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

Regular Vandalism by Maphumor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for those links. Yes I see there is some edit warring going on and I see you gave User:Maphumor a warning on their talk page [1]. I think that since they did not follow WP:BRD after these reverts by not starting discussions on talk pages, and instead kept on editing (for example [2], [3], [4]) sometimes edit warring for days; they should be blocked or sanctioned to prevent such constant behavior. It looks WP:DISRUPTIVE. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jagmanst, I see on theUser:Maphumor talk page that a few other editors ([5] & [6], [7]) have given Maphumor warnings and some advice, specifically by User:Dhruv edits on using talk pages. At some point with 5 months of editing, Maphumor should already know to use talk pages to settle differences instead of engaging in edit warring. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tekosh

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

---

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

In October 2022, Tekosh was warned by an admin: "If you continue to edit to promote a nationalist point of view, or to make personal attacks on editors with whom you disagree, or both, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely.". These were the two attacks they had made [8] [9]

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

1. At Dilan Yeşilgöz-Zegerius, they attempted to add "Kurdish" into the lede [10] [11], despite it having no relevance (MOS:ETHNICITY) for this Dutch politician, who is also half Turkish and born in Turkey.
2. Replaced sourced mention of "Persian" with "Kurdish", even changing the direct quotes of two authors, clearly not even bothering to look at what they're changing [12]
3. This is rather bizarre, but they just commented on a 10 year old section in the talk page of a user, where they accused me of the following: That user has a ethnocentric Persian view on anything Middle East related. I am new here and don't know what the best way is to take back what is ours as Kurds. Persians have taken credit for things that it's clear it's not theirs. We need more Kurds on Wikipedia with good knowledge of our culture and our history.. Which is ironic on so many levels per the evidence up above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps Tekosh could also explain why they made yet another WP:NPA towards me even after bringing up the excuses that they're new at the Teahouse [13]. And in a 10 year old talk page section a that. Moreover, they're still disputing high quality sources such as one published by Cambridge (because they don't fit their POV) even despite all this [14]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic ban from all Kurdish-related articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It only took a few days, but they're already back to their Kurdish-everything edits [15]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• More personal attacks, basically accusing me of racism and fascism once more [16]. I told you they were feigning to now understand the rules. Even though they're allegedly retiring from Wikipedia, I think they should be indeffed just to be safe. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:RevolutionaryAct

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would you like me to do at this point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs (proofs):

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @RevolutionaryAct:
• @TarnishedPath:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Sounds good, thank you @Teenyplayspop

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, here are some concerning diffs [17] and [18]. This behaviour needs to be addressed. TarnishedPath^talk 06:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting Sock Puppetry Investigation (with CU)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did I do the right thing here?

• (Reopened)..OP's queries answered significantly; Squared.Circle.Boxing advised strongly (and has responded with reasonable explanations). Taking the liberty to close this. Lourdes 08:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)}}

I don't think I've ever directly edited someone else's userpage before but I felt like it was warranted in this context [19]. I sincerely do believe this qualifies as "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (which is text that can be read by following the policy shortcut I used in my edit summary). I tend to prefer not to take impulsive actions and I can doubt myself a lot, so I figured I might as well skip some potential future drama by just asking for some uninvolved input. Did I do the right thing here from a policy perspective? ANI might not be the best place but the only other one I can think of would be WP:XRV and what I did doesn't really have anything to do with the usage of advanced permissions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

For context with those unfamiliar with the current state of gender-related media, What Is a Woman? is a controversial political film that answers its title question with, essentially, "a cisgender woman". It would probably have been better to discuss with SCB before removing, and/or to ask an admin to remove (admins have no special status in removing userpage violations, but it tends to go over better when we're the ones to do it), but now that it's done, I'd say the removal is in keeping with WP:POLEMIC (tbh a somewhat poorly named policy section, since it covers more than polemics)—statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. In the right circumstance that can definitely include support for a work of media that does the same. In another case I might AGF that "they don't mean it that way", but SCB was blocked by El_C in October for a comment that used the rationale "biology isn't hateful" to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. So this does seem to be a recurring issue.

So, short answer to your question is: Not entirely, but I think the end result is the correct one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a case of an editor that should, at the very least, receive a final warning before they are shown the door. While looking at their user page history, they thought this addition was fine, a sentence added right after adding a quote by JK Rowling (context on how that's related to those unaware). Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I was definitely thinking I should wait or maybe even do nothing. I'm a cisgender woman but I've heard of the film and using a userbox to say one enjoys it seemed wrong. Before I did anything, I double-checked by reading policy about userpages. I read everything at WP:UPNOT which explicitly says In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense (e.g. racist ideology). Whether serious or trolling, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself, and "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but don't be inconsiderate. Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor. Reading that gave me the confidence to do so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has rightly taken a robust stance against permitting statements that attack a person's identity. While a warning probably would've worked best, I think Tamzin is right: the proper outcome was achieved. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there some reason the editor hasn't been topic banned from GG area? Seems to me they've well earned it and I assume someone must have given them a CT alert by now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Special:AbuseLog/33583676. Also, @Squared.Circle.Boxing, can you explain what "Where's Wanda (probably hell)? Men nearing 50 who can't play chess shouldn't write books lol", currently at the top of your userpage, means? I ask primarily because we do have an editor in the GENSEX topic area named WanderingWanda (who is very much alive, baruch hashem), and I can't figure out if the referent here is supposed to be them or Wanda Maximoff or somebody else. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't speak for him, but when I read that I assumed it to be a reference to the Where's Waldo? series which has a character named Wenda. I actually misremembered the character's name as Wanda myself before I looked this up. I used to have a bunch of fun finding said characters when I was younger. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

*cough* Where's Wally, I think you'll find! Where are our problematic culture warrior editors when it really matters! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The diffs Isabella Belato provided were a month apart, so it wasn't really right after. The sentence I added is regretted and was self reverted. Userpage has been blanked, and I wouldn't argue against deletion. The block was not to defend another editor's RfA oppose on the basis of trans status. Without looking at the diff, I believe it was a reply to a specific comment that I so very badly misinterpreted. Regardless, bad form all the same. The Wanda comment was not about WanderingWanda; I'm pretty sure we've never interacted or crossed paths. – ².O.^Boxing 17:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I think what they meant by right after was the next edit in the page history. I was hoping you could clarify what exactly you regret about all this? It seems like the CT warning didn't change your behaviour in regards to the topic area. I will say I agree with you about your lack of interaction with WanderingWanda, though. [20] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

These comments [21] [22] give Squared.Circle.Boxing explanation at the time for their comments that lead to their earlier block. Nil Einne (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a CT alert in my talk page history, only a DS alert from 2021 which had nothing to do with inflammatory actions. I don't really understand what this is; nobody edited my talk page at 18:08 on 11 October 2022. – ².O.^Boxing 01:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Squared.Circle.Boxing: I'm sure you're right you were never given a CTOP alert but it shouldn't matter. You were given this DS alert on gender-related disputes etc [23] in 2021 as you acknowledged. Note that it doesn't matter why the alert in 2021 was issued, technically alerts are not supposed to be given for any particular concerns other than for edits in the topic area anyway.

The point is the 2021 alert covered the "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" topic area so you were aware then this is an area where we have special rules because of the problems we have had in the past from a myriad an editors, special rules which required you to be on your best behaviour.

The edit filter reflects the fact in 2022, an editor started to give you an alert but stopped I assume because they realised you'd already been given an alert less than a year ago, the one in 2021 we're talking about. Under the old DS system, alerts had to be given every year but no more frequent. (There were some situations were an editor was aware without a formal alert.)

Under the new system we're presuming you remember them for the particular topic area when given an alert once, see Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions. AFAIK, this applies to alerts given under DS too even ones which technically expired before CTOP come into play.

Are you saying that despite the alert in 2021, you had forgotten and so were unaware that gender-related disputed etc was an area we had special rules and which required your best behaviour? If you were unaware we'll you're aware now so please be on your best behaviour going forward.

If you accept you were aware, then the question still applies. Are the edits to your user page an example of your best behaviour? If they are, then unless you quickly learn from this thread a topic ban seem inevitable to me. If they're not, then what went wrong and how do you plan to ensure this does not happen ever again? I'll put aside the 2022 block and what lead to it as an acknowledged mistake although personally I don't think it should have arisen even with your misunderstanding.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Clovermoss you've already gotten several comments of support from the community, including multiple admins, so you may choose to weight my own opinion accordingly, but I did want to put a slightly different spin on this. I think you owed SCB a conversation about this before the unilateral edit to their user page.

While I personally find anti-trans rhetoric manifestly irrational and objectionable, we do not not at present have a community mandate that anyone who expresses a particular opinion about what constitutes "being a woman" is per se a polemic or offensive statement. And while you have found some support for that amongst the administrative corps here, and that may indicate you are on safe ground in that respect, I suspect if this same question were put to the larger community (via say the village pump), the matter would be considered far more contentious.

Much as I think the userbox is provocative, there is more than whiff of RGW and bias in removing userboxes that touch upon commentary about certain forms of identity, while many, many, many others are presently permitted which we can reliably predict give offense to someone. If I had my druthers, all infoboxes which make statements about personal values regarding contentious topics (other than strictly editorial matters) would be on the chopping block. Indeed, I think vast swaths of userboxes violate WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTAFORUM, and various other policies meant to create a firewall between our personal beliefs and our work on this project, and could stand to go. I grant you that how we would define the distinction would be a deeply complicated task, but it's all academic for the present time, as there is very little initiative to make such a sweeping change. Instead we have an ad-hoc system which lends itself to reasonable claims of cultural bias.

