on Celestina's talk page previously mentioned "that technically I can perform a Checkuser [if I wanted to] Due to an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for. The tool works in the same manner as Checkuser does." Sam Walton (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging TheresNoTime, who removed that. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The removal is weird: Celestina007 do not claim to have access to Wikimedia CU tools but some foreign tool, provided by a government department, that uses some breach in site-security to perform the same tasks.

As Iridescent said, Such a tool has somehow been created externally (vanishingly unlikely as it would either need high-level cooperation at the WMF or the resources of an intelligence agency), in which case we have a security breach that urgently needs addressing. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

If taken as sincere (which frankly, I cannot), it would seem to imply that Celestina was using her employer/government's tool for purposes that they would appear to have been unlikely to authorise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Or if its use was authorised they would have almost certainly not have authorised disclosing its existence. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

They had access to ACC 2021-10-13 04:02:22 to 2022-03-27 20:16:51. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that Floquenbeam asked Celestina007 about the said Checkuserish tools here Can you explain further what you are talking about on your user page, regarding your claimed technical ability to determine the IP address and/or other personal information of editors with user accounts solely on the basis of edits they make on Wikipedia? This is either unlikely, or very concerning to me, depending on whether I'm understanding you or not.. Their response was are you referring to the external tool given to us at my organization ? If yes then email me. If you are referring to anything, please still email me I’m not comfortable with discussing any of this on wiki. When you do, I can give a very vague summary of how this works. Nothing to worry about here. Princess of Ara 06:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

And what about Celestina007's essay Wikipedia:Death of undisclosed paid editing? Wikipedia:Death_of_undisclosed_paid_editing#For_Veteran_Anti_UPE_Editors says: For regulars at anti spam unit, we have a plethora of tools at our disposal. Contact Myself or MER-C, explain what you want to achieve and the relevant tool would be given to you. Meters (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Since Celestina appears to be claiming that MER-C is involved in this, I've notified them of this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Well then, they might be referring to other tools or simply misrepresenting facts in order to intimidate the users they investigate as demonstrated above. Princess of Ara 07:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• This is on the Arb Radar. The Arb-dar, if you will. I will clarify that as far as I can tell and am aware, Celestina does not have access to the Wikimedia CheckUser tool, and ArbCom has never authorized her to. We're looking into this more closely. Speaking without my ArbHat on, Celestina's representation seems to be in part bravado and exaggeration. Though as she mentions, there seems to be a grain of truth: her employment may offer her the use of some data procurment tool. Has she actually used said tool? I've not seen any indication of it, but ArbCom will look into it deeper. Even if she hasn't used it, merely mentioning it does strike me as an attempt at intimidation, which is very disappointing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  I just want to add on that I have an educated guess as to what the tool is, which I don't think is related to Wikipedia, but I'm not saying more for WP:BEANS reasons. Folks should stop trying to guess, lest less scrupulous users get some ideas :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek:

  >>> Has she actually used said tool? I've not seen any indication of it

  Consult this warning. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  If such an external tool exists, related to Wikipedia or not, capable of doing the things that Celestina007 claims, it is more than a little worrying, as Iridescent notes above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  At the same time, they've said before that they've never used it on any user but their alt, and would consider it unethical to to do so, which is very contradictory. The diff seems to be an attempt to intimidate UPE's into disclosing, which is not the way to go about things. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  +1 to what Eek said. To soothe some nerves I'll note that the "tool" in question seems to amount to "get someone to click an external link to a website/service that you control and then record their IP address". It's a pretty low-tech "tool" and not much of a security threat (and certainly not something that implies that an intelligence service is acting through Celestina or something). Of course if you can convince someone to click an external link under your control, you can record their IP -- that's how websites work. TLDR, false alarm, don't worry about this. ArbCom will have a chat with those involved to clear up any loose ends. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Is there a need for ArbCom to handle this, given that this isn't yet an issue the community has been unable to resolve? BilledMammal (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that Celestina007 seems to have made claims to have used a tool in violation of the Wikimedia Terms of Use (see section 4, "Refraining from Certain Activities"), The WMF may well need to handle it ultimately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@L235 I take it from your statement that the ArbCom is not much concerned with editors sleuthing others by "convincing them" to "click an external link under [their] control [and] record their IP"? Wow. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@L235: can you clarify whether "false alarm, don't worry about this. ArbCom will have a chat with those involved to clear up any loose ends" is a collective ArbCom response, or one from you personally? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iridescent and AndyTheGrump: Thank you both for taking this seriously.

No matter who the OP may be, using such claims to try to intimidate fellow editors is heinous. I recognize that Celestina007 views rooting out paid editing as her main work here, but it has been my understanding that one of the functions of the WMF is to impose and enforce standards on users with privacy-violating permissions, in particular checkusers. If there is actually any backdoor access to checkuser-style tools, that program needs to be revealed immediately and I would very much expect it to be discontinued. If as Celestina007 has claimed in some of her statements, the tool(s) to which she has access are actually through her employer, it is equally inappropriate for her to use them against fellow editors; and she has stated that she tested them on Wikipedia. I do not feel safe editing on this project if I might someday fall foul of an editor who might run checkuser tools on people because they disagree about the merits of an article on some business, or place a relatively higher value on WP:BITE and WP:BIAS; I am aghast at the prospect of an editor's threats to use such tools chasing off other editors, especially new editors; and I am appalled that even if the threats are bravado (or even if they are based on some trick like inveigling someone into clicking a link they shouldn't), they would be in any way condoned. Someone who has made such threats, empty or not, should not be on any special response team. If they have been granted any special tools at all, including access to e-mail addresses, that should be revoked. Mentioning such tools as a threat, as in the warning to Reading Beans, is in my estimation worse than masquerading as an administrator, because it bears on the user's real-life identity.

Indefinite block on the same "chilling effect" basis as a legal threat, please. Hatred for paid editing does not excuse this. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, that's me speaking personally and not on behalf of ArbCom. Thanks for asking clarification – I should've made that clear in my note.

TrangaBellam, I can't speak for ArbCom as a whole. Happy to talk about this more but I think my comments may have been misread. Would I prefer that sleuthing tools not exist? Sure. Am I concerned that Celestina will use those tools on Wikipedia? Not at all. I am concerned about the "bravado and exaggeration", as CaptainEek eloquently put it, but I am not worried that Celestina will try to dox Wikipedia editors or something.

BilledMammal, this has been on ArbCom's plate for some time as it does encompass some matters not suitable for public discussion, which is squarely within ArbCom's remit.

All, what I'm trying to say is that this isn't a five-alarm fire that needs some kind of emergency immediate action. It's 2am here, so I'll return to this discussion in the morning if needed. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 09:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

>>> Am I concerned that Celestina will use those tools on Wikipedia? Not at all.

Why - what additional information you are privilege to? Shall I assume that Celestina007's intimidation of multiple editors by pointing to veiled tools of CU-esque capability went on with full knowledge of the committee (or at-least, you)? Where things stand as of now (esp. considering TNT's edits), such a conclusion is not far-fetched.

What is the government dept. that she works for? Is that a truth or again, "bravado and exaggeration?" Is Wikimedia in some (hitherto undisclosed) collaboration with Nigerian Govt. to fight spam etc.?

Overall, we have someone claiming to have tools provided by a state that provides CU-esque capability while you insist that there's nothing to worry about. I cannot overemphasize how unsafe I feel and I join Yngvadottir in calling for an indef. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: If that tool is not related to Wikipedia, how can you make a guess as to what it is? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with indef per the above. Email phishing for UPE hunting is "not here to build an encyclopedia". Levivich 11:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  • As a lesser measure than a full siteban, I'd also support a TBAN from "UPE-hunting", i.e. no more trying to find/catch/accuse/interrogate other users about UPE/COI/promo/spam/whatever. Threatening suspected UPEs with a secret tool--which has been on going on for months, most recently yesterday--is beyond the pale. It's disappointing to learn that other experienced editors knew about this and didn't stop it. I disagree strongly with the suggestion that this is no cause for alarm; it is in fact very alarming. I'm reminded of Jytdog; some of us need to stop encouraging others to engage in this sort of "volunteer police force" behavior. Levivich 18:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• I'm rarely comfortable being on the other side of a question from Yngvadottir, but I want to say that if the tool that Celestina007 says exists, does exist and is run by her employer, then I don't see how the proposed indef-block of Celestina007's Wikipedia account does anything very much to enhance anyone's safety. What we need to determine is to what extent this alleged tool exists and who has access to it. I mean, personally I don't feel at risk from it because I edit under my real name and display my location and date of birth on my userpage, but other editors are more vulnerable and it's mission-critical that they feel safe. To me this whole matter feels like it's what the UCOC is about, and I wonder if it shouldn't be on Trust and Safety's desk as well as Arbcom's.—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Any tool I make mention of are not "secret" I use the term tool and script interchangeably and all this tools are available to everyone on the the English Wikipedia, examples include tools and script to check who reviewed an AFC draft, major contributors to a an article, and basically tools like that. They are clandestine because they are difficult to navigate, anyone can add the scripts to their .css. I’m also not shocked that an IP Address with 4 edits would be the one to coincidentally report me. But be that as it may, I made an error sometime in the past that gave the impression that I had a special tool that could operate as CU, no I did not it was a mistake and misinterpretation on my part and Floquenbeam & was the first to scold me, what I had then was access to ACC and nothing more. I considered making a public apology but I wasn’t sure of the appropriate venue for that, let me say it now that I’m indeed extremely sorry to anyone who got distressed due to that. It wasn’t responsible of me to have said such. At the time I did apologize on my Userpage. I’m grateful for this report as it has given me the opportunity to apologize properly. Let me say again that I am indeed sorry for any misrepresentation of facts which all solely my fault. But as for me having "secret tools" that is not true as this scripts are available to anyone on the English Wikipedia. Celestina007 (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Bullshit - why did you write that the tool was provided by the govt. agency you work for? You were mistaken about who runs ACC?

  Even if I assume a mountain of good-faith and buy your version, you lack the maturity to edit Wikipedia. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  TrangaBellam, please do not harass the person. You should focus on the arguments being presented - not people and whether or not they are capable of editing Wikipedia. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 11:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  You are barely 1050 edits old with a paltry 63 non-minor edits to main-space. Please do not be preachy in a meaningless fashion. I (or others) are asking for an indefinite block since we think Celestina007 to be unfit for our project. Stating to such effects is not harassment. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  The statement you just made made me feel attacked. Please strike-through or reword your uncivil comment. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 12:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you feel attacked, that is because you climbed upon a high horse and attempted to chastise someone when it isn't your place to. Consider it a life lesson. Zaathras (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• And what about the link-tracking, referred to by Kevin and CaptainEEK? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, I’m sorry this is coming up now, I really should have made a public apology at the time, although I did explain to the best of my knowledge to ArbcCom, I do not comprehend what you mean by link tracking, but I have never done such and technical anyone can confirm that. Celestina007 (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

KevinL, an arbitrator claims that the "tool" in question [amounted] to "get someone to click an external link to a website/service that you control and then record their IP address".