Considering that context, and the fact that you were acting upon a value that sits atop a culture war divide, in a CTOP area, I think the right thing to do here was to approach the editor and discuss this matter, hoping to get them to voluntarily take it down. Failing that, WP:MfD is very clearly where you should have taken the matter next. This exact situation is covered by policy afterall. I think your good sense in bringing the matter here after the fact, combined with support for your views here regarding the underlying social issue has lent to this discussion the presumption that you merely fast-tracked what was ultimately the outcome that would have resulted. I personally don't think I can be quite so laissez-faire about a user addressing this issue unilaterally and so far out of process, no matter how much I'd like to see that userbox go, given there is a system in place for you to seek such changes via consensus. Just one rank-and-file community member's opinion. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. I think talking to people you have potential issues with to resolve conflicts tends to be a good way to approach most sitations. If I asked him to take it down before I did, maybe he would've. As for MfD, I don't think that would nessecarily apply here? The userbox itself is technically Template:User enjoys TV. Under most circumstances, I wouldn't consider that userbox offensive. It's the context of what it's being used for. Just to clarify, you don't agree with my intrepretation of "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor" at WP:UPNOT here? That's the sentence that prompted me to feel okay with doing anything immediately. Maybe there should be further clarification at the related talk page about circumstances where that may not be the case if it's something that the community could be more divided on. I just want to make sure I'm understanding your train of thought here correctly. Basically what you're saying is that my actions are kind of in a grey area from a process standpoint but would have likely concluded with the same result? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that is a fair summary. Actually MfD may or may not have been the right forum for this issue, given you were not seeking to delete the whole user page, but my overall perspective/advice remains the same: it should have been taken to the community through your best goodfaith guess at the most appropriate community forum (very possibly here, if nowhere else). We cannot really afford to permit individual users to police one-another's user pages unilaterally, imo. It just opens up an entire pandora's box of potential issues and forms of disruption. That said, I think you are correct that the UPNOT language you cite to does muddy those waters a bit. However, in my opinion, we are on untested ground here in saying that the usage of the template here constitutes "extremely offensive" content. It's provocative and offensive to some, no doubt (and obnoxious to yours truly), but I do not think it falls into the category of content intended to be covered by that provision.

For persuasive authority, I have observed several conversations in different spaces on the project over the last year or two contemplating whether self-identifying as a 'Terf' constitutes a statement that flags a user as non-collaborative, NOTHERE, or automatically and overtly antagonistic to certain other editors, such that they should be blocked outright or topic banned from GENSEX topics on the basis of this statement of identity alone. Those questions always came as part of a complex of broader disruption or other issues, so it is difficult to disentangle them, but I observed what I think can fairly be described as a great deal of discomfort from many community members at the suggestion that such a statement of perspective on gender and sex is enough to label someone as per se incompatible with the project or particular content areas.

Now, consensus as to that may change in time, but I'd say we need clarity in this area at a minimum before we authorize people to go around judging eachother to be in violation of community norms simply because they have an interpretation of gender which does not align with our own. Without going into my entire history and outlook with trans issues, let me just say that I am highly opinionated in a direction which supports trans identity. But I personally think it is a bridge too far to set a standard that anyone who feels differently has committed an act that is "extremely offensive" by sharing that view. Polemic and divisive and problematic enough for me to !vote to delete that infobox on sight in a community discussion? Oh you betcha, yeah. Extremely offensive to the degree that I don't mind individual editors using it as justification to unilaterally edit one-another's user pages? No, I'm afraid not.

At least, not without a strong endorsement from the community that this is how the majority feels about such statements. Because otherwise it just would serve to open the floodgates if we let individual editors do this for any divisive cultural issue--and even more disruption I fear if we started supporting all the editors who acted one way on a certain ideological divide and punishing those who acted in a similar fashion along another criteria.

Now, you're going to get a lot of variation along a "your mileage may vary" interpretation of the policy language you cite. But I just don't think we have, as a community, validated that trans-skeptic beliefs (absent additional hateful words or bigoted conduct) qualify as defacto "offensive". And again, it's not from a lack of strong personal distaste for the content of those beliefs that I say this. I'm trying to separate my personal beliefs from community process and the need to keep our project a space that maintains some distance and objectivity with regard to the divisive issues we sometimes have to cover neutrally (while also struggling with their implications for our internal processes). I hope that distinction makes sense. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Squared.Circle.Boxing transphobia concerns

• Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi there. With this being open less than 24 hours, I do not feel like Clovermoss's concerns have been properly addressed. I would like further discussion on this please. Transphobia[24][25] is a serious thing. I hear this user has received a final warning about something from Black Kite. Will look for the diff.

I also feel this is an illustrative example of what happens when threads are closed too quickly and participants are not given enough time to air things out. This led to Clovermoss creating a T:CENT RFC, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC (WP:UPNOT), about this issue, when the core issue is probably one user's behavior, not necessarily a problem with policy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Novem, I think much more is required here. While I'm not sure the original posting needed to be closed as quickly as it was (actually, I wasn't going to say anything, because I am a big believer in respect for administrative discretion, but Lourdes kind of had a little streak last week of being quick on the draw with the closes here at AN), you'll need to be much more clear about what you think the ongoing disruption here is if re-opening the issue is to accomplish anything.

The original thread was opened by Clovermoss not to bring SCB's conduct under scrutiny but rather to confirm that she (CM) had done the right thing in unilaterally editing another contributor's user space. While there was some variability in the feedback she received, the consensus seemed to be that she probably should not have done it, but it was going to be regarded as a kind of case of 'harmless error' in this instance.

CM then took the issue to VPP. She says this is because she wanted the policy to accurately tell other users in the future what they should and should not do in these instances going forward, but I'll be honest that I think it's pretty clear that this is slightly disingenuous and that she was fishing to see if she could find enough community support to challenge the notion that comments antagonistic to a blief in trans gender identity cannot be treated as per se "extremely offensive" such that any other user can feel free to edit them off the project. But while I think it is very clear that this is the outcome she is actually seeking, the inquiry was still in good faith.

However, it clear from the feedback in that discussion that the community does not have an interest in declaring all non-trans rights supportive expressions of opinion as per se "offensive". This outcome (which I personally have mixed feelings about) is consistent with what I tried to tell her I had perceived in other recent community discussions touching upon the same subject. At this time, there is no consensus to support (and indeed, some substantial animosity towards) a standard which would turn any unpopular opinion on gender identity into a WP:PA by default, on this project.

Obviously no one should be going around directly antagonizing trans editors about their stated gender identities; that I believe should and would be treated as disruptive by this community. But merely having (or expressing) the abstract belief that a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man is not considered by itself to be a WP:PA, WP:DISRUPTION, or other type of sanctionable offense, at this time. And if the response to CM's RfC is any indication, that's not likely to change any time soon.

So, in light of all of that, what do you see being accomplish by reopening this thread here at ANI? Do you have any extra diffs to provide showing ongoing disruption by this SBC, who, it must be noted, actually did not object to and accepted the editing of their user space even though they could have objected to it? The one diff you provided other than adding the infobox also falls into the same grey area and is quite stale besides. I think you need to do more to substantiate the need to review this user's conduct or else this thread should be closed again, since CM's inquiry is now being discussed much more thoroughly in the more appropriate forum to which they next took it.

At a minimum, can you link to the "final warning" this user supposedly got from Black Kite and explain the context? Was it related to the same issue, or concerning something else entirely? Saying "you heard something" about a final warning is not the usual level of diligence we expect in this space for implications of violations of behavioural policies, which is the kind of important pro forma issue I'd expect an admin to be on top of in these circumstances before bringing another editor here for review of their supposedly poor conduct. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

One thing that might be worthwhile to bring up is the other userboxes, at least one of which is quite likely just as divisive. The big "ANTI: This user opposes religion as a whole." I'm not really used to being in a position to defend the interests of organized religion, I'm an atheist who will happily tell you, if asked, that religious beliefs aren't really any different from beliefs in other magical practices or cultural superstitions. I'm of an age where I read Hitchens and Dawkins. But having the statement that this user opposes a concept personal and integral to large swathes of both the population writ large and editors here on the project seems... not the most collegial to have front and center and outside of a context where it matters for some discussion rather divisive. 50.234.188.27 (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a similar outlook to you (that is, a lifelong atheistic outlook, but not particularly fond of the modern strain of militant, uncontextualized animosity towards all religiosity), but I don't think that I can regard that infobox as particularly hostile to any individuals. It's a statement about their views on a social institution, not the people who subscribe to it. Let me reiterate what I had to say on the subject in the earlier discussion: I would quite happily see all infoboxes which make statements about the user's personal views and values along social, political, religious, and ideological dimensions found to be too incompatible with WP:WWIN. Afterall, although they have long been tolerated, there are broad reasons to support the position that they violate any one or all of the following sections of that policy: WP:NOTESSAY, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTCV, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. So if we did away with these kinds of userboxes en masse, my main sentiment would be "Well, it's about time."

But unless and until we come to such a consensus as a community, I can't see making a case for disruption out of that particular infobox: we just should not be picking which such infoboxes likely to give offense to someone are causing offense for "justifiable" reasons, while leaving hundreds upon hundreds of others which also are likely to give offense to other users that are sensitive along other criteria. That way lays chaos, justified accusations of bias, and general community anarchy. We need a more general and equitable approach to such issues. Either cull the personal ideology bumper sticker culture of infoboxes collectively, or allow them generally. We can't afford to get in a habit of enforcing our own personal views through selective censorship of particular perspectives. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I commented at the RfC about the reopening of the ANI thread since I'm a bit wary about how you accessed the current consensus. It's entirely possible I'm wrong and that's how multiple people would access the situation.

As for my actions being a "harmless error", I really do think that if advice in a guideline page can be considered erroneous, that advice should be changed to reflect that. I appreciate that you say my intentions there were made in good faith, even if you consider it to also be disingenuous. Maybe I am fishing... I guess I just expected more from the enwiki community. I really didn't think my perspective was at all that odds with community norms since I see people blocked all the time for saying that "transwomen are men" or other commentary along those lines. The only reason I even am aware this editor exists is because he edited Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator) recently. [26] I tend to look at people's userpages out of curiousity. And when I saw that userbox, I thought about how a transgender editor might feel about the invalidation of their entire identity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC), edited 01:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been actively editing here for years, but keep up on the goings on, and I just had to sign in and address this: Obviously no one should be going around directly antagonizing trans editors about their stated gender identities; that I believe should and would be treated as disruptive by this community. But merely having (or expressing) the abstract belief that a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man is not considered by itself to be a WP:PA, WP:DISRUPTION, or other type of sanctionable offense, at this time. And if the response to CM's RfC is any indication, that's not likely to change any time soon. Contrary to what you say here, editors are regularly, rightly blocked for transphobic statements such as a transwoman or transman is not a "real" woman or man. Hell, fairly recently an admin was emergency desysopped and quickly CBANned by the community for doing so. Both here, and at the RFC, I'm seeing a lot a bizarre equivocating that transphobia is akin to a "political stance." While it's true that transphobia is mainly championed by specific political entities, so is racism and anti-Semitism (usually by the same entities), and those bigotries are not afforded some "well, it's a political view" consideration when espoused by an editor. More specific to this thread, What is a Woman? is a virulently un-factual, transphobic propaganda film. Having a userbox saying you enjoyed it is on par with saying you enjoyed the Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf. It's equally unscientific, hateful nonsense that any editor who happens to fall into the category that that hate is directed towards should not have to be forced to share space with. Capeo (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Diff. Here's the diff I mentioned and what is essentially a third transphobia diff. Sorry for the delay in finding it. Thoughts? Is there a pattern of behavior here that needs more addressing than just the user removing the offending userbox from their user page? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps. It's noteworthy that this diff is also quite stale. On the other hand, unlike the ones that were previously raised above, this is a case of the editor's views clearly having a direct impact upon their mainspace contributions, which does raise the question of whether a GENSEX TBAN is in order. However, I am also sensitive to the points raised by Lourdes below: this is not a case of a user who has fought tooth and nail to reject any criticism of their behaviour in this area, but one with a user who seems to have accepted the verdict of the community and demonstrated a willingness to adapt. Do I think it would be a loss to the project to have them restrained from making edits that touch upon GENSEX topics? No, probably not. But the standard for a CBAN is supposed to be higher: specifically that it is necessary to restrain ongoing disruption. I don't know that we can currently make a case for that in this instance. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like they're not even accepting that they're formally WP:AWARE of GENSEX as a contentious topic. That alone is cause for concern given their history in the area. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I also think this was closed too early. I would like to see Nil Einne's questions from above answered. It is surprising that SCB has not yet been topic banned from GENSEX. To me, their comments here thus far appear to be aimed at avoiding sanctions rather than showing an actual understanding of the problems with their actions. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, as discussed directly with you, perfectly okay to re-open this discussion, given your points. My apologies in advance for the early closure (no mal-intentions, just an attempt to reduce the open load on ANI). Will take care on this going forward. Warmly, Lourdes 06:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

With Novem Linguae's third diff (linked directly here), I say an indefinite ban is in order for SCB. We got rid of Athaenara for her blatant transphobia, and we can keep doing that for other users until there are no more overt transphobes on the platform. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

• We might consider that this is an editor who seems to have apologised for their 5-month old mistakes, deleted the offending portions and blanked their user page itself to delete any offending material, participated at this ANI discussion, accepted that their edits were "bad form", accepted that the deletion of the userbox was okay. The question Novem asks is important: Whether a continuing pattern is evident to the community here? While it is not evident to me (the editor's most recent block is from me; so I am saying this with no love lost for them), I might be missing the elephant in the room... Thanks, Lourdes 07:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  To me, an editor who, in an edit summary, says nothing controversial about calling a man a man anyway in reference to a trans woman, should not be allowed to edit. Honestly, I don't get how older editors get a free pass. We've indeffed new editors for way less. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  bad form and The sentence I added is regretted are a step in the right direction, but not what I would characterize as a full apology. The fact that this has happened 3 times is not encouraging either. I think an indefinite block is probably too much, but I think doing nothing is probably too little. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think an indef proposal would have a snowball's chance in these circumstances, to be honest. I think the question here is whether we are at a TBAN threshold yet. That is a close question, given we have a user who made at least a couple of clearly questionable choices, but who is not actively engaged in such edits and has made acknowledgments of a need for a change. Even so... Let's just say if the behaviour in question were just a tad more recent, or there had been one more incident, or they had pushed back against efforts at community restraint, I'd probably have already supported (if not proposed) a TBAN. But it's quite the definition of an edge case, really.

  Mind you, I find their personal attitudes towards trans self-identification to be cretinous, not to put too fine a point on it. But looking at their recent conduct and not engaging with the beliefs which I find ignorant directly, I am forced to admit that it is hard to make a case for ongoing disruption. It's not an easy distinction to make, but an important one, I feel. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Issued a final warning; behaviour hasn't been repeated. TBAN would be kind of pointless seeing as I barely edit the topic area, but pounds of flesh and all that, so go for it. Unless there's a specific question somebody has, I'll leave you folks to the hunt. Cheers. – ².O.^Boxing 08:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I have some specific questions:

Did you forget that you were alerted of WP:CT/GENSEX in 2021? Are you claiming to be unaware that GENSEX is an area that has special rules which require your best behavior?

If you were aware, are the edits to your user page an example of your best behavior? If they're not, what went wrong and how do you plan to ensure this does not happen ever again? ––FormalDude (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot I was given a DS alert in 2021. And yes, I'm unaware of the rules around DS alerts, because the templates are wholly uninformative, as is the random link you provided above that tells me much about nothing. – ².O.^Boxing 09:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: You're right that the rules on alert can be confusing and were even more so in the past. But let's put aside the rules, for clarity, are you saying you not only forgot you'd been given the alert, but you forgot that "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" is a discretionary sanctions area, or now a contentious topic one? In any case, you are aware now that it is a contentious topic and so does require you to be on your best behaviour in those areas going forward. Is there anything about the contentious topic designation that still confuses you? I'm hoping you understand what's expected so can can count on you to avoid the stuff editors have raised concerns about going forward. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

As you said, I'm now aware, so what I did or did not know back when isn't important. From reading Wikipedia:Contentious topics, I'm assuming there isn't actually a seperate special set of rules, but that the standard policies are applied in a zero tolerance fashion? Or is there an actual page that lists this special set of rules? – ².O.^Boxing 14:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Certain rules being more strictly enforced is a special set of rules. They're laid out in bullet points in the message I put on your talk page. If you're not being intentionally obtuse, and still truly don't understand contentious topics, you should refrain from editing in any contentious topic area going forward. We've exhausted trying to explain it to you. I've never seen an editor with a tenure like yours struggle this much to understand the basics of CT. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Certain rules being more strictly enforced is a special set of rules. They're laid out in bullet points in the message I put on your talk page. I haven't said otherwise.

Let me clarify the sequence of events: you gave me my very first CT alert; I read the notice and made my way over to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, for the very first time; I expressed my new-found (because it was my first time reading it) understanding of the basics of CT, along with a request for clarification (note the use of ?s); you replied with a very odd interpretation of things, but still confirmed that my initial assumption--based on my very first read of CT--was indeed correct.

Your comment is baffling and so ridiculously far off the mark, that coupled with your mischaracterisation of events in your initial comment, I think you should take a step back and let others deal with this. And I am, of course, assuming you're not being intentionally obtuse. Regardless, you've gave me enough cause to let me know that engaging with you is not a good idea, so I shan't be responding to your future comments. Cheers.

I believe I've addressed the relevant points so shan't be paying attention to this thread. Pings will be required if there's any further issues I need to address. – ².O.^Boxing 22:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh my word. Where's the controversy? He said something a few people didn't like, then apologised. Where's the fallout? Shall we try and find an article about him apologising to his mum after calling her a bitch? Lol nothing controversial about calling a man a man anyway. (Link)

I'm rather unclear on why the editor wasn't topic banned back in April after this edit summary was made. I feel like far too much rope was given when the editor was being quite clear on their inappropriate actions being purposeful. Silverseren^C 01:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is the more problematic of the edits. But note that the disruption can, in that instance, be tied to more than just people taking offense at SCB's beliefs: the edit excised content from a CTOP article on a basis that can only be described as WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit warring.