I do not know what caused KevinL to reach such a conclusion but you ought to know more. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see a mistake there. I see a lie that was meant to scare the crap out of people, and succeeded too well.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, BilledMammal, CaptainEek, TrangaBellam, This is indeed quite disappointing, because I should have known better than to make such claims, I merely misinterpreted information and made a honest mistake even though it was my intention to be transparent and not cause panic, allow reiterate that I do not possess any tool related to CU & once again my apologies. S Marshall, I would never intentionally be dishonest. Celestina007 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Once again, I enquire about why did you write that the tool was provided by the govt. agency you work for? You were mistaken about who runs ACC? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• You say that the tools aren't secret and are available to everyone on the English Wikipedia, but you also say that these tools produced information that can only be shared with ARBCOM. I don't believe that both of these can be true, and at the moment I am in agreement with S Marshall. BilledMammal (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• It does look like a lie that succeeded to well. I would like to know more about the govt agency thing and I'd like to hear back from ArbCom as a whole on this issue, per the ArbCom member's information that they have emailed the rest about it. Oz\^InterAct 11:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Let's not raise expectations about what we'll get from Arbcom. Per statements above, they're considering secret evidence and they don't think this is particularly urgent, so I'd anticipate a characteristically inscrutable holding response and then nothing for a long time.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Right. Oz\^InterAct 12:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal, Inter, TrangaBellam, I think we are dealing with two topics simultaneously hence the confusion, there is the issue of me having secret tools of negating spam which I have explained aren’t secret but at best are clandestine and secondly there is the issue of me claiming to have access to CU tools. Allow me explain both, the first is there is no special secret tools as they all available on the English Wikipedia, having said, some are indeed very clandestine and may indeed require someone to make you aware about their existence that the reason I use phrases as "anti spam tools" all of which have a purpose. Now there is a more concerning matter which is me claiming to have access to CU data, no I do not, I misrepresented and misinterpreted information. I explained in entirety what transpired to ArbCom & TheresNoTime and I was admonished to be careful, it isn’t my intention to cause panic and I do take full responsibility because I should have looked for a broader venue to apologize to the community because I was indeed aware of the panic I inadvertently caused. I do my best to grow each day, I am not perfect but I try to do what is right. Celestina007 (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I enquire once again about why you claimed that the CU-esque tool (irrespective of the fact whether it is indeed CU-esque or not) was provided by the govt. agency you work for? You are evading scrutiny; please answer the particular question. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Even if I think that ACC tool (or whatever it is) is some backdoor-CU and choose to boast of it, I won't claim to have received it from a government agency, supposedly concerned with anti-fraud activities.

This is an abnormal claim to make - so I insist that you shed light on how you misinterpreted available information to make the above claim. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday you said that you have access to tools that provided you with information that you can only share with ArbCom - sensitive information.

This means that we are not dealing with two separate topics; the issue is your claims to have access to sensitive information, and using it to scare the crap out of people. BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the difference between secret and clandestine? There's also the aspect of you continually using information from the so-called "clandestine tools" to continually harass other users despite multiple warnings. Princess of Ara 12:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Princess of Ara: secret is something that is undisclosed, but doesn't need to be harmful or illegal. eg "Bob likes to fart in crowded elevators" is a secret. Whereas clandestine, by definition (and dictionary) is "something done or kept in secret, sometimes to conceal an illicit/illegal, improper, or unethical purpose." —usernamekiran (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Saying that one is running a clandestine tool provided by a government agency has exactly the same chilling effect as threatening to take legal action. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  No comment on the rest. Strong agreement on this. Especially with regards to IP editors which may be newbies, such strong and obtuse language is a massive conduct issue to me. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• There are a few different points to be noted here, within this thread there are diffs provided in which Celestina007 says:

  1: (Celestina007 has) a tool provided by government agency (which acts something similar to CU)

  2: a tool whose results can be shared with only ARBCOM (so its safe to assume either ARBCOM provided these tools, or arbcom is aware of its existence, and its use by Celestina007)

  3: I have access to certain tools which are clandestine and mostly reserved for serial anti UPE editors which aid me in nabbing unethical practices.[...] trusted system operators and functionaries entrusted me with anti-UPE tools.

  4: We have no proof/evidence supporting Celestina007's employment by any government agency.

  • Its either WMF/ARBCOM is breaching the trust of all the editors ("breach of trust" used here generally, not as a legal term), or Celestina007 is lying through their teeth.
  • It is possible Celestina007 have practised the external link concept, which is nothing less than a form of phishing.
  • It is also crystal-clear that Celestina007 has intimidated other editors with disclosing information of said tools.
  • We have no means of knowing if Celestina007 knows about some backdoor to CU, or some other tool, or if they are playing a good hand-bad hand with UPE.
  • I support immediately revoking NPP/R for a while (till this is investigated properly), and permanently revoking autopatrolled, IPBE, and two-factor authentication tester so that they can't lie further saying "look, I have these special rights. I am a part of wikipedia's special team". —usernamekiran (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

    I genuinely thought Celestina007 was a sysop until this thread came about. Whoops. casualdejekyll 18:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  • PS: I have no objection with indeff glocking Celestina007 after reading their further rambling. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• I've noticed there's a lot of established editors coming into this case to voice their opinions, and also TrangaBellam attacking another editor within the thread. Looking at their particular behaviour, it seems to be a lot of emotional investment coming to the fore here. I would like to suggest everyone take a few deep breaths before continuing the discussion. Oz\^InterAct 12:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Inter, and this my fault because I failed to explain to the broader community that I certainly didn’t have any CU right and I merely misunderstood and misinterpreted information. Celestina007 (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

(Sorry, Inter, but this is quite grave.) @Celestina007: I am struggling to understand here, with no success. On 15 March, you wrote on your user page: Side note: For the sake of transparency as of Friday 11th of March 2022 I’d like to state that technically I can perform a Checkuser [if I wanted to] Due to an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for. The tool works in the same manner as Checkuser does. Let it be noted that I have never used this feature except on my alternate account Celestina007 (alt) in order to “test” its veracity. Note that this feature cuts across multiple websites. Furthermore, asides the test I performed on my alternate account to see just how it works, I would not ever use this feature on Wikipedia for any reason as I deem it highly unethical. One of the edits noted by the reporting editor above (and please note that the number of edits an IP has is fairly meaningless; the same person may well have edited numerous times from other IPs, quite apart from its having no bearing on the validity of their argument whether this was that person's first or 2,000th edit to Wikipedia, I would expect you to know this) was about 4 hours later on the same day, when you changed I belong to a small group of trusted editors who possess access to very sensitive non public information this allows me to link an IP address to a specific registered account created through ACC & can tell when an editor is editing via a VPN or an open proxy. to I belong to a small group of trusted editors who possess access to very sensitive non public information which allows me to tell when an editor is editing via a VPN or an open proxy or engaging in block evasion. Which is it? The ACC tool; some other Wikipedia tool; or a government-created tool that works similarly to checkuser to which you have access through your work? I am afraid I also find your explanation regarding your use of the word "clandestine" in the warning to Reading Beans (as you may know or many not know, I have access to certain tools which are clandestine and mostly reserved for serial anti UPE editors which aid me in nabbing unethical practices) less than persuasive. Clandestine means "secret". It does not mean "arcane", that is, little known, or hard to use. Your story changes too often.

Moreover, it is very clear that your mention of this or these mysterious tool(s), whether or not you have exaggerated their capabilities, was intended to intimidate fellow editors, to have a chilling effect, as S Marshall puts it, to scare the crap out of people. (Maybe that's overstated and your intention was only to scare them enough to do what you wanted.) We don't need Arbcom here, much less an appeal to the WMF. We have a policy against threatening legal action because of its chilling effect on fellow editors; the threat to access another editor's personally identifying information has a similar intentional chilling effect and is incompatible with a collaborative editing community. You repeatedly made such chilling statements. I see here no assurances that you recognise how wrong this was. I maintain that your account should be indefinitely blocked. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, Indeed it’s serious I’m grateful for the opportunity to explain myself. So Thank you, all I do seek is a chance to explain myself, at the time I possessed both Access to ACC that was why I said that I belonged to a small group of people had access to private data, I was referencing ACC. ACC only allowed me to link IP addresses to accounts which I expressly stated that i never divulged as ACC admonished us never to discuss ACC business outside ACC. When I mentioned that I had access to CU which was a honest mistake I did it thinking I was being transparent not knowing I was making a premature statement that wasn’t the case at all. I honestly do not know how else to express my apology. It was a honest mistake that wouldn’t ever repeat itself. I strive to be a better person each day all I’m asking for is a chance to do better next time. Celestina007 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This person still has not directly addressed the "government agency" claim, what we've gotten is a bunch of smacks-of-desperation platitudes. The account should be locked until this is sorted out. Zaathras (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, Hey, the reason is this isn’t a new case and was reported to Arbcom a long ago who reached out to me and I explained things to them. Celestina007 (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Explain it here. Zaathras (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, you're new here but they don't need to nor should they. Celestina has the right to keep their employment status protected and secret. Arbcom is aware of their employment and the exact tool used and we trust them to manage that properly. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Ixtal, they're the one who made a grandiose claim, there's no concern with "outing" to expect a reasonable explanation. As for the "you're new here", been here 4 years, so, don't address me again unless you plan to drop the ad hominem (linked for your convenience) and be less condescending, thanks. Zaathras (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

My deepest apologies, Zaathras! I assumed from your edit count that you were only here for a short time. In any case, while they made provide an explanation if willing, they do not need to specify for which government agency they work for or what is the scope of their employment. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 22:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel like Celestina007 needs to clarify and elaborate more on what they meant exactly when they claim to have access to special tooling. Here are some questions that I think needs to be answered:

• What information were you misunderstanding and misinterpreting?
• What exactly did you mean when you used the word clandestine?
• What specific tool(s) were you referring to when you claimed to be clandestine and mostly reserved for serial anti UPE editors which aid me in nabbing unethical practices?
• What specific tool(s) were you referring to when you claimed to be developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization [you] work for?
• What specific tool(s) were you referring to when you claimed to allow link[ing] an IP address to a specific registered account created through ACC & [telling] when an editor is editing via a VPN or an open proxy?
• What is the small group of trusted editors who possess access to very sensitive non public information? 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 13:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• 0xDeadbeef, I was referencing ACC, at the time I was a member of a small group that had access to private data but I never divulged any personal data as I clearly mentioned. Celestina007 (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Celestina007, we want to see all questions answered please. Please take a moment to clarify. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 13:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• 0xDEADBEEF most definitely I would, The information I was misinterpreting was I thought i had a tool that worked like CU thus I wrote on my UP that I had a tool that worked like CU when in the end it was nothing like CU and a very unwise statement seeing as I certainly do not know how CU works. The answer to your second question is something I’ve explained to ArbCom but do not mind sharing via mail. The answer to your third question is anyone in ACC than handles a request knows the IP of the user they created an account for by default which I clearly stated that I would not and never share, The answer to your fourth question is ACC itself. I really am sorry I caused panic it wasn’t my intention. Celestina007 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  So how do you reconcile an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for with I was referencing ACC? This isn't a case of good-faith misunderstanding—there's no alternative but that one or the other of your statements is a deliberate lie. ‑ Iridescent 13:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• In light of Celestina007's responses here, switching to support indef. ("Indef" in the sense of "for the indefinite period it takes for us to be convinced this won't happen again", not "infinite and forever".) It's impossible to reconcile I’d like to state that technically I can perform a Checkuser [if I wanted to] Due to an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for. and I have access to certain tools which are clandestine on the one hand, with Now there is a more concerning matter which is me claiming to have access to CU data, no I do not and as for me having "secret tools" that is not true on the other. (She's also clearly lying with either asides the test I performed on my alternate account to see just how it works, I would not ever use this feature on Wikipedia for any reason as I deem it highly unethical or using my anti UPE/spam tools, certain things which are relatively worrisome about you did pop of, as the two are inherently contradictory.) Either Celestina007 is deliberately lying in order to harass and intimidate users to whom she's taken a dislike which is completely unacceptable; or she's using some kind of phishing tool which is grounds for an immediate and permanent siteban; or she's genuine in her assertion that she accidentally typed "technically I can perform a Checkuser", "I belong to a small group of trusted editors who possess access to very sensitive non public information", "using my anti UPE/spam tools, certain things which are relatively worrisome about you did pop of" et al in which case we're looking at a CIR issue so glaring that she shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a project which relies on the ability of its editors to assess the reliability of sources and summarize them accurately. (I'd also add that in this instance, it makes not the slightest difference what Arbcom or the WMF says, so we don't need to wait for them. There are circumstances when Arbcom and T&S have legitimate grounds to override a community consensus and block based on secret evidence; there are no circumstances when Arbcom and T&S have legitimate grounds to override a community consensus and unblock based on secret evidence.*) ‑ Iridescent 13:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  *Except in a couple of very specialist use cases that don't apply here, where information pertinent to the appeal is unsuitable for public discussion. Chapter and verse is here as to the very limited circumstances in which community-enacted blocks are appealable to Arbcom.

• Iridescent, it’s like I said I use tools and scripts interchangeably and no nothing of the sort would ever happen again and no I do not lie. For example when I told a user that I used a tool and something odd popped of I was referencing this tool I saw certain overlaps that I wasn’t comfortable with. Celestina007 (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think there has been enough apologies in the thread. I would understand that all of us wanted more clarifications to the claims that you made at this point. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 13:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Celestina007:, you said that you used a tool that provided information that you can only share with ArbCom. That tool cannot provide such information. BilledMammal (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Celestina007: your statements are becoming incoherent now. I recommend you to stop making up stuff, and start speaking truthfully. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

usernamekiran, you can chastise me all you want, I know I deserve it for causing panic but you wouldn’t do is call me a liar or dishonest I’m taking that from you. I bend my back over and try as much as I can to be transparent please do not call me a liar. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Celestina007, a simple question. Was your claim to be using "an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for" truthful? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called a liar, don't tell lies. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you by multiple people, your stories are mutually contradictory; you can't possibly believe that the MediaWiki interface was "developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for". ‑ Iridescent 13:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not me, not Iridescent, its your own statements thats calling you a liar. To follow-up with AndyTheGrump, you still havent explained about "a (government) tool that can cut across multiple websites". Or are you still thinking about ACC? —usernamekiran (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• At this point I support an Indef (remember indef is not permanent), or at least a complete block from mainspace and interaction with users (would like to maintain their access to this board for now.) Celestina007 keeps asking for a chance to explain, but is refusing to take it. And it's hard to believe from all those comments that there's a misunderstanding here, there's just deliberately chosen and edited words that are not at all being explained and Celestina007 is at this point just becoming contradictory, evasive and outright refusing to explain. Until the community is fully satisfied with their responses, they should be outright blocked and all rights removed. I really have a hard time believing there is a positive outcome to this as it's not a single instance but what appears to be a sustained narrative. Canterbury Tail talk 13:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Celestina007, you either have access to "an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for", or you are a liar. There is no third option. I support indef block here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment — I’m not how else to say this, I have never stated that wikimedia software was developed in the organization I work for, what I stated was a tool that works like CU was developed & this was a very unwise comment from me seeing as I have never been part of the CU team. In bid to be as transparent as can be I put penned this on my UP and immediately Floquenbeam & TheresNoTime were amongst the first to correctly chastise me and what followed was an enquiry from ArbCom in this tool and how it worked. I made a honest premature statement not to brag, but to be transparent. I have never and will never divulge personal information. When I mentioned that I was a member of a small team that had access to private data I was referencing ACC, as I was a member at at that time. Celestina007 (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  You are still ignoring the big question that you have been asked multiple times. Explain "an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for"! You will be indefinitely blocked for sure if you do not address that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee The evasion is intentional. They are not inclined to engage with the question since the ArbCom is (apparently) aware of everything since long. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  She made the claim in public, so she can confirm or deny it in public. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Enough is enough; I now support an indef in the sense of "forever", not "undefined" as you're clearly just wasting our time. If you're going to lie, at least tell lies that are vaguely convincing. You were making the same "I have access to a secret tool" claim yesterday, a full two months after your conversation with Floquenbeam. ‑ Iridescent 13:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The government agency stuff looks like either fibbing or a serious problem with privacy for Wikipedia users. Personally I suspect the former, but you haven't done yourself any favours here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to be a bit of a Sunday pile on, which I'm uncomfortable with. They are many many types of network utilities ranging from the very simple to the very complex, that use AI, that are available to anybody who can afford them and can use them correctly. Wikipedia and wikimedia doesn't have a monopoly on any tooling, nor they're use and never will have. scope_creep^Talk 14:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  So does Celestina007 have access to "an external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization I work for" or not? Can you answer that, User:scope_creep, seeing as she won't? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously not. A tool may exist. If it does, it cannot be anything remotely resembling CheckUser as originally claimed. MarioGom (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  That would make it incompatible with Celestine007's claim that she is not lying. And that is why we need an answer from her, not from other people speculating. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef block per Iridescent above. 'Indef' as in 'forever'. The least-worst case here is that Celestina007 is incapable of distinguishing truth from falsehood. Wikipedia can manage well enough without such contributors, regardless of their alleged 'UPE detecting powers'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef, per Canterbury Tail and Iridescent. I note that yesterday they said that they had access to a tool that revealed sensitive information that could only be shared with ArbCom, and now they are saying that the tool is the Editor Interaction Analyser. This explanation is inconsistent; either the tool wasn't the Editor Interaction Analyser, or it was and they were lying about the information it provided to scare the crap out of people. BilledMammal (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Oppose indef, per discussion below. BilledMammal (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal, the tool in question was Editor Interaction Analyser and what I meant from that was the report was one I could only share with ArbCom. Celestina007 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Why? Interaction-analyzer reports are shared in every SPI courtesy the default template. Doesn't it appear that you were lying about the information it provided to scare the crap out of people? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

lol. Which "Editor Interaction Analyser tool" are you talking about Celestina007? Can you provide a link here?—usernamekiran (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

They linked it above, it's this one. BilledMammal (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

lol, lmao, rofl. And what happens when I share the results with someone else than arbcom? Say, SPI case page? —usernamekiran (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• @TheresNoTime: One of the edit summaries in edits listed above indicates that you emailed Celestina about the claim that she has government-made tools for the purpose of tracking down UPE editors. Is there any context missing from this discussion that might be relevant? The content of your email to Celestina seems like it could be potentially relevant. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhawk10: I did email Celestina regarding the claims, and informed ArbCom of my concerns. I have nothing further to add to this discussion though — TNT (talk • she/her) 16:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• support global lock not just enwiki block. As per their claim, "the goverment devloped tool can cut through multiple websites". An eternal glock while we are at it. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds like an overreaction to me. It seems very unlikely that such a tool actually exists, and far more likely that Celestina007 was just lying in an effort to bully and intimidate. This is obviously unacceptable conduct here, hence my support for a block, but it would be for other projects to decide if they're willing to make allowances should she want to edit there. I wouldn't want to set a precedent for globally banning people just for being disruptive on one project; a surprising number of people who get kicked off en-wiki go on to be productive editors elsewhere in the WMF ecosystem. (There's also the purely practical matter that we can't issue global locks on this board; only the stewards or in extremis the WMF can do that.) ‑ Iridescent 14:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  And even if such a tool exists, a global lock won't be of any use. Their employer can just open a new account if it at all needs a Wikimedia account to operate etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Usernamekiran: I don't think that's in scope for ANI – we don't really !vote on locks outside of global ban discussions. If you believe there is a security risk (as opposed to a behavioural issue) here – and it seems fairly transparent to me that there isn't, since that would either require a massive conspiracy involving Celestina, Arbcom, and people with very privileged access to WMF infrastructure (Iridescent's scenario 1), or that a government employee with very high-level access hasn't gotten arrested yet despite disclosing extremely sensitive details on their Wikipedia userpage (Iridescent's scenario 2) – you'll have to go through m:SRG. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  yeah, I know they are just making the stuff up, and process for glocks. But there claims, and activity were so outrageous, I felt a block would be a little lenient. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Usernamekiran you are aware that global locks have a specific list of use cases, none of which Celestina in anyway meets, and she also does not meet the global block standards. This would also be the wrong forum for such. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  yes. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef Until Celestina007 can answer reasonable, basic questions from the community about their conduct they should not be editing. AusLondonder (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Holy... Okay, I think I have it straight. The government stuff was a simple phishing-ish tool that Kevin mentioned above. It was dealt with by functionaries and arbs, and Cel was properly educated/warned about it all, so it's no longer an issue to worry about. I think both Cel and arbs should explain themselves better about this (without causing Cel problems with her employer but also without leaving any concerns in the community). The rest of her warnings were regarding ACC which she misrepresented and wrongly implied to others that she could use it to do scary stuff which she was not at all allowed to do. She has been suspended from ACC; so I think that is not a concern anymore either. If there is a way to make the suspension permanent, and note somewhere about the history for the future, that should be done. Finally, there seems to be a pattern of trying to scare users she suspects of UPE by exaggerated claims about what she can do (be it government phishing tool, ACC, editor interaction, page logs, page history, or whatever else). I think this is the concern that remains unresolved. I would suggest that she should not be a mentor to anybody while these issues persist. I would also urge that her VTRS permissions be revoked while these concerns are not adequately addressed and long in the past. I leave it to admins to judge whether or not it would be helpful to remove other advanced permissions so she can not use them to intimidate newbies. To me, it seems more like a communication problem. What's clear is that she should not be intimidating newbies intentionally or unintentionally no matter how noble her intentions; I think she has enough track-record in the anti-UPE and NPP departments to establish that her intentions are indeed noble. I think she was intimidating and/or exaggerating to the point of lying to intimidate suspected UPEs and she should be reprimanded for that.
  I think the extent of her lies toward the community has been in trying to resolve this without admitting that she indeed lies to/intimidates suspected UPE editors in an effort to make her investigations more efficient. I think infinite indef would be an overreaction (although it wasn't while the community was genuinely suspecting we had the Nigerian Intelligence surveillance watching over us). I think the community should give her another chance if she comes clean about her tactics with suspected UPEs, and I urge her to do so. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  If she comes clean then I would strike my !vote, though I would support an indefinite ban from holding advanced permissions, and an indefinite topic ban from UPE and SPI investigations, appealable in six months, as she has demonstrated that the community cannot currently trust her with such permissions, or in such topic areas. BilledMammal (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  (I consider Cel a friend, so I may be biased.) ACC, VRT and mentorship should be removed because the issues presented have a direct bearing on them. I think she does good work with her permissions and it's not the permissions but language that she uses that has created a chilling atmosphere. That is why I don't advocate removing her perms. UPE and SPI are not permissions and removing permissions don't hinder those. Most socks and UPEs are not investigated but simply stumbled across. And investigations after stumbling across are so vague and undefined processes, I don't know how a ban from them is supposed to work, though it is absolutely clear that she needs to do better in handling suspected UPEs. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  The topic ban from SPI and UPE would require her to not open cases or investigate editors she suspects of being socks or UPE's; she would be required to leave them to other editors. Socking and undisclosed paid editing is unacceptable, but so are her tactics, and we can't tolerate them just because they were aimed at editors who might (but might not) be socks or UPE's.