Still, even if it had been caught and brought to ANI or AE at the time, I'm not sure I share your confidence that it would have led to a TBAN. Mind you, I don't think anyone would have lost sleep over the matter if that had been the result--I certainly wouldn't. But typically the community doesn't TBAN an editor for one instance of ideologically-driven editing, even if it is coupled with a pair of user space edits suggesting bias in the same area. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It's more than just the one instance though, there's several linked above. And while the current instance being discussed at the very top of this thread wouldn't be a reason for TBAN in and of itself, it combined with these multiple past instances shows a pattern that seems like more than enough to enact such a ban. Silverseren^C 04:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to make sure I'm not missing relevant diffs here. Are you saying that there are additional mainspace edits in the same vein? Aside from the KSI article edit, I see the edit introducing the userbox (which per the discussion above and the RfC, is not a PA or per se disruptive, even if you and I and any number of other editors agree it casts his views as ill-informed and regressive), and a user talk comment, which I don't know how to classify, if I am honest, except to say that it too may fall under the umbrella of retrograde comments that we may just have to accept when working on a project that is built upon open discourse and pluralistic involvement of people with differing social beliefs.

And honestly, this is not a rhetorical inquiry: per my previous comments, I'm pretty on the fence here, and even a single additional problematic edit could make the difference to me, so by all means, let me know if I've missed one. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You have missed one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Their continued doubling down below makes me wonder why they're still welcome edit in that area, if at all. Star Mississippi 13:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Can't say I'm impressed by this kind of comment on Talk:Transgender genocide either. /wiae /tlk 13:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And so it continues. The edit excised content from a CTOP article on a basis that can only be described as WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit warring...a single revert doesn't constitute an edit war. But sure, pick up where Formal left off. And what do you suppose has been missed about that diff, Clovermoss? Removing nonsense that has nothing to do with improving an article is a very common application of policy.

This is looking more and more like a desperate scramble to find something, anything, that can be used to enact people's desired punishment. I'll reiterate...Issued a final warning; behaviour hasn't been repeated. Unless the behaviour has continued, then... – ².O.^Boxing 08:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I am surprised that a full apology has not been given here. Instead, it is being re-framed as a witch hunt. As if it's a problem for editors to be offended at transphobia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised you expect an apology for behaviour that was dealt with by way of a final warning...in April. Behaviour that hasn't been repeated. – ².O.^Boxing 09:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The most recent diff from the article talk page was about a week ago. You truly don't see why I would take issue with you removing that comment and having a userbox that stated you enjoyed watching What is a Woman? You haven't even apologized, you just describe their concern as nonsense. Maybe it's just me, but when I see stuff like that I try to reach out and explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines and also just show compassion and say stuff like you deserve to exist on their talk page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed a comment that contained aspersions and an apparent lie (Many of the people in this thread have openly expressed their distaste for my existence; can't see where that's happened) that had absolutely nothing to do with improving the article. That is what I described as nonsense, as I've more than likely done multiple times when removing other WP:NOTFORUM posts in unrelated areas. There was clearly an existing NOTFORUM issue as a prior discussion in the same thread was already shut down per NOTFORUM. Removal was appropriate and your interpretation of my use of the word nonsense is incorrect. – ².O.^Boxing 14:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've not looked for the diff for this, but if I removed a comment that contained aspersions and an apparent lie (Many of the people in this thread have openly expressed their distaste for my existence; can't see where that's happened) is accurate, can I please ask you to not remove the comments of others on talk pages? If a comment is particularly egregious, it will be removed by someone not involved or easily rebutted or refuted. A comment that doesn't name a particular editor – indeed, appears to go out of its way to not name any particular editor – isn't grounds for someone to feel offended enough to redact it even if they think it means them and are concerned if it is accurate. — Trey Maturin™ 17:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"But sure, pick up where Formal left off." Huh, I guess you missed the part where I've been literally the only person involved in this thread who hasn't readily endorsed a TBAN for you, and has in fact spent paragraphs above hilighting that your expression of your beliefs does not in itself constitute sanctionable behaviour under our current community guidelines? Not out of any love for your backwards beliefs or your need to broadcast them here--let me assure you I find them as tedious and meritless as anyone here--but out of a desire for our policies to be applied equitably and out of a concern for the longterm implications for the project if we attempt to ideologically purge certain topic areas of contributors based solely on their beliefs as expressed in user and talk space, and not their editorial conduct in articles themselves.

All of that said, the most recent action brought to my attention is by far the most concerning to me, as is your laissez-faire response to others sharing their concerns about. Per WP:TPG, you are absolutely not allowed to remove another user's comments from a talk page, except under certain extremely narrow circumstances elaborated upon in that policy, none of which even remotely apply in these circumstances. Not only is raising concerns about editorial conduct not a WP:NOTAFORUM violation, but even if it were, the right thing to do in those circumstances would be to hat the comments, not delete them.

It's true that if the user whose comments you deleted had behavioural concerns, the talk page was not the place to have them (they should have brought here, AE, or to an admin directly), but that does not grant you the authority to remove them on your own onus. The fact that you say you have been making a habit of deleting comments in similar circumstances raises serious questions about your understanding of how discourse is meant to proceed here--concerns that go well beyond this one topic area, but which are exacerbated by the picture of your POV pushing in this area that is starting to come into focus here.

Because likewise, your latest IDHT response on the issue of deleting the content in the KSI article raises concerns for me: four years in here, no one should have to tell you that you do not have the right to unilaterally remove sourced content from an article merely because you happen to believe the underlying controversy that the content describes is ridiculous and should never have happened. That is high grade POV/RGW/CENSOR behaviour and if you don't get why it is not acceptable, I'm starting to get WP:CIR concerns here, regardless of whether you should be topic banned for your expressions of your trans identity skepticism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snow Rise (talk • contribs)

Did you not mischaracterise a single revert as an edit war? I believe you did. The google definition of controversy is, prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. My take on events is that KSI used a slur and an incorrect pronoun; fans pointed this out; KSI issued an immediate apology. I saw no fallout to suggest there was any prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. The edit summary was unacceptable, for which a final warning was issued. The removal of sourced content is normal editing practice.

PAGs absolutely permit removal of other people's comments for the reason of having absolutely nothing to do with improving the article. Per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC (TPG) It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself (as opposed to comments and discussion about the treatment of the subject in the article). The same sentiment is echoed at WP:NOTFORUM, Bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, and Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. – ².O.^Boxing 19:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

None of which remotely applies to this situation, as has been already pointed out above. I don't know how you think making us repeat ourselves is going to improve your position here, but here we go. First off, you've very tactically cited WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and WP:TPG, leaving out all the language which proscribes what you did. But just dealing with the language you are trying to utilize for support of your actions here: this was not gibberish; it was not a test edit; it was not harmful or prohibited material; it was not comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself. It was an accusation of editorial malfeasance, impacting the content of the article. Now you may very well strongly disagree with that user's assessment in that instance, and you may think the specific accusations were either misconceptions or bald-faced lies. But those are not circumstances in which policy allows you redact another community member's contributions in a talk space.

Every bit of feedback you have gotten on here on this issue is consistent: your interpretation of how policy allows you to remove comments you find objectionable, and your rationale that these comments constitute NOTAFORUM violations, is flatly wrong. And the fact that you are telling us you have made a habit of deleting other talk page violations on this justification, combined with your ongoing WP:IDHT here, is indication of a real problem that is looking increasingly intractable.

Likewise on the KSI edit: the fact that you, in your own idiosyncratic view of the social value of such things, thought that the controversy was a tempest in a teapot, is not a valid editorial justification for removing content. Yes, the removal of sourced content is a matter of routine activity on this project. When you can justify it with policy and make a good faith effort to present those arguments and seek consensus on contentious issues. Not when it just happens to not look like a big enough deal to you for Wikipedia to bother mentioning.

I have spent a lot of time debating with others above about whether a TBAN was appropriate here (as the only skeptic), and where all of their arguments failed to completely win me over, you've done it for them yourself, by refusing to take any feedback on this issue onboard, and instead framing yourself as the victim of mob mentality. You may think that a TBAN is a fair price to pay in order to refuse to concede any of these points and voice your feeling that you are being mistreated here, but frankly, at this point you are raising broader issues about your ability to contribute non-disruptively in general. And if the person who just spent the last week acting as the closest thing you have to an advocate here is telling you this now, what do you think the dispositions of the other community members above look like at this moment? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, seeing the new edits raised below, it's pretty damn ballsy that you would try to (inaccurately) cite NOTAFORUM as a reason you are allowed to delete another user's commentary critical of conduct, knowing that when you wanted post a completely inappropriate screed about your views on a trans topic, your stated justification was literally "Fuck NOTAFORUM". Yeah, I'm well off the fence now. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Per TALKOFFTOPIC, harmful includes personal attacks. Aspersions are personal attacks, making it subject to removal. The (however vague) PAs was not the driving factor, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; if a comment has nothing to do with the sole purpose of a talk page and also contains PAs, it may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. Every bit of feedback on removing talk page comments has come from you and one other, and neither have provided contradictory policy that says the removal per NOTFORUM was inappropriate. The only relevant issue with the KSI edit is the already-dealt-with edit summary. Replaced with 'disagree this quickly resolved incident is worth mentioning with the others', where's the issue? Your disagreement of my rationale is irrelevant, and the edit summary was dealt with. Sanctions are preventative, not punitive. These particular discussions are pointless and I'll refrain from engaging further. – ².O.^Boxing 23:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Not an RfA guys..... Lourdes 14:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes can you clarify what you mean by this please? Thanks! Star Mississippi 22:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Star... We are moving to sanction an editor based on somewhat old diffs and despite multiple apologies. I see that happen in some failed RfAs, so made the comment. Should the community project some standard pattern in our responses at ANI to apologising editors? I'm not a judge of that. A CBAN is the community's right to deliberate and implement; I would just suggest to my friends that the deliberation may take into account the editor's commitments made here, and decide likewise. Thanks, Lourdes 08:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

despite multiple apologies. Thank you for mentioning this. Do you happen to have a quote or a link to one of the apologies? I'd like to make sure I'm not missing any high quality apologies. An apology that doesn't double down, takes full responsibility, shows they take this issue seriously, shows they take civility seriously, and shows self-reflection would go a long way with me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Lourdes. I see it slightly differently, the editor is pointing out that they said the right thing when called out-I don't see that as an apology. Old diffs would be different if they were pre a prior sanction and therefore handled. That doesn't appear to be the case here. They just repeatedly toe the line to see what they can get away with. IMO as one editor, it's time for that to be addressed just as it would be if they were up for RFA. Star Mississippi 10:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Summary of all relevant diffs presented thus far, for those getting in the weeds and/or who need a refresher:

Dec 1, 2021 — SCB receives a CTOP alert for GENSEX.

July 20, 2022 — At Talk:Transgender genocide, SCB posts a section titled lol, with the content ...at this article and the world. Sad times. Fuck NOTFORUM.

Oct 11, 2022 — On the talk page for a user who made a transphobic comment during an RfA, SCB responds to someone voicing their dismay with Behave. Biology isn't hateful. The end.

Oct 11, 2022 — SCB is blocked for 2 weeks due to this post, with the block summary Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: inflammatory conduct (diff); a long term problem

Oct 11, 2022 — In response to the block notice, SCB posts I share a similar belief (but disagree with the comment made in the RFA), which is firmly rooted in biology. To see a comment suggesting somebody is a hateful person for holding said belief is utterly ridiculous, and ironically rather hateful. and I categorically disagree with the personal attack; that was hateful. But the idea fuelling it--biology vs gender identity, the belief I share--is not hateful.

Mar 6, 2023 — On their userpage, SCB replaces a userbox that states This user thinks that RuPaul's Drag Race is a hideous TV series. with one that states This user enjoys watching What Is a Woman? (as discussed, What Is a Woman? is an anti-trans film)

Mar 9, 2023 — Next to the previous userbox, SCB adds one that reads "The thing about fantasy - there are certain things you just don't do in fantasy." – J. K. Rowling (Rowling is, of course, well known for her anti-trans advocacy)

Apr 7, 2023 — At KSI, SCB removes the entire "Use of transgender slur" section, with the edit summary Oh my word. Where's the controversy? He said something a few people didn't like, then apologised. Where's the fallout? Shall we try and find an article about him apologising to his mum after calling her a bitch? Lol nothing controversial about calling a man a man anyway.

Apr 8, 2023 — Again on their userpage, SCB adds the text I have a cock and balls, so you better refer to me as a man, obviously.

Apr 9, 2023 — SCB is warned on their talk page over the above edit summary on KSI, and is told Any repeat of transphobic nonsense like that and you may be joining them in being blocked. Don't do it, please. SCB sees and acknowledges this warning by reverting it an hour and a half later.

Aug 18, 2023 — At Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator), SCB removes a post from an editor expressing concern about what they perceive as ideologically driven editing, with the edit summary This nonsense doesn't belong any where near an article talk page

Aug 19, 2023 — The What Is a Woman? userbox is removed from SCB's page. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D59:1B9A:87D1:5966 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Found a couple more diffs that nobody has posted or mentioned yet.

Dec 1, 2021 — On an RfC over how to mention Rowling's anti-trans views, SCB posts We certainly should not be using inflammatory language like "transphobic" (a word that is thrown around willy nilly at anybody who criticises anything to do with trans). (There's nothing wrong with voting for the option SCB voted for; I include this only for the dismissive attitude towards transphobia.)

Jan 5, 2022 — On the actual page for J.K. Rowling, SCB removes a paragraph from the section regarding her anti-trans views. (The paragraph was restored and, in edited form, remains on the page that section was eventually spun off into.)

Jan 24, 2022 — On the page for Julian Assange, SCB adds the deadname of Chelsea Manning, citing MOS:DEADNAME despite it saying no such thing.

Nov 5, 2022 — SCB removes the phrase "identifies as being" on the page for Kali Reis, with the edit summary Less of that. We're not talking about some made up fantasy gender. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8D59:1B9A:87D1:5966 (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, wow. I wish more effort had been put in to compiling these diffs earlier in the discussion, but I thank the IP for doing so now. This is clearly more than enough conduct (over a prolonged period and despite warnings) to illustrate their profound POV in this issue and demonstrate their inability to contribute therein without disruption. That is to say, more than enough to justify the TBAN I have previously had mixed feelings about, especially when all this behaviour is combined with the user's responses to others above.

I still want to emphasize that not every comment in the above is something which I feel is currently proscribed by the community. For example, the third Oct 11, 2022 diff contains opinions which I feel are small-minded and ignorant, but which I think do not constitute PAs or disruption under our current policies. Nevertheless, the overall pattern is obvious, and much broader than the limited subset of diffs previously presented here demonstrated. I think it's time for an !vote on the proposed sanction SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, past behaviour was highly inappropriate. But sanctions are preventative, not punitive. I'm not seeing behaviour--since my final warning in April--that demonstrates the warning was insufficient and additional preventative measures are required. The calls for sanctions are therefore being reasonably viewed as punitive. I'm not interested in QAs or correcting people's mischaracterisations, so will refrain from engaging in such pointless back-and-forths. – ².O.^Boxing 23:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You’ve already made a ton of edits to GENSEX that are far, far beyond the pale. It doesn’t matter if you’re remorseful about it— nobody’s ever going to trust you to edit in this area ever again. A known cheater isn’t going to suddenly get let back into a casino by saying “sorry, I haven’t cheated in months and swear not to do it again”. Dronebogus (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

TBAN proposal

Proposed sanction: Squared.Circle.Boxing is indefinitely topic-banned from the WP:GENSEX topic area, broadly construed.

• Support. Their past behavior clearly indicates a pattern of being unable to edit neutrally in the GENSEX topic area. A warning is not going to fix their fringe POV, it's just going to let them wise up to being so rash about it and will almost certainly lead to civil-POV pushing down the line. At the end of the day, someone who says the types of things that SCB says should never be permitted to edit in GENSEX. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Absolutely long overdue. The wikilawyering above is basically "I know what I have to say to get away with saying what I want to say". No indication they can edit collaboratively in this area. I wouldn't be against a broader ban either. Star Mississippi 23:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I want to make it abundantly clear that my support comes by virtue of the conduct as a whole: its scope, duration, and intractability, and not merely because SCB has views on gender which are broadly unpopular on this project. I continue to feel that merely expressing that one has TERF-adjacent views on gender is not presently a violation of any policy. And I think we have to think seriously as a community about the knock-on effects that establishing such a standard would have on open discourse and other pragmatic concerns for the project, longterm, before we settle on such a rule. However, in this instance, the user's conduct goes far beyond simple statements of belief into many behaviours that have been outright disruptive, touched upon POV and RGW motivations, and violated multiple content and behavioural policies.
  Further, SCB's assertion that he ceased these activities and that a sanction is not necessary as a preventative matter at this point is unconvincing to me, given that his participation here has been almost exclusively devoted towards WP:IDHT rejections of the feedback he has received, rationalizing most of the particular actions discussed as completely valid in the circumstances, and framing the uniformly negative response to his conduct here as an ideological witch hunt. Under these circumstances, with such a broad refusal to accept the feedback he has been given, combined with SCB's strong and aggressive views on the subject matter, I feel we are unfortunately put in the position of of having to assume this conduct is likely to repeat itself in some form--and therefor the TBAN is very much preventative. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  my broader concern is how trans editors may feel when facing SCB's "not quite breaking policy but 100% offensive" edits. Losing them and their TERF-adjacent views appears to be no great loss to the project Star Mississippi 00:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Do understand that your argument moves from simply protecting a minority group to trying to discriminate against what is currently a majority (and by Wikipedia standards probably a consensus) view on gender [27]. Wikipedia is not supposed to lead a social change, rather Wikipedia should be on the trailing end of a social change. I understand and support not allowing a number of the things 2OB has said. However, we should always use the shoe is on the other foot test when dealing with an issue that is so widely disputed. If your statement above was "losing them and their trans-supporting views..." it wouldn't be acceptable. Editors who don't agree on major social issues should be allowed and for neutrality reasons encouraged. Springee (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  They're allowed to hold those opinions, editors are allowed mot to have to deal with their anti-trans rhetoric. Which is what the diffs above are entirely. They have shown themselves in capable of editing collegially around gender and sex, therefore they should not be allowed to. You'll note that while I think they should be more broadly banned, I didn't propose it as I know it's not based in policy and would rightfully not succeed. Star Mississippi 12:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see that you are drawing a clear distinction between holding what is a majority view in the public and "dealing with anti-trans rhetoric". I appreciate that SnowRise does draw that distinction, "scope, duration, and intractability, and not merely because SCB has views on gender which are broadly unpopular on this project." as well as providing a justification why they feel the TBAN isn't punitive. Springee (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Homophobia is still a majority view in most of the world. We don’t tolerate homophobia. Wikipedia isn’t a free speech platform, and trans editors shouldn’t be expected to deal with someone going out of their way to belittle their existence for “fun”. Dronebogus (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  But we aren't talking about homophobia are we. We are talking about something that the population of the US is clearly divided about and one of the places where the US (where the Pew polling was conducted) generally leads much of the world. I also agree that editors shouldn't be belittled or feel they are unwelcome here. That should apply to regardless of which foot the shoe is placed. Springee (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Transphobia is absolutely equivalent to homophobia, racism or misogyny, regardless of what Americans think. We deal with editors who persistently espouse those values in exactly the same way. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect Springee is being a little misunderstood here: I didn't interpret what they said to mean that trans-hatred should be assumed to be less onerous for those coping with it than those who have struggle against homophobia, but rather that, despite the fact that we have, as a purely cultural matter, chosen to use the affix -phobia for both phenomena, they actually operate very differently. As much so as homophobia differs in the particulars from the other social ills you mention, misogyny and racism.