  The permissions is because she intimidates new editors by claiming to have access to advanced permissions and sensitive information; a long list of permissions helps convince new editors, who don't know what these permissions actually involve, that she is telling the truth. BilledMammal (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  I understand the logic. Personally, I fear it maybe counterproductive, as removal of advanced permissions is always demoralising and maybe a bit punitive without direct connection, especially, if the alternative, that she do better of her own accord has as much chance of success. At the end of the day, it is about communication with new users, and the only permission one needs to do that is an ability to edit. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Usedtobecool: FYI, Celestina's access to ACC was removed back in March. stwalkerster (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Would it be unreasonable to ask why access was removed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  [141] Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)To comment more substantially, I'd be entirely unsurprised if an American law enforcement agency (such as the FBI) were to have a tool within its anti-fraud division. Seeing as there are three Wikimedia server farms hosted in the United States and the FBI is known to subpoena companies for information regarding who accessed particular web resources at a particular time, the existence of a tool to connect IP addresses to edits seems technically feasible. Technology could even be based on something like an externally hosted edit-monitoring workflow that stalks the recent changes feed and triggers externally hosted edit filters; it seems more likely than not to me that at least some sort of technology like this exists. That the FBI may have been involved in investigating paid editing schemes also makes me not want to dismiss this sort of stuff as fake off-hand.
  At the same time, there are plenty of false claims of IP tracing that are made. Within the past month, I emailed Trust and Safety regarding a less-than-reliable online website that claimed to have performed an IP trace on an editor in order to confirm their identity. Trust and Safety indicated that they believed the claims were simply made up. There are even people who have claimed that they have traced my IP to areas that I simply have never been to. I think either that the claim of an external tool being present and known is possible in this case, but I'm not quite convinced either way unless Trust and Safety can clarify. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  We know for certain that US law enforcement agencies have tools monitoring Wikipedia; the WMF has taken them to court (and lost) over it. Since in the unlikely event that Celestina007 is an NSA agent trying to infiltrate Wikipedia she'd not be boasting about it on assorted talkpages, I think we can safely assume she isn't. ‑ Iridescent 14:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Re: "There are even people who have claimed that they have traced my IP to areas that I simply have never been to". Ha, that's nothing! Even my ISP sometimes traces my IP address to areas I've never been ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Fair, though I assume your ISP isn't trying to frame you as a part of a grand conspiracy theory. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• A thought. Surely we don't have the power to impose an infinite indef, do we? That would need the power to bind a future community consensus to today's decision with no ability to reach a different decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
  • We don't have the power to bind the future community but we can tell them what we think. Levivich 14:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I'd hope that 'future community consensus' would take such statements into account when considering an unblock. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  No, we don't, that is extremely clear. Nor would it be logical to do so - either misconduct is so clear that no future community would consider unblocking (so any "special indef" is unneeded) or it's not at that level, in which case trying to change the rules seems morally dubious. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  I interpret the phrase to mean SBAN. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Which a future consensus can overturn just like any other community sanction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. Like everything else. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear what outcome this is headed for, so can people please refrain from posting here unless they have anything new to say regarding this editor? There's no need to pile-on with the me-too comments or the comments about other issues. Remember that the section is about a real, living person. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose ban (but not other measures/restrictions) I'm reasonably confident that most of the statements Celestina made about her access to secret tools and information were...to put it kindly...overstatements to intimidate newer editors. But Celestina has also made a lot of productive contributions to the project. When her early behavior in how she approached new editors was criticized, she took that criticism onboard and made changes to her behavior. She has worked closely with a number of administrators and her actions appeared to have their support, so unless any of them come forward to say that she continued to do/say certain things after being told privately to stop, it seems to me like she didn't think it was a problem because it was in service to protect the project from UPE. I think if Celestina is told to stop (insert specific behaviors), she will. Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  This [142] was from yesterday. After being in contact with ArbCom over the matter, apparently. Doesn't look like stopping to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am fairly certain at this point that she's simply using standard tools we all use. The use of "clandestine" has to be an exaggeration or miscommunication. The claim about results being able to be shared only with arbcom has to be a gross exaggeration to the point of factual inaccuracy if indeed that is the case, as in truth, it's a case of WP:NEEDTOKNOW at best. And that is what Cel needs to come clean about. If she has access to tools that provide results only arbcom is able to know, the community needs to be made aware. I would imagine we would have a lot of questions for arbcom and others in the know. If she doesn't, she needs to say now that she doesn't, that she was not being entirely forthcoming with users she investigates, and that she will do better in the future. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  In reading again, it appears she wrote only arbcom can know when in fact she meant the information could not be shared with the user in question (NEEDTOKNOW). So, appears to me, not a lie but another miscommunication. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Usedtobecool: that is not the case at all. SPI case page has a section for users to defend themselves, there is an option to notify the users about SPIs. And an editor who claims to be "beacon of hope for 6 years" making such a "miscommunication" is a little bit difficult for me to digest. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  There is a reason it is optional. We only do it if we need the input. For example, someone claiming I am your sock. In most cases, we can do a public SPI but try to not let the suspects know. But there are many cases, where SPIs are done on admin's talk, admin's emails, arb complaints, etc. depending on how much we can disclose publicly. We don't want UPE sockfarms knowing their tells. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• If Celestina's alleged secret government tools turn out to not exist, then I think that a warning to Celestina not to misrepresent themself as a government agent. The fact that we're thinking about an indef over comments made in March that appear to have already been addressed is a bit odd to me. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive. If there is a more narrowly tailored way to stop Celestina from giving the appearance of legal threats than an indef (and I'm fairly certain there is one), an indef is simply not the way to go. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  The issue is not masquerading as a government agent. The issue is persistent intimidation of new editors by falsely claiming to have access to special tools etc., including as late as yesterday. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  My point is to say that if the user is given a final warning on this sort of thing that we might achieve the preventative purpose while allowing the user to positively contribute to other areas of Wikipedia (such as content). Indefs are very blunt. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Can we slow down? Celestina007, I think you need to come entirely clean about everything, as your comments here do not appear to fully explain the situation and your past remarks, and don't seem to fully address the community's concerns. If the community does get a satisfactory response to all this, I don't see a need to block an otherwise productive editor (I'm assuming, I don't know Celestina007), so we don't need to rush with the "indef block" pile-ons. But we really do need to get a full understanding of what's going on and what Celestina007 meant by her past comments, and some apologies issued where appropriate. Endwise (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm interested in who the reporting IP is or was. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef block per AndyTheGrump, Iridescent and others. Celestina's comments and conduct are very troubling. Even if she doesn't have any access to some "secret checkuser", her behavior of scaring fellow users has no place here on Wikipedia. It shows us she is not here to build an encyclopedia. - Darwinek (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef block I don't think it even matters if the tool actually exists in any form at all. Even if the entire thing is a lie, to use that claim to intimidate and harass other editors is entirely a WP:NOTHERE problem and the user is clearly not here to actually work on making an encyclopedia in that case. And, of course, if the tool in any form does exist, even just as the external website trick to get someone's IP address, then my indef block vote is x100 even stronger. Silverseren^C 18:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef block Well this was an interesting random thread to read through. This feels like one of those cases where it's not the crime, it's the coverup that makes me doubt Celestina's benefits to this project. People rightfully noticed what she was doing and told her to knock it off... and instead of just coming clean and admitting her mistakes, we've gotten a full bingo card's worth of excuses, deflections, and counterattacks without accepting the issues people have with her behavior, right up to the great "I have a disability and cannot be held responsible for my behavior" free space in the center. Especially after reading through the 2021 ANI thread it seems clear Celestina has a battleground mentality that is incompatible with collaborative, good faith editing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• I have been away from wiki all weekend and so only now am seeing this thread, including the ping Iridescent gave me early on. I will admit I have more skimmed than read this conversation, so please take that into account when reading my comments. When this was initially brought to ArbCom, I was as alarmed as I see many in this thread are at the moment. Upon hearing the full context - which to the best of my skim still hasn't been presented here though it's also not substantially beyond what has been discussed here at times and because of the expectation of ArbCom confidentiality are not mine to share - I became considerably less alarmed. Instead I saw an editor doing her best to combat UPE and exaggerating slightly for status, which while human and understandable was also something that needed to cease. Another arb reached a similar conclusion and drafted a response which a number of arbs agreed to and was then sent. I thought the message conveyed to Celestina clearly what needed to stop - and from what she wrote elsewhere in this thread she seems to have heard it. I gather that she has not ceased making such claims and has said something similar in the last few days. It seems like in this case that tool is the editor interaction analyzer and so it's deeply unfortunate she framed it that way because it offered a clear tie-in the the previous more incendiary claim. Self-evidently the full extent of our warning was not adequately expressed or not adequately heard. And so now we find ourselves in this discussion.
  I can see from my skim a number of editors have made posts that suggest some combination of Celestina, ArbCom, and/or the WMF must be a villain here. ArbCom gave a courtesy explanation of our understanding of the situation to the foundation, but this has basically never been on their radar and there is not any, to my knowledge, spread of any data from Wikipedia that would be covered by something like the m:ANPDP (the document all checkusers and oversighters sign). So I would take the foundation off the hook here. I also think ArbCom acted as the community would like - it took serious claims seriously, acted quickly to ascertain the facts, and closed the loop in a relatively reasonable timeframe (about a week - which I won't say is fast, but is on the upperend of ArbCom speed once it's determined there is not a crisis). The fact that the tools in question turned out to either be wiki tools, like the editor interaction tool, in common knowledge among projectspace regulars, or common webtools accessible to anyone is why ArbCom went from very alarmed to disapproving but not alarmed in the way that we did. If the community doesn't like that, well that's fair enough and Arbs should consider that feedback and act accordingly (differently) in the future. But, from my individual perspective, it's important that the feedback be based on what really happened and not an imagined worst case scenario, triggered by the alarming comments made (which to be clear I understand - I too was alarmed at first). Instead I think there is no villain to be found, just a number of editors, including in this thread, doing their best if imperfectly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Barkeep49, did your 'skimming' of this thread include the post of 07:37, 8 May 2022 made by fellow ArbCom member L235? [143] Because that post seems to be describing something else entirely, stating that the "tool" in question seems to amount to "get someone to click an external link to a website/service that you control and then record their IP address". L235 follows this description up with assurances that this is a false alarm, don't worry about this. ArbCom will have a chat with those involved to clear up any loose ends". L235 is not describing the use of publicly-available wiki tools, but is instead describing something that appears to me to be the illegitimate use of Wikipedia facilities to help obtain data which is intentionally hidden to all but checkusers: the IP address of a named account holder. Frankly, I find L235's complacency about this scenario more than a little troublesome, since it would appear to constitute a breach of privacy contrary to the Wikimedia Terms of Use. Even if L235 is incorrect (as seems quite possible), and Celestina007 wes not engaging in such subterfuge, we are surely entitled to clarification as to whether ArbCom would endorse such behaviour on the project from other contributors, and in what circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Andy. I'm not sure why you put skimming in ' ' when you use the tq (my favorite as well) to quote other stuff, but yes my skim did include a read of both L235's comments (and also Captain Eek's). L235 and I are describing the same thing. There are common webtool accessible to anyone (my words) that can record their IP address (L235's words) when clicked on. My understanding is that this tool use was all hypothetical - that is Celestina never actually used it on anyone except herself. I can't really speak for ArbCom about to clarification as to whether ArbCom would endorse such behaviour on the project from other contributors, and in what circumstances. But speaking for myself, if this wasn't just used by Celestina testing things onhself that's a different scenario all together. But I am not aware of any such evidence. Do you have a diff that suggests it was? Because if so I'd love to see it, as it would definitely change my read on this because I am not ok with anyone harvesting private info about Wikipedia editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Break, response