  For example, most people who hate gay people (I mean truly irrationally, powerfully hate gay people) don't try to convince gay people that they aren't gay. I mean, there's a strain of homophobia that incorporates that, such as conversion therapy advocates, but it's not the main mode for homophobia--and the people who advocate for it are most likely to be loved ones of the gay person who think they are helping them and are simply backwards in their understanding of the nativistic element of homsexuality.

  Meanwhile, most people who hate or are ambivalent towards trans people will deny their transness, or at least the authenticity of their identified gendered. And yet, conversely many other people who also do not feel a transwoman is a woman/transman a man will also tell you that this is their abstract belief but they have no hate for trans individuals themselves. And as regards that abstract belief, since we are talking about something that is largely a social construct, the difference in opinion is more a matter of perspective than it is an empirical question (with some neurophysiological caveats mind you).

  This is where I think we get to crux of what Springee was meaning to express, if I guess correctly: throwing all views about gender that are unpopular with us, the Wikipedia administrative space regulars, into the grab-bag of the traits we've decided to somewhat artificially label as all varieties of "transphobia" comes with significant costs. Are we really prepared to pre-deny two thirds of the people we might otherwise recruit on to this project from the countries that contribute almost all of our editors, at a time when retention and uptake are already flagging? Does the project even realistically have a future if we do that? Or, put the pragmatics to the side. As a philosophical/values matter, do we want to become a community that is that ideologically homogenized and slavish to such ever refined purity tests?

  The thing is, most trans people in my experience don't expect or necessarily even care if every person on the face of planet earth accepts the gender a given trans person feels in their bones. Just like most people with depth are not that dependent on outside validation. Trans people just want basic respect and to be able to get through the day without every damn little thing having to be about challenging (or even celebrating!) their gender. It's the "allies" who most often have to go the extra mile towards pushing the goalposts from "Maybe don't go out of your way to make things awkward" to "believe as I do, or I'll show you the door".

  And there's another dimension to the reality check here: I'm quite certain we couldn't enforce such standards even if we were certain we wanted to. The longer I've watched the cycle/permutations of this debate come up, the more I've come to suspect that there is a silent majority here who are growing equally exasperated with the anti-trans identity provocateurs and the pro-trans identity proscriptivists, who can easily override those of us who inhabit positions further towards the extremes. So we can spin our wheels philosophizing where the line that defines disrespect lays and debating what the rules should be, but if we don't take them into account, it's all so much wasted air/bits of data.

  Incidentally, I do have my own idea of where that respect/disrespect line lays, and if I had to give it a name, I'd call it the 'Athaenara rule", but I think maybe we've extenuated this discussion further than ANI is suited for already for the moment. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's not unreasonable. In the end, though, if an editor is behaving in a way that is likely to make others uncomfortable engaging with them because of who they are rather than what they write, that is something that needs dealing with - it's simple WP:5P stuff. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, anyone who has chosen (consciously or just by virtue of their tendentiousness) to leverage our work spaces into a culture war pulpit needs to be prepared for us to snatch away the microphone (or bullhorn as it sometimes feels). And on that topic, let us not forget that we actually TBANned a couple of overzealous pro-trans advocates on account of disruption earlier this year. It would be a very perverse outcome indeed if we didn't do at least as much to shut down issues coming from the other direction. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you SnowRise, you are getting to the core of my concern and I really appreciate that you took the effort to help articulate them. Springee (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  My pleasure, Springee: I'm glad my presumptions weren't off the mark. I appreciate the value of your contributions here. :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  ~yawn~ Well, I've been up for 31 hours my friends, and I've another long day tomorrow, so forgive me if there's a bit of a gap in my next responses: it's not from a lack of interest or appreciation--engaging and valuable conversation! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think we're going to agree to disagree @Springee and some other folks have responded in depth while I was offline. But really curious how you see SCB adds the text I have a cock and balls, so you better refer to me as a man, obviously. as anything but anti trans. There are ways of phrasing that, SCB opted for fully inflammatory and anti trans. Star Mississippi 23:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support SCB has long been overly abrasive in his dealings with other editors, and this is a particularly sensitive topic, culturally and politically, requiring a nuanced approach they seem to lack too often. Also, very much per Star Mississippi. SN54129 13:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support at minimum. Transphobia is treated as the “least of all evils” in regards to prejudice, and established users get away with everything. these both need to stop. If SCB said the same things about gays, blacks, or Jews, or were a new editor (relatively speaking) they would be Cbanned without a second thought. Dronebogus (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Not because of the editor's beliefs but because of their misbehavior. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

  "Not because of the editor's beliefs"? Cullen328, believing trans women are men is not just any belief, it's transphobia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  You might have misinterpreted Cullen328's comment. The words as written merely assert that regardless of the editor's beliefs, there was misbehavior which warrants a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think Liliana's point is that hateful beliefs should not be disregarded. Holding hateful views is not compatible with being an editor here. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Basically this, yes. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  LilianaUwU, if editor A believes that the Hebrew Bible is literally true including its various murderous and genocidal passages, but limits themself entirely to productive editing about butterfly species, should they be indefinitely blocked? And if editor B believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was an innocent patsy who was framed by the CIA, the KGB, and various Mafia families, but confines themself entirely to productive edits about asteroids, should they be blocked? And if editor C believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by explosives pre-positioned in the basements of the buildings, but restricts themself entirely to productive edits related to Renaissance Flemish painters, should that editor be blocked? I do not have access to a mind reading machine, and I doubt that you do. Editors should not be topic banned for their beliefs, but only, as in this case, for repeatedly engaging in behavior to advance those beliefs which can be reasonably be construed as intimidating to other editors. That's how I see the matter, at least. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, in this case, SCB was openly sharing the hateful views. I got bad takes I keep to myself, and I'm pretty sure everyone does. The problem is with those that don't keep the bad takes to themselves. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  And that is exactly why I supported the topic ban, because of their conduct which can be objectively analyzed, as opposed to their inferred beliefs, which are subjective and uncertain. When discussing sanctions, we always need to focus on editor behavior, not on hints to their unacceptable ideologies. Cullen328 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  If I can quote my own essay in agreement: [B]igoted editors are not sanctioned for their ideologies; they are sanctioned for their behavior. ... Focusing on ideology, in justifying sanctions, raises many difficult-to-answer questions [and] needlessly complicates things ... The real answer is simple: Hate is disruptive. We sanction people for disruption. We sanction people who say and do and align with hateful things. (I've noticed a lot of the people who agree with that sentiment are Jewish, like you and me. Perhaps not a coincidence: Judaism judges people by what they do, not what they believe. And most diaspora Jews live surrounded by people who believe we're going to Hell, but are still kind and neighborly, which provides a good lesson in the application of that principle.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Insufficient remorse and self-reflection for an issue this serious. Folks keep mentioning apologies and remorse, but I am not getting that vibe at all from what I have seen in this thread. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing any "intractable" "TERF" misconduct here. I agree this user should be warned about removing other user's talk page messages, but otherwise I find this entire thread lacking. All I'm seeing is someone noticing a thing they didn't like on a user page and dragging it to a high-drama board where – unsurprisingly – drama ensues, and a clearly experienced IP (with their seemingly very first edit on the project) going through 2 years worth of contributions to present a narrative that even users supporting a sanction are poking holes in. If anything, the more serious question here is in regard to who the above IP is, whether they themselves have been topic-banned from the GENSEX area, and/or why they're posting as an IP. I find it hard to believe an uninvolved, drive-by IP has the know-how, persistence or tenacity to want to bother with this. Whataboutisms and arguments saying "If SCB said the same things about gays, blacks, or Jews" ring hollow. They did not. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't find the IP to be all that suspicious. They're on a dynamic IP and their /64 shows they've been editing since at least January of this year.

  What I am curious about is that the last time you were at this noticeboard was over eight months ago to vehemently suggest sanctions against me, and now your first time back is to be the sole opposer of a sanction I proposed against a user who it appears you've never even interacted with. And I know you're not over the old ANI because just last month you made it your main reason to oppose a candidate at RfA. So, how did you come across this thread? ––FormalDude (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  As evidenced in your response, you are in no position to refute my suspicions. I frequently browse this page, and fully read and carefully examined this entire thread. You did not create it, and this is not about you or any grievance you continue to have with me. Your persistent hounding and personalization is disruptive. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Persistent hounding? Disruptive? Lay off the personal attacks please, it was an honest inquiry. If you can be dubious of the IP editor, I can be dubious of you. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I apologize. I appreciate you informing me of the /64 edits. I didn't think to check. Still, I don't think it was necessary of you to be "dubious" of my intention in contributing here. But I'm happy to drop it now. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I just dealt with another person casting aspersions on the sole basis of me being an IP editor, so I'll stick to the cliff notes this time.

  • Editors on an IPv6 do indeed tend to bounce around their subnet, as you can see from my apartment unit's /64 graciously linked above.
  • IP editors are people too, and do not inherently warrant suspicion about why they're posting as an IP. (Since you've asked-via-accusation, I simply haven't taken the time to settle on a username I won't easily tire of.)
  • going through 2 years worth of contributions — my first post merely listed the diffs that had already been linked to thus far, and my second consisted of searching a few key phrases in their contributions to see if anything had been missed.
  • to present a narrative that even users supporting a sanction are poking holes in — er, are we reading the same thread? You're the first oppose after 7 supports, and absolutely nobody is "poking holes" in the dispassionate list of diffs I provided. Unless you mean not every comment in the above is something which I feel is currently proscribed by the community? I'm not sure what you're possibly on about.
  • who the above IP is, whether they themselves have been topic-banned from the GENSEX area — I have not been topic-banned from anywhere. I've only ever had one actual account on here, which I made in 2006 at the age of 9 and haven't touched since 2009.
  • I find it hard to believe an uninvolved, drive-by IP has the know-how, persistence or tenacity to want to bother with this — it's not exactly a massive undertaking to spend half an hour collating all the scattered diffs into one place. I saw people starting to get sidetracked and bogged down in the weeds, so I did the grunt work to help move things along. Is there a reason this troubles you so?

  I wish I could say it's surprising to see someone who's made nearly 15,000 edits over the course of 16 years making unfounded accusations of misconduct, but being on the receiving end of random bad-faith hostility is to be expected as an IP editor. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:F1E5:E9AD:EE75:5F7 (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think they may be referring to this RFC when they were talking about the community. Also, for what it's worth, I've always been supportive of IP editors. I've never really understood the bad faith hostility towards IPs or new editors who "know too much" but haven't done anything wrong. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  I see that User:DriveByUser and User:DriveByIP are available, if you wish to poke fun at such comments. casualdejekyll 23:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - After reading through this, I think what we have here is a fine example of how hate is disruptive. The timeline presented by the IP editor in the section above demonstrates how SCB has been expressing their views on both talk pages and in the main article space for several years now, leading to disruptions in BLPs (see the edits to J.K. Rowling, and Julian Assange). This alone is TBAN worthy, however we also have in this discussion a degree of wikilawyering that leads me to believe that the disruption will continue, just in a different and less obvious form. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, and based on what I've seen, this TBAN will prevent further disruption regardless of the future form. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my above reasonings. For note, I am the last admin who blocked Squared... Lourdes 09:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Question This editor was warned in April. What behavior since April is at issue? The IP editor provided two diffs after April are there any others? Otherwise are editors saying the behaviors since April are sufficient to warrant a Tban given an earlier warning? Springee (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  I explained to SCB above my reasoning: they behaved so appallingly that they should never edit in this area again. Keeping a transphobic userbox on their page and editing a transphobic political commentator’s talk page in a non-neutral way are minor infractions, but coming from someone who previously vandalized a talk page to say the idea of transgender genocide was stupid they’re incredibly damning. They should have been Tbanned to begin with. Dronebogus (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Diffs above are pretty egregious. Loki (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, or even siteban. The wall of diffs the IP provided really makes me believe experienced editors get free passes. Why should they? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The long term pattern of behaviour exhibited is clearly incompatible with productive editing in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support – long-term pattern of disruption in a CT. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The IP editor did present diffs that I think are not acceptable, however, they all date to before the editor was warned. If those edits were sufficient to justify the tban then it should have been implemented at that time. Since the warning only two things are presented as evidence of continued disruption. The first is the removal of a talk page comment that was already viewed as unacceptable. As Dronebogus noted below, the removal itself wasn't unreasonable. The other issue was a user box that supports What is a Woman on the editor's home page. If this were presented on any talk page again, I wouldn't view it the same way. However, I think this crosses over into thought crime. The only people who are going to see that are really looking for it. While the view is not aligned with Wiki editor consensus, Pew's data says it's (presumably) aligned with the majority view in the USA. At this point I'm afraid it gets back into the issues of what user boxes are OK or not OK. How should people who's families were victims of communism or the activities of Che Guevara supposed to feel when users have supportive user boxes? Basically I don't see this as a significant continuation of the previous problematic behavior. If a user box that expresses the view that trans-woman != women isn't OK (I assume that is what the video tries to say) then we should state and offer a grace period to remove all such user boxes. I do appreciate that some of the supporters above are careful to note the difference between thoughts and actions. I agree with that position and in this case I don't think the actions post warning rise to a tban level. Springee (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Springee and Homeostasis. IP has demonstrated a clear pattern of concerning behaviour, but based on the dates, I don't think that there has been any disruptive editing in the mainspace recently to warrant a tban. Maybe if there was disruptive behaviour in the past few weeks and this clearly demonstrated and ignorance of warnings, then there should be a tban. There's no issue over the use of the userbox. It's common practice for editors to express political views on their userpage and I don't see how this is any different. Willbb234 19:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I have recently interacted with the user on the Mike Tyson article due to a WP:3O request regarding their reverts. While I respect that the user does appear receptive to dispute resolutions not in their favor, there are two particular edits that have me supporting the TBAN. The user in 2021 said "Fuck NOTFORUM", yet when a WP:NOTFORUM concern was raised about an IP user's statement, the user in question removed the IP user's entry entirely. If there is one thing I don't like, it is a double standard, so I support this TBAN not only for the benefit of the community, but for the user themself so they may have some time for reflection.--WMrapids (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Squared.Circle.Boxing is formally warned not to remove the talk page contributions of other editors

In addition to the above TBAN, I think we need at least one other measure here with regard to SCB and a habit he has indicated he has that goes beyond the GENSEX topic area: specifically, he believes he is entitled to remove the edits of other contributors from talk pages, in violation of WP:TPG, if those edits criticize the editorial or behavioural conduct of others users--provided that SCB feels convinced that such comments constitute WP:ASPERSIONS. At other times, SCB suggested that such topics are (for some reason) WP:NOTAFORUM violations.

This is clearly not the community-approved process for dealing with aspersions, nor is this a recognized exemption to the rule against deleting other contributor's comments, as enumerated under WP:INTERPOLATE, WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, TPG generally, WP:WWIN or any other community guideline or consensus. However, this feedback has thus far been rejected by SCB. I therefore propose that SCB be formally warned that he is not allowed to remove another community member's talk page contributions in these circumstances, and that the next such instance of his doing so is likely to result in a block. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. As proposer, and per above. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support To be honest, I think this would have regardless been a given outcome whenever this discussion thread closes. It is well known that unless an edit on a talk page was vandalism or severely violates WP:Civil, one should not remove those comments. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support SCB has long been overly abrasive in his dealings with other editors and should not be touching their posts. SN54129 13:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support, per above. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - there is a fine line when considering removal of talk page comments per policies like WP:NOTFORUM and guidelines like WP:TPO. Based on the diffs provided above, SCB's judgement on this is not the best and not in keeping with those points. As such he should seriously reconsider how he is approaching these situations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any evidence of continuing talk page removal as a basis for a community warning. One diff does not a community warning make, leave alone a block. Lourdes 09:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Lourdes except this isn't the only case: SCB has disclosed himself that he has routinely deleted other talk space comments for the same reasons, and his deeply flawed understanding of the relevant policies (see above) and how liberally he believes those policies empower him to delete other user's comments is a very serious problem--especially in light of his refusal to accept the feedback of the community here about same. Nobody is talking about a block at all here, and warning is a very "cheap" community response. And yes, we very commonly warn users here for a single infraction, if the behaviour is problematic enough. All the time, in fact. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I think the talk page edit was right, for the wrong reasons. Yes I think it was uncivily done and possibly motivated by anti-trans bias, but the comment was weird and inappropriate and I probably would’ve collapsed it had I come across it first. Sanctioning him from something he did wrong once is punitive, not preventative Dronebogus (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