• Comment — BilledMammal, Boing! said Zebedee, usernamekiran, Iridescent, AusLondonder, TrangaBellam & the entirety of the project has a right to be angry. It is true that I have avoided the question of the government agency tool and I’d address that now, for starters I have never lied and would never lie, it is against my very core, if by saying this I get indef blocked then I’d leave knowing I did so with a clear conscience. What started all this was ironically in bid to be transparent and let the community know what it is I can do, i have addressed the issue of ACC but would still address it further after addressing the government agency tool. What did happen was a department where I worked in showed me a tool, which when clicked upon showed the IP address of the scammer they had been tracking for a while, I didn’t buy it so I tested it using my alternate account and it showed my IP. Ignorantly I immediately penned it down on my UP (Letting the community know that I have tested it on my alternate account but would never ever do it to anyone else as I deemed it unethical) I also mistook it as though it was how CU worked. Immediately TheresNoTime immediately removed part of the information from my UP and queried me and so did Floquenbeam who chastised me and told me to remove all of such information from my UP, I did but left the part which stated "I belong to a small part of editors who can link IP's to accounts but would never divulge personal information" which for record sake I have never done, (I was referencing ACC) once again Floquenbeam emailed yet again and correctly told to remove such information from my UP and told me it was a bad idea to put such information. Note that I did all this for the sake of transparency if I have ever betrayed the trust of the community and technical editor can go through my edits and spot any anomalies, I have never divulged nor betrayed the trust of the community and my track record in anti spam, article creations and in all of my editing proves this. Furthermore, what followed was an email by ArbCOM asking me to explain how this so called tool worked and I explained it to them, they weren’t too happy with me because they had received emails pertaining the claim I made, I was admonished to tread with caution and watch what I say, but by making comments such as "clandestine tools" "special tools" which I made erroneously, I had falling afoul of my promise to be cautious and select my words carefully. I am but a work in my progress and such comments are not intended to scare anyone, although after an introspective analysis I can see how such comments are chilling and intimidating which isn’t my intention I promise you all, Like I said it wasn’t smart to say I could perform a CU as clearly the tool and CU are not alike. I have no possession of any special tools, the tools i make mention of are majorly scripts but yes in some cases they are real tools available to all but may require navigation or guidance in order to locate them. In the last 6 years I have been a beckon of light and hope, not just at negating unethical practices but also at the Teahouse, New page reviewing and article creations. This one mistake i made is provoking and rightfully so, I should have gone to a broad venue to explain everything long before now but to be honest I wasn’t sure where or how and predominantly I was indeed scared. That is the truth in its entirety. I’m sorry to you all I caused panic it wasn’t my intention. My core is transparency and moving forward not only do I promise to do better but I promise to always let the community know the truth upfront even if it be at my detriment. Thank you all. I really am sorry is all I can say but I promise you I have never and will never betray a community that has put so much trust in me, had I let the community know about all this earlier I wouldn’t suffer this today. Thank you all for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you Celestina007, I think you are trying to explain in good faith. I would appreciate an explanation about your comment on Reading Beans' talk page; why did you say that you had information (from the Editor Interaction Analyser) that you could only share with ArbCom? And could you also list the tools you were referring to here? BilledMammal (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  BilledMammal, thank you for giving me a chance to explain. To let you know that I never lie please in your spare time see this that entry was on the 29th of April. To answer your question, I have a medical condition that makes me interpret words as sounds, Infact I wasn’t aware it was a real medical condition until Timtrent told me about it and my doctor confirmed it thus to me every editor has a manner in which they sound. So for a while now the editor ReadingBeans had sounded like the topic banner Nigerian editor named Nnadigoodluck, I proceeded to use Editor Interaction Analyser and juxtapose their edits, they were some significant overlaps which was a source of concern to me. I proceeded to send my reports to Arbcom, which they can confirm I did using Editor Interaction Analyser tool only. Anybody in ArnCom can confirm that and I allow for ArbCOM to redistribute this e-mail to verify all that I have said. Celestina007 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is somewhat off the point, but makes me interpret words as sounds isn't "a medical condition"; it's called subvocalization and about 80% of people do the same while reading. (The expensive "speed reading" courses one sees advertised primarily consist of just training people not to 'hear' the words as they read.) ‑ Iridescent 16:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Something still feels off even after this explanation. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am not a doctor; I interpreted this as synesthesia when it was explained to me, and suggested this to Celestina007 since it reminded me of someone in my family who sees musical notes as colours. I make no comment on any of this thread, though reserve the right to do so later. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  ArbCom, can you confirm that Celestina007 contacted you with an Editor Interaction Analyser report concerning Reading Beans? If ArbCom can confirm this, then I think is largely resolved - it wasn't an attempt to intimidate, just a bizarre belief that Editor Interaction Analyser reports contain sensitive information.

  I do have some concerns about communication issues, but those can be discussed separately. BilledMammal (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Celestina007 I actually have two questions, but you tend to only answer the first part of what someone asks, so I'll stick to one: There's something unaddressed here. Several commenters have expressed concerns that regardless of nature of your claims to access to special data sources or their truthfulness, you have (potentially without intending to) used them to intimidate editors and create a chilling effect. How do you plan to address this going forward? -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ferret, Moving forward I would be mindful of my tone. I think I’m oblivious of how chilling I sound and it’s something I see now and to be honest I’d cease and desist from using words like "special tool" or anything of the sort. I grow daily and treat each ANI I’ve ever been in as a learning curve. I never would have imagined a day where in bid to be transparent it would backfire on me this way but moving I’d be choose my words extremely carefully. Celestina007 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Celestina007 Now my second question, which is actually to prompt you to answer something BilledMammal already asked. What are the tool(s) you're mentioning at Wikipedia:Death_of_undisclosed_paid_editing#For_Veteran_Anti_UPE_Editors? -- ferret (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ferret, Oh my! There are a plethora of them, say for example you wanted to know what articles a user with NPR rights are reviewing you use this quite difficult to navigate. For AFC you use this. There are actually a number of them depending on what it is you want to achieve but those two especially the one for NPP is quite difficult to find. Celestina007 (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  (after edit conflict) Celestina007, I think you are probably mistaken about the scope of the tool you were shown at work. It would be a pretty trivial task to identify who within your organisation made a particular edit, a rather more difficult task to identify who within an ISP had made it, an even more difficult task (with the difficulty depending on exactly how the Internet works in that country) to determine who in your country had made it, but a very difficult task for anyone but the most resource-hungry intelligence services in the world to determine who had made it if the edit didn't even pass through your country. Unless of course there was phishing involved as described above, which requires the user involved to cooperate unknowingly. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Celestina007: I am happy to put my support for any indef block on hold now that there's an apparent good-faith effort to address community concerns, pending further discussion. My major concern is regarding the contradictory statements and the issue of trust at this point. AusLondonder (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

AusLondonder, thank you for your faith in me. Please ask me any questions and I’d answer. Celestina007 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• I support an indef, despite the explanations I don't see how this editor can be trusted any longer. Fram (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Are we to assume that Celestina was acting alone? Meaning, on one hand, could there be others doing what Celestina has allegedly done (esp. if these mystery tools are indeed in the public domain, and not top secret spook stuff), but they just haven't been found out yet? But also, were/are others involved in authorising, condoning or facilitating this, and if so what needs to be done about their role... and how high does all this go? (Regarding the latter point, I note that the OP chose for some reason to whistleblow on a public forum, rather than take this somewhere behind closed doors — why might that be?) It looks like a major breach of trust. How will the trust be restored? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  @DoubleGrazing you are currently accusing every functionary on the list - it doesn't matter if you do so directly or in a passive voice "are we to assume". If you want to make accusations on the ANI board, whether as a separate discussion or as part of another's, you are required to list evidence. Please list evidence that indicates that functionaries are "condoning, authorising, or facilitating" action comparable to the plain-text reading of C's and OP's statements. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am not accusing anyone, I am raising the question whether this is just an isolated incident, and pointing out the possibility that it might not be. If what is being debated, at least implicitly, is whether a particular editor can be trusted going forward, then is it unreasonable to ask whether the breach of trust is limited to only that one editor, or could there be a wider issue to address? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, not only are you casting aspersions against functionaries as noted by Nosebagbear you are also casting aspersions against me, What do you mean by "Was Celestina Acting Alone"? that would mean I did something wrong when I just explained in detail that I have done nothing wrong and ArbCOM has been aware of my miscommunication problem (this one) since March? Please make your point politely. Celestina007 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Let me offer a partial good faith explanation: there is something lost in translation. Celestina007 is not the most effective communicator. Add insufficient technical literacy to the picture and there may be a plausible explanation . Anti-spam is a highly technical field. I think a more mundane explanation of "special tools" is the techniques and heuristics (like abuse filters, but with longer run times) used to detect spam, publicly available tools (stuff on Tool Labs or other websites), the ability to query the Wikipedia API programmatically (like SQL queries) plus attention to detail, or bog-standard tools like WHOIS. Just wait until sockpuppet detection based on linguistic heuristics gets used on a systematic basis. (For the record, Wikipedia:Death of undisclosed paid editing#For Veteran Anti UPE Editors was not written with my endorsement.) One also has to remember that Nigeria is not the West; there are cultural differences. Nigerian spammers are nasty. MER-C 17:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  I removed the "For Veteran Anti UPE Editors" section as it did not seem appropriate. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  If Celestina007 is not sufficiently "technically literate", how are they engaging in a "highly technical field"? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Like everything else on Wikipedia, self-selection. You don't need to know how the more sophisticated means of spotting spam work in order to be effective: spam is detected by how an article reads from the new pages feed or sockpuppets detected through behavior. But if you don't, you should not comment on them as if you do. MER-C 17:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Many Western spammers are nasty too. We shouldn't be making generalisations about anyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  True, that. Harassment and intimidation are tactics employed by spammers regardless of nationality. The OP could be an example. MER-C 17:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, Celestina did email us about Reading Beans re: data from a "secret tool"...which turned out to be the editor interaction analyzer on Toolforge. I agree that it was a bizarre belief, but I think there is a language barrier here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:03, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Intimidatory Behaviour (More diffs)

As I have stated above, the core issue is Celestina007's intimidating attitude to new editors. Every alternate interaction of them with a new editor reflects this trend. For an example, consider this gem of a comment from nine days ago:

The difference between Praxi & I, is that she is all encompassing, nigh all knowing, but you see, as for me, Nigeria related articles are my forte and I can unequivocally say all the articles you created are all promotional articles on non notable persons. I’m literally the most renowned editor dealing with Nigeria related articles in the history of the English Wikipedia so please respectfully do simmer down, as all the sources you used are all unreliable pieces from reliable sources, the rest are press releases or mere announcements, God's honest truth if you keep creating promotional articles I would be left with no other choice than to file an official report.

How does Celestina007 plan to rectify this unless we force them out of any area that requires interaction with newbies? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This is my core concern. A lot of the above, about the tools and their nature, is misunderstandings and bad communications. But the poor behavior towards editors, and use of references to such tools as a form of intimidation, is on-going. Celestina007 has partially acknowledged this above where I asked them about it. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree Her behavior is troubling. The discussion about specific tools is not relevant to what we do with her, and should be handled separately. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Ferret, rsjaffe, Indeed I acknowledge my shortcomings and promise to do better moving forward. Celestina007 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Celestina007:

• Please stop using flowery words and ornamental phrases.
• Write shorter sentences — bland and without rhetoric.
• Nobody cares that you are the most renowned editor from Nigeria. There are many excellent editors from your country including Ammarpad.
• Please avoid needless theatrics. If you see evidence of UPE, ask for a disclosure. If they decline, send all evidence to functionaries and forget the issue. No point in trying to force a disclosure by pointing to the alleged mountains of evidence from various tools. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• TrangaBellam, Thank you, I understand you are angry but please don’t be, Your points are noted. Celestina007 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not angry; rather, frustrated.

  Anyways, assuming that you do plan to correct your course and will be receptive to feedback, I might think of withdrawing my support for an indef. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  And I will rather appreciate that you take a self-imposed vacation from NPP/AfC. Please write content (stubs/start class/GA - I don't care) - that will improve your language skills while affording a different perspective on how Wikipedia runs. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Do not bother; you have been already warned for the same behavior. I am not changing my position. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Just noting here that Celestina has received multiple warnings for similar intimidatory behaviour in the past and was given WP:ROPE here where the closing admin wrote Celestina007 is advised to review the civility and no personal attacks policies, and moderate their tone in discussions, otherwise future sanctions may occur. and has been warned on multiple other ocassions to quit being aggressive and stop throwing her weight around. Princess of Ara 18:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Ritchie333: if he has any opinions. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee and @Mhawk10 fyi. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

One of such warnings that comes to mind is this one where Liz counsels; You are well-respected here but please do not try to throw your weight around like this and try to intimidate other editors. Princess of Ara 20:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment @TrangaBellam: Your process above doesn't work. Handing the problem over to the admin corps, doesn't work either. Your list above, apart from being a bit nonsensical, has no relation to reality, how people operate or how they think and react. There is a huge and unmanagable problem on here, and that is UPE, and to get angry about and those who promulgate it and promote it, is a natural consquence of their actions. It is natural to get angry. If you don't understand long phrases and sentences, with flowerly language and complex clauses in those sentences, then you shouldn't be on here, as words are very essence of what we deal in. It is extraordinary hard to get somebody to change their language. Its almost impossible. scope_creep^Talk 20:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

IP Finder

Celestina007 writes,

What did happen was a department where I worked in showed me a tool, which when clicked upon showed the IP address of the scammer they had been tracking for a while, I didn’t buy it so I tested it using my alternate account and it showed my IP.

Assuming they are truthful and had the bare-minimum technical literacy to avoid being pranked, this is a security breach since some random tool ought not show the IP address of a random Wikimedia account. Celestina007 claims to have informed ArbCom of the details. So can the committee disclose:

• If they informed WMF Security Team?

• If so, what was their assessment of the situation?

• Or did the committee, by itself, evaluate the tool to be a link-tracker which was not worth probing? [See KevinL's comments above.]

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, Celestina007's lack of command in English coupled with a proclivity to using flowery words is troublesome.

A tool, when clicked upon - Is she speaking about running the program (let's name it "IP Finder")? Or is tool = url? In which case, ArbCom's understanding is warranted. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Fram, TrangaBellam, DoubleGrazing I have never used the tool asides on my own alt account as it is highly unethical this is precisely why I put on my UP in the first place, you all know I would never betray the trust or the community. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This section is not about you or your activities; rather the tool. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, with regards to my earlier questions, whether or not you used the tool is pretty much irrelevant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• From that description it would seem that the tool was used at work. If that was the case then the same results could be obtained in most large workplaces anywhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

this is a security breach since some random tool ought not show the IP address of a random Wikimedia account. While I cannot know 100% what the tool is, what transpires from Celestina007's description is very different from what you are implying here. I'd suggest trying to avoid expanding the FUD and myth creation as much as possible. MarioGom (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• It's fairly evident to me that such a tool does not exist. That's simply not how computers work – or governments, for that matter; one could probably write multiple pages about why that's the case, but that would be a waste of time. Celestina may have misunderstood something, they may have deliberately or unknowingly embellished something. Trying to untangle that by looking for the massive security hole or the grand functionary conspiracy is essentially ordering an XXL nothingburger with extra nothing. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  "Conspiracy" - someone was pointing to it but I didn't, eh? To think of it is patently ridiculous.

  If you feel Celestina's claims to be nonsensical to the extent of not bothering at all, you can close this section. (But, I have a decent idea about the extent of surveillance possible on FB accounts via intel agencies and I don't think the claims are impossible. Obviously, Nigeria is not USA and I cannot think of a reason about why such tools would be disclosed to someone so careless.) TrangaBellam (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Sure tools like that exist, here's a talk about one which works off of data collected by a browser extension: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nvYGi7-Lxo

  Sure the researchers used only data from Germany and had to pretend to be a company to get access to it and the data was "anonymised", but they show that even that doesn't stop them from being able to deanonymize it. It would definitely be a lot more illegal for someone to have access to the data without it being anonymised, but it wouldn't be impossible (and at times not necessary), nor is collecting data with a browser extension the only way to do it.

  All in all, "that's simply not how computers work" is just an uninformed statement. None of what I said proves this one is real though, or that it is as good as advertised, likely it isn't, if only because governments tend to not like it very much when other governments are looking into their citizen's browsing history, their own citizens in the other hand? Probably not as much. – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:E1C3:BA06:9472:DAC3 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Turns out I should have read more, the tool was revealed to just be Editor Interaction Analyser, so my whole comment is pointles... – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:E1C3:BA06:9472:DAC3 (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Never mind, I think I misunderstood what I read... I'll just let this statement stay here, I don't have an interest in understanding this whole report deeper or opining more, just wanted to point out that tools like that likely do exist, although with varying effectiveness. – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:E1C3:BA06:9472:DAC3 (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

CU does not show anything obvious --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shouldn't we first try to find out who the reporting IP is? IMHO, there's something not quite right about this, when the IP has very few contribs (7 edits since Nov 2015) to the project. Could there be socking or evading, involved? GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC) No. That's a completely separate issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC) If you believe that the IP's actions merit scrutiny, please proceed. But such an investigation is irrelevant to this section. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC) GoodDay, thank you, that is indeed a discussion for another day, but today as stated by TrangaBellam and Phil Bridger the onus is on me to clear myself from any form of foul play. Celestina007 (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay: Why first? Why does who the IP is have any bearing on this legitimate report? AusLondonder (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Just to give some technical perspective here: For the Nigerian government to know my IP, they would have to a) hack the WMF (very unlikely), b) compromise one of a small number of highly trusted developers who've signed extra-scary NDAs (a whole lot of work for unclear benefit; compromising a CU wouldn't work because checks are logged), or c) compromise my ISP and do some complex timestamp analyses to get around HTTPS. Given that I'm not in Nigeria, that last step would be near-impossible, but even if I were, it would require mass data collection that Snowden could only dream of, setting aside the technical difficulty of efficiently querying billions of POST and GET requests sent to an ISP in a particular timeframe, narrowing those to en.wikipedia.org ones, and then doing the necessary timestamp analysis, which would still have no guarantee of outputting a clear answer.
  No comment on the intimidation concerns, but the "government tool" stuff reads to me like a naïve misunderstanding of the technologies involved, coupled with a tone-deaf (and unnecessary) public statement about it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Or as mentioned above, they could send you a link to a website they own, which if you click would immediately reveal your IP. That seems like a very reasonable strategy for a government to figure out the IPs of scammers, but not something to worry about as long as you don't click random links sent to you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Oh sure. Or subtler means still. Considerations for any editor who does anti-vandal/UPE/sock/etc. work to be aware of. I'm just commenting on the idea of an outside actor possessing a CU-like tool, and how incredibly difficult that would be on both legal and technical levels. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment what am I reading here? This whole thread has been a head-ache. I need to come back after rereading this thread with free mind, ofcourse when the involved editors include Celestina, one of the most known ANTI-UPE editors. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 20:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

User rights changes

I have just removed a number of Celestina's advanced permissions, leaving only IPBE, rollback, and PC reviewer. I have done this in my capacity as an individual admin, it is not an arbcom action. These tools are for trusted users, and it is clear from this thread that the community has lost a fair share of their trust in this user, so I have acted in accordance with that. I would suggest that, now that this has been done, perhaps a more limited sanction such as topic bans from new page patrol or UPE should be considered by the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I should add that it is my personal opinion that Celestina wants to do the right thing and is sincere in their desire to rid WP of UPE, but she is also in many ways her own worst enemy as she has repeatedly stepped over the lines of appropriate behavior in her efforts. I don't think this makes her irredeemable, but clearly previous attempts to communicate to her that she needs to take it down a notch have not had the desired effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The community is angry with Celestina007 because she misrepresents her status and capabilities to intimidate others. Revoking her advanced permissions doesn't do anything to prevent that behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say or imply it totally resolved this issue, in fact I quite clearly suggested specific sanctions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This user has also been removed from VRTS. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 22:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I think that's the best for everyone involved, since most of us can't see what's going on there and there's clearly a trust issue here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: At the risk of asking something that might soon be made moot, why remove the autopatrolled right? While I see a lot of concern about activities in the UPE space (which would encompass the patroller right and parts of the page mover userright), I don't think anyone here has brought up any concerns about articles that Celestina has created. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I firmly endorse removing autopatrolled here, quite aside from everything else raised in this thread. It should never have been granted in the first place; autoptrolled is not a general attaboy for service, but explicitly meant only to be given to "prolific creators of clean articles and pages". That is clearly not the case here; aside from redirects created as a result of page moves Celestina007 has only created a handful of articles, and having checked every creation in the past two years every one has been clearly inappropriate (unsourced BLP, completely unsourced, completely unsourced bio written in a totally inappropriate tone, completely unsourced, unsourced BLP accusing someone of terrorism in Wikipedia's voice, unsourced BLP, unsourced BLP, unsourced BLP, completely unsourced, completely unsourced, completely unsourced and consisting of a single incomplete sentence).  ‑ Iridescent 03:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

When I read your comment above, I was initially very concerned. But a closer examination shows that the characterization of those creations above resulted from a misreading of the page historry. Generally, the articles that you've included above were created in the draft space and moved to the mainspace only after there had been at least one source added. Because the page was moved from the draft to the mainspace, the first edit to the page was the first edit that was made to the draftspace article. The sole exception to the sources being present prior to a draft-to-mainspace move was Ban of Twitter in Nigeria, which the editor added citations shortly after moving it into the mainspace.

With the specific issue of terrorism, the article that accused someone of terrorism included references to this BBC article and this BBC article at the time it was moved into the mainspace, each of which frame the individual as a Boko Haram terrorist. He'd actually been convicted in 2013—eight years prior to the article's creation—and sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in bombing a Church on Christmas day in 2011. While it would have been ideal to add citations in the very first version of the draft, the fact of the matter was that the conviction lacked an in-text citation for all of sixteen minutes after the draft's creation. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion continued

Having just arrived at this thread I find the betrayal of WP confidence so appalling that I support a global block on the user. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC).

• Comment I encourage editors to read this section. There are issues that need to be resolved here, but they are not as bad as initially thought. BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Frankly I find threatening new users and pretending to have advanced permissions pretty appalling. Or maybe I'm just out of touch with what's considered acceptable here these days. Intothatdarkness 01:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  They gave the impression that they were threatening new users and pretending to have advanced permissions, but I believe that there were miscommunications and misunderstandings; Captain Eek has confirmed that Celestina provided an Editor Interaction Analysis report on Reading Beans to ArbCom, in the bizarre belief that the report contains sensitive information. There is a communication issue that needs to be resolved, but I don't think an indef is needed at this time. BilledMammal (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how much miscommunication is better than malice here. If this is all because Celestina007 is having trouble making themself understood...holy WP:CIR, Batman! It's clear that UPE brings out the worst in this user, and if they're productive in other areas, a topic ban from UPE might solve the problem. 207.38.145.230 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with a site block. I trust that the information that arbcom has received covers the complete picture of the situation and even more strongly trust their judgement on this matter. With Celestina's advanced permissions (mostly) revoked, I don't think any additional sanctions in this regard would be prudent. While I understand that a lot of editors might feel deeply uncomfortable with Celestina's statements, I'm not very confident in whichever reasoning is being used to justify the block. Their terrible wording/boasting of tools does not seem to warrant such a heavy sanction as a total block for me, really. Additionally, the arbs are satisfied with Celestina's private explanation. I do however strongly support a topic ban from UPE as the editor does not seem to be able to handle themselves in this topic area in a manner conducive to a collaborative editing environment, especially around editors with very few edits or unfamiliar with wiki processes. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 01:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment It's hard to dismiss what she said about the external tool which was developed in the Anti-fraud department of the government organization she works for, when she insists on saying that she never lies. M.Bitton (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral ... so far: Like many other editors, I've deep concerns about Celestina's actions, and am well aware that we've community banned people for less. But a heap of advanced permissions have already been stripped away, Celestina's been booted from VRTS, so correct me if I'm wrong, but as of right now Celestina not only has no more rights than Any Common Editor, but fewer than many. (That being said, I'd like to see Celestina remove mention of being a Teahouse Mentor from their talk page -- I doubt more than a bare handful of us aren't cringing right now at the thought of Celestina "mentoring" anybody.)

  Given that, perhaps Celestina can agree that our tolerance of their continued presence on Wikipedia relies on simply, basic, encyclopedia-building: no ANI disputes, no throwing their weight around, no playing UPE traffic cop, no boasting about how great a Nigerian-article-builder they are ... just working on improving articles. Celestina may be repeating that they would never betray our trust, but the bottom line is that such trust was betrayed. This is the only way I see for rebuilding any trust to move forward. Ravenswing 03:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• If someone told me they had access to secret government tools that could track my IP address through my activity on Wikipedia, I'd be very uncomfortable. If that had happened in my first decade on Wikipedia, when I still thought I could keep my identity somewhat private, I might have quit the project. That's what bothers me most here - the newbie intimidation. The contradictory claims that Celestina has made, the explanations that don't match the facts of the matter - all these things are very problematic. But it's the newbie biting that bothers me the most - and it doesn't seem like they've addressed that in their responses (though I might have missed something). Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef — on en.wiki. Oppose global block as out of our purview and out of proportion, too. I've been busy off-wiki all day my time, but I note that threats, however veiled, that were designed to intimidate other users, are still being excused by some as acceptable in hunting down undeclared paid editors. Wikipedia is not a shooting gallery. This kind of bullying, which is what it is, is not condoned via mention of laws and not condoned via misuse of the checkuser tool; harassing a fellow editor on the basis of mere suspicion that they might be a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user is also punishable, whether the suspicion is based on the interaction tool, knowledge of the blocked or banned user's tics, or hearing an echo of their voice, as in this case. We require people with such suspicions to submit them to a checkuser, and we require checkusers to scrupulously follow a code of conduct, precisely to avoid such a chilling effect. Celestina007 writes above of {{panic}}, which is missing the point. Scope creep seeks to excuse her conduct on grounds of justified anger: {{There is a huge and unmanagable problem on here, and that is UPE, and to get angry about and those who promulgate it and promote it, is a natural consquence of their actions.}} Few of us can control our emotions, but we are all expected here to control the way we interact with others. UPE is not such a "huge and unmanageable" problem on Wikipedia to justify suspension of basic civility, or unchecked assumption of bad faith and bullying based on it. I don't care one whit whether Celestina007 has been angry, or whether the warnings she previously received scared her (I had missed the earlier AN/I at which she was taken to task for assuming bad faith of editors in her hunt for paid editors). I care that she has probably lost us several good-faith new editors, made many of us feel unsafe, and remains unblocked. I want to make quite clear here that I regard her differing form of English as neither exculpatory (we expect editors to know the difference between "clandestine" and "not directly linked in the sidebar on every page") nor disqualifying; in service of our basic mission of broad encyclopedic coverage, and the subordinate objective of avoiding systemic bias by welcoming the broadest possible range of editors, we specifically accommodate different varieties of English, and far less comprehensible, syntactically weaker, and more "flowery" English than hers can be found in almost any of our articles tagged "Use Indian English". I wanted to leave the quality of her article creations (and of her NPP reviewing as demonstrated by an article I looked at yesterday that I believe falls under discretionary sanctions) out of this. And I can hardly opine on anything technical or judge anyone else's technical knowledge, but I suspect what happened in her test of her employer's tool was that she was in the office at the time and thus detection of her IP was kind of trivial. But AGF is not a suicide pact. The mission to root out paid editing does not override the need to protect the community and thus the encyclopedia from someone who repeatedly makes chilling threats. And an editing restriction won't do away with that danger to the encyclopedia, because it's behavioral. She needs to be blocked until she can convince an admin that she understands what she did wrong and will not do it again. I see Iridescent advocated above for a permanent indef, a ban. I feel a bit nervous not following suit, but I'm still AGFing enough to think she might get it. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

IP editor vandalising and personal attacks

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

---

Lotta vandalism at Justin Gaethje due to a recent high profile loss. One IP editor 2603:7000:1303:3B59:B042:12B6:4453:B783 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes 9 unconstructive edits, [144] and even goes as far as personally attacking @Adakiko: [145] for fixing his mess. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 05:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

User is already at WP:AIV. 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 07:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, gave AIV some attention. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

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

User:AG20044018

AG20044018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has never edited with an edit summary and has never edited a talk page. They consistently mark edits as minor when they don't seem to meet WP:MINOR, despite them being warned about this numerous times on their talk page. They repeatedly add unsourced content to articles, and they've been warned for this numerous times on their talk page as well.

Some diffs: 1 2 3 4 5. Maybe this is a case of WP:RADAR? At the very least we still need editors to communicate with others, so can we get a partial block to article space here to give them an oppourtunity to respond and explain their edits, here at ANI, or on their talk page? FozzieHey (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

They appear to be editing on mobile, so perhaps the issue here is WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Many mobile users do not receive pings, and some don't even know that talk pages exist. Endwise (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! They do seem to be editing from mobile web (although they did seem to edit sometimes from desktop before 2021 (indicated by no edit tags), most of the warnings came after that). In which case a partial block could help get their attention, as custom block messages should display to mobile web, according to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. FozzieHey (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Something strange happens on the Iasi Pogrom page

Multiple Accounts have been constantly changing it from a recent version. It might be a case of vandalism and stockpuppeting as some of the accounts are new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiGrande (talk • contribs) 16:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone should open a WP:SPI. casualdejekyll 18:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Continuous edit warring by blocked user and their IPs

There has been an ongoing edit war in Greeks for the Fatherland [1] by the indefinitely blocked user Αθλητικά who has returned under multiple sockpuppets: Opinion Poll, Derzki, Παραγάδι to name a few. Furthermore, there are lots of IP addresses that appear to be linked to the blocked user (check the edit history for more) - same interests and editing patterns have been observed. Can someone please lock the article? It has been weeks since this edit war started. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Problems with racial statistics by Portugal IPs

• Special:Contributions/87.196.72.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Portugal persistently makes up their own criteria for race percentages in populations. Using the IP range Special:Contributions/87.196.72.0/23, they change numbers without references, or they change the way mixed races are counted. Despite many warnings, this person has never communicated by talk page or even edit summary. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I saw someone (and I think they were using an IP address in Portugal, fwiw) reported here a few months ago for doing the same. Could this be the same editor? Maybe someone with a better memory can tell me what I'm talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hoax articles

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

---

Denise_p_111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is creating hoax articles that purport to be about voice actors (Kimberly Castro and Hunter Anderson) . The pictures are stock images from the internet. (click "invisalign" and [146]). Can someone please help block and delete? agtx 19:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Agtx: One of the stock photos is on Commons; I've reported it as a copyvio. The image on en.wiki and the two articles I've deleted. I've also warned the user about creating hoaxes. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the cleanup C.Fred. I have to ask though: We're really going to give an actively hoaxing user another chance? These aren't accidents...they're malicious. agtx 20:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Agtx: One of the article could have been deleted as A7, it was so minimal. The Castro article is more concerning. The fake image is the part that concerns me a little more; the made-up credits could conceivably be unlisted. I'd like to see what the user does next before taking further action. —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: They've recreated Kimberly Castro with the stock photo. I think that answers the question. agtx 20:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Qiushufang

Good evening.

I'm here to report an article disruption issue. I'll be brief since the details have already been laid out on the history page, and it's a straighforward situation that administrators will have seen a zillion times already: A) An article about a battle B) A user very obviously deletes or adds information that helps him portray his side in the best possible light and the other side in the worst possible light; C) Arbitrarily claims that all sources and authors that dispute him are invalid D) Avoids addressing criticism; E) Insists that other users validate his edits made in poor-faith through discussion.

I'm hopeful to see a speedy resolution to this problem. Wareno (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There is only one source in question that was deleted and it was tagged for months requiring a better source as support. It is a Portuguese text published by the Academia de Marinha, the cultural agency of the Portuguese navy. The article is about a naval battle between a Portuguese and Chinese force. The partisanship issue should be obvious but I also could not find an English text that verified the claim of the cited material. My own additions were taken from sources already existing in the article with direct quotations that were deleted by Wareno with the reasoning that they were "Very pro-Chinese." Qiushufang (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

And I will point out that the author of the source, Prof. Vítor Gaspar Rodrigues is one of the most reputed researchers on the field of the Portuguese navy. A source being "tagget for months requiring a better source as support" and you not finding a text does not necessarily mean you should or can remove it. You say the Academia de Marinha, one of Portugals most esteemed institutions is "the cultural agency of the Portuguese Navy" and arbitrarily claim that it is biased, based on no arguments to be seen. All the edits of user:Qiushufang are very pro-Chinese partisan for the reasons already stated before, and all seem to ultimately contribute towards painting an unbalanced picture that heavily favours the Chinese side, which seems to suggest to me a case of WP:NOTHERE, which is a bannable offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wareno (talk • contribs) in <diff:1086891593> on 00:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the case below. You deleted mentions of kidnapping and only kept the part related to purchase of slaves in the first place : [147]. I added both views of kidnapping and purchase which have again, been reverted by you: [148], [149]. You reverted me with no explanation to begin with: [150], and refused to engage in the talk page created for further discussion: [151]. You violated the 3RR: [152] and then accused me of trying to get out of being reported by you when you refused to engage in talk discussion and proceeded to immediately report me. You accused me of falsely deleting content which I had not and in fact offered more balances views of from both Portuguese and Chinese sides. Qiushufang (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

To expand on the matter, the intentions of the user:Qiushufang became clear after his first set of edits to be reverted: He sought to remove references of the Chinese willingly selling their countrymen; he refers to the Portuguese as "pirates"; he removed references to the Portuguese offering terms via diplomacy; he removed sourced information that explained that the Portuguese were poorly armed and why. The edits of the user were very clearly made in bad faith, yet he now wants users to engage with him, and tries to get out of repercussions by whatever means of damage control possible. Wareno (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

In my "first set of edits" where apparently I "sought to remove references of the Chinese willingly selling their countrymen," I added that both kidnapping and purchase of slaves occurred [153], prior to your unexplained reversion right aftewards: [154]. "Pirates" was what they were called prior to your changes two years ago: [155], when you deleted any mention of the kidnapping made by the source. There were no changes to the sources either or an edit summary so I can only assume that either the sources were wrong or they were arbitrary. Clearly the source provided contained both mentions of kidnapping and purchase, which was why I added it in direct quotations: [156], which you reverted. What is your reason for that? Pro-China bias? There is no material in the article outside the lead about any pre-battle diplomacy by Mello, so why would it be in the lead? Qiushufang (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wareno's accusation of referring to the Portuguese as pirates also doesn't hold water given his extensive history and experience editing the article. Ex. both of the versions in which he made extensive changes to the article in 2016 [157], [158] already contained a citation to piratical activities practiced by the Portuguese expedition: [159]. The same source and note on piracy by Simao (the party in question) has existed since 2011 [160] and still exists in the current version [161], yet he takes issue with the usage of the term "pirates." His logic is that they should not be referred to as pirates. The article just says they practice piracy. Doesn't this seem ridiculous? Qiushufang (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wareno accused me of "removing all references of Chinese selling other Chinese to the Portuguese" here: [162]. This is blatantly false since part of the deleted material outlined in red that he reverted blatantly states in the lead that "Portuguese pirates had been conducting slave raids on the Chinese coast, kidnapping and buying children to sell in Portuguese Malacca." You can even see it in the first link he showed. He was also the one who originally removed content saying the opposite in April 2020 with no additional change to sources: [163]. Qiushufang (talk)

I also later added from the source which Wareno took issue with that the Portuguese historian considered the slaves "purchased" while the Chinese considered it an act of seizing: [164]. Wareno has once again deleted this [165] with the same reasons despite being warned of the 3RR [166], making this his fourth revert. Qiushufang (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Nfitz

So for some reason, nfitz (talk · contribs) has been really hounding me about my recent AFDs and PRODs.

• " that kind of blatantly false claim, I'm not even going to waste my time checking any more references. It's a well known show that everyone in the country has heard of. This nomination is a disgrace, and making blatant false claims is surely a bannable offence."
  • If you read what I said above, I said that the second source provided by Cunard (talk · contribs) in the discussion. The only "blatantly false claim" is Nfitz thinking that I said anything about the Globe and Mail source, when I was clearly talking about the National Post source.
• "These nominations remain absurd. Can an Admin please move to topic-ban this clearly incompetent editor."
  • Yes, so absurd that I actually went to great lengths to add sources, like this, this, and this.

I especially find this funny when Nfitz has said to other editors things like "users who make baseless personal attacks should be banned!" when it's clear that's exactly what they're doing to me.

Has my AFD and PROD track record been perfect? No. That's why I created User:TenPoundHammer/TV cleanup so I can systematically approach troubled articles and edit them as I see fit. As I pointed out above, I've gone out of my way today alone to -- gasp! -- add sources to articles. And many of my other AFDs, such as this one, seem to be clear-cut delete cases. For Nfitz to throw around words like "incompetent" and call for my banning over what is clearly not anywhere remotely close to a bannable offense is beyond absurd. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• ETA: In the process of warning Nfitz of this discusison, I found that I am not the only editor being targeted. Pinging @RandomCanadian: for their input. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• I would also note this discussion, where Nfitz calls for a topic ban against Ficaia and dlthewave. This is part of a broader pattern of behaviour at AFD's, where editors, rather than addressing the nomination, have started accusing the nominator of failing WP:BEFORE - usually without presenting any evidence that they failed before - and calling for a topic ban. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  I admit to being I should be a bit more diplomatic - but it wasn't me who proposed that topic ban for Ficaia. It was User:GiantSnowman who proposed it; User:No Great Shaker and I then supported it. Ficaia had a series of AFDs over 3 days that seemed to have no proper BEFORE, and were all but snow keeps. Examples are WP:Articles for deletion/Islam Tarek, WP:Articles for deletion/Ayman Mansour, WP:Articles for deletion/Leroy Paul, WP:Articles for deletion/Mátyás Balogh, WP:Articles for deletion/Stacia Joseph, and WP:Articles for deletion/Raymundo Torres (footballer). User:dlthewave then voted delete without a proper before on couple - but I realised later, that he wasn't the worst offender in that category, and I conflated him with a more egregious example, who I'll leave unnamed. Still I do think we have a problem with drive-by voting in AFDs without enough (or in some cases any ... and I'm thinking of yet another person on that) BEFORE. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED admin comment - Back on May 1, Nfitz requested undeletion of a significant number of articles that TPH had PROD'd. This in and of itself is of course fine. What is not fine is the language used. You can see it at WP:RFUD as the entries haven't been archived yet, such as writing User:TenPoundHammer seems to be out of control, prodding hundreds of articles a day, and creating dozens of AFDs a day - few of which seem to be actual deletes. I asked them to focus on the process and not contributors in WP:RFUD#Glutton for Punishment and more - poor prods at the time. Nfitz failed to heed that today. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• User:TenPoundHammer has literally prodded hundreds of articles - mostly television related, in the last couple of weeks - mostly with poor before; those that didn't have significant coverage are surely redirects. There's been dozens of AFDs in the television arena, which are mostly heading to not being deleted. They've been asked by multiple people on his talk page to slow down, and do better before. Here's a link to the recent discussions, which it looks like were removed without archiving. They've been asked to do better before, but the lack of before continues. I'm concerned that there are WP:CIR issues, at least in the DRV arena. On the other hand, they do seem to be starting all these deletions with good faith, and show a willingness to learn. Perhaps I was a harsh, and I apologize for that - but it's frustrating to look at what's going on in the project, and find there isn't much sign of improvement. I don't think however my comments were completely baseless.. Nfitz (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  I've already been warned about the prods. The main issue was "don't do 300 in a day ever again because not a lot of people monitor the prod queue", and many of my prods have been more methodical and done in good faith. If someone wants to WP:REFUND them because they think the content is salvageable, that's on them. I did slow down as complied, which is again why I made the cleanup list. And if you've been following it, I've been taking quite a few names off that cleanup list because I improved the article. I removed the posts without archiving because the discussions were getting very long and the archive bot seems to hate my talk page for some reason. I still do not take lightly to being attacked and having you state, multiple times, that I should be banned for something that isn't even close to a bannable offense. And again, I'm clearly not the only editor you've made such overstated accusations about. I want to see proof that you're not going to go off on such histronics again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  Others main message may have been don't do 300 prods again in a day. My bigger concern is the lack of quality. Four AFDs on April 24 - all keep (but one redirect). Two on the 27th - both keeps. Four on the 28th - two were keeps. What's interesting looking through, is there's so many on the 27th and 29th (they day I expressed concern to you), that I'm having problems counting them - but all the Television ones appear to be keep, while the record is far better on other subjects. Two keeps on the 30th. Most of these keeps were unanimous - with some speedies. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)