A collapse is one thing: I doubt we'd be talking about it if he had done so. Deleting is another matter and the community has very purposefully restricted redacting another's user's comments completely to extremely narrow circumstances, none of which remotely apply here. And as I just indicated to Lourdes above, this proposal would not be happening if not for the fact that SCB has indicated very clearly above that he refuses all feedback in this respect and has been making a habit of deleting comments in this context, meaning this behaviour is almost certain to repeat if we don't issue a warning at the least. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose As Dronebogus said, the removal wasn't totally out of line. I do generally feel that once someone replies to a comment then hatting/archiving or admin suppression are the only correct options but I don't think removal was over the top in this case. If there were a history of issues (or if a history can be shown) then I would say this is a problem. Right now this seems more punitive in result (not saying that is the intent, just the result). Springee (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support There's rarely a valid excuse for this kind of behaviour. Willbb234 19:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Examining the edit in question, I believe SCB was correct to remove that message. The IP was arguing that the edits and talk page contributions of multiple users should be disregarded because "... I myself am transgender. Many of the people in this thread have openly expressed their distaste for my existence. ..." There was nothing of the sort in that entire discussion. That sort of loaded language is not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere in a controversial topic area, and another user – @Pufferfishe: – responded to that IP saying "this is not the place for this type of discussion, per WP:NOTFORUM." SCB was correct to remove such an inflammatory comment, IMO. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Komoro72

Komoro72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Removed and altered sourced information at Shahmaran, either removing anything that doesn't have the word "Kurd(ish)/Kurdistan" in it, or replacing it with "Kurd(ish)/Kurdistan" [28] [29] [30]
• At Hasanwayhids, they replaced sourced mention of "Iran" with "Kurdistan" [31]. I wonder if they are even aware that the latter is first attested around 100 years after the dynasty ended [32]

Extremely hostile for some reason, making random attacks/rants:

• "Hello dear PanIranist history Please explain the topic and stop threatening users"
• Why you clear kurds from shamaran? Kurds own the myth why persians trying to stealing from kurdish myths? That was not a reply to me, but another user who warned them.
• Hello dear paniranist user please provide sources that this Kurdish dynasty name itself as iranians or Persians! blocking users with racial supremacist intentions are not acceptable on wiki

When I asked them why they were attacking me and whilst logged out a that, this was their reply, another attack:

do not ask personal questions about the way I use my personal devices as you are not Iranian itelat and wiki isn’t Iran!

I fail to see how they're a net worth to this site. A lot of these type of users have emerged recently, trying to replace anything with "Kurdish" and make attacks right off the bat. Might be off-Wikipedia cooperation, considering this one by the same type of users a few months ago [33]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Cult of personality by User:JabarPC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dare Devil Dare

User:Dare Devil Dare readded an unlikely claim after the claim had been deleted. No source was provided, and the editor had received a final warning for adding claims without proper sources. Dare Devil Dare was dismissive of the warning. Today the editor made an additional edit that seems unlikely and is not supported by the source cited. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC); link fixed as suggested by Schazjmd at 20:00 UTC 29 August 2023.

I think you meant this for that last "additional edit" link. Schazjmd (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

https://suppliers.jimtrade.com/168/167814/chloro_fluorescent_lamps_ceiling.htm

Link for Chloro Fluorescent Lamp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dare Devil Dare (talk • contribs) 06:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

^ Narky Blert (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dare Devil Dare, what is your source for Shakespeare is often referred to as the Kalidasa of United Kingdom? You cited a poem by Milton that makes no mention of Kalidasa. Schazjmd (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

when people of England introduce Kalidas as Shakespeare of India at that time Indians were also describe Shakespeare as Kalidas of united kingdom.

This is what the source mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dare Devil Dare (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dare Devil Dare, this is the source you cited. It's a poem. No mention of Kalidasa. This is not helping to demonstrate your competence to edit. Schazjmd (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I also note that your most recent edit, here added non-reliable sources, content not supported by the sources, and ignored one of your own sources stating that Roy's Draft was of "purely academic interest; official constitutional reforms took no notice". Schazjmd (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

And I just reverted your edits to Names of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. You cited two sources, and neither of them supported your claim. This seems to be a persistent problem with your edits.

Propose that Dare Devil Dare be blocked from article-space. They can use article talk pages to request edits. When they've had an adequate number of edit requests approved, showing that they understand reliable sourcing, they can request that the block be lifted. Schazjmd (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Schazjmd. I'm the original poster, and I'm not an administrator. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Just see my name I am Dare, as well as, Devil. Jokes apart. Well you may remove that stuff from Constitution of India, but my request, at least add some stuff in its place. Dare Devil Dare (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the edits being discussed here, and the responses, I get the distinct impression we are being trolled. Either that, or there are severe communication problems that make Dare Devil Dare's responses impossible to distinguish from trolling. Either way, I'd suggest we cut to the chase and just indef block entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Seriously will you guys block me? I am sure you are joking apart. Dare Devil Dare (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that almost every edit you have made so far has been reverted, there is no joking involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps we'll do it in two steps, Andy, as Schazjmd suggests. In a minute, I will block Dare Devil Dare indefinitely from article space, with a suggestion that they use article talk pages to request edits, then request unblock once they have showed a better understanding of our sourcing requirements. Bishonen | tålk 11:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC).

Autopatrolled editor removing maintenance templates

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

---

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

This editor who is autopatrolled is creating articles with non-standard references and is continually removing maintenance templates when they are tagged. They references are raw search urls that are completely useless to man nor beast and are leading to non-standard articles. About 14 months ago, I unreviewed 14 of these articles where the majority of the references were these bare urls and although I got flak for it, I think there was a promise to fix them at the time, and even though I tagged them with maintance templates, the tags were all removed. I went back a couple of days to review the latest articles and they are still the same. I tagged the page, the maintance templates were again removed Here is an example for 14 months ago Lazarus House [34] Here is an example of an article that was created last week: Frederick W. Schumacher. I tagged this article with maintenance template a couple of days ago: Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio and the tags were removed [35]. I had a conversation with user:Ɱ at their talk page.. Editor opened a dicussion here but still doesn't seem to taking the problem onboard. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Scope creep playing out of their scope?. I tagged the Lazarus House [36] and it was removed.. The editor seems incapable of taking on the problem and resolving, instead pointing to a whole other bunch of unrelated stuff like reliabilty, which has not been questioned as the sources cant be examined. scope_creep^Talk 22:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

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

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

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

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

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

  I suggest looking at both parties in this dispute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry but you really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia if you're going to ignore requests to do things you need to already be doing because they're not polite enough. Even more when you should have already known that what you were doing wasn't acceptable or otherwise shouldn't have the autopatrolled right. More importantly, there's nothing impolite about this request back in December [37] Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• @Ɱ: You keep saying you only need a polite request and you will improve but there are two problems for this. While editors should generally be polite in their interactions, an editor cannot ignore a request for them to stop doing something they should not be doing simply because it was insufficiently polite. I can perhaps understand the situation where someone was so absolutely rude that you missed their request or stopped reading but it doesn't sounds like this is the issue here. Perhaps more importantly, can you explain to me what part of this December 2022 request was impolite [38]? Yes Pi.1415926535 did not re-review your articles, but that cannot reasonably be interpreted to make their response impolite. In fact they partially agreed with you but sought further feedback. If you consider such a request impolite enough that you're going to ignore it, that's an even bigger problem.

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

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

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

  IMO it's fairly reasonable to say these articles are unsourced in such a circumstance. Perhaps there are better templates that could be used, but ultimately that's more semantics than anything. You should be aware, even without being told that what you were doing was unacceptable and you were in fact specifically told back in December that it was and even in a polite fashion. I'm personally not a great fan of editors leaving something in main space even for a day or two while they cleanup, but even if we accept giving you a week, this doesn't explain why you only fixed the ones at Lazarus House in August after so many months [39].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment I'll mention this as my final comment since while it's been touched on, not that well IMO including by me as it's something I only realised late on. Note that there are two problems with the actual URLs provided which are related but distinct. One is they point to a library proxy page to access the source. This is why people clicking on them end up on a library login page which makes them seem extremely pointless since it's such a highly specific requirement. I don't think this is something an autopatrolled editor should be leaving long term but it's a simple problem to fix even by a bot (although probably a bit risky to automate without targeting specific libraries) and once you do you have simple Newsbank URLs. The second is that the older URLs seem to be the products of search results so even if you fix the URL you still can't see anything without Newsbank access and these also may die easily. This is one of the URLs I fixed so it simply points to newsbank [40] you still get a login page but to Newsbank (unless you can access Newsbank like that). Note that the latest URLs still have the first problem but might have fixed the second problem. This one I can actually access although I don't have Newsbank because it's some sort of open URL [41]. I assume there are some Newsbank URLs which are not open but do properly point to a specific resource, but I have no idea what an editor without Newsbank sees although I think it might also be simply a login screen. Nil Einne (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not entirely surprised there's no policy that explicitly prohibits citing a statement to a web proxy link to a paywall behind a paywall. Just describe the source and leave the link out of it if this is the alternative. Yes, {{unreliable source}} is not the correct tag for this issue, but {{bare URL inline}} is extremely charitable. The sources at Frederick W. Schumacher are one step removed from File:///Local/usr/root/docs/108764.djvu. I don't feel like they're appropriate to have in mainspace for any length of time.
  I have accidentally left in personal notes like {{whatever that source was}} that I failed to notice upon first publishing a major content edit, but always fixed them within a few minutes on initial review, and would never defend their persistence in an article so I could avoid cleaning up after myself. Folly Mox (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Remove Autopatrolled, No Big Deal and signal boost what EEng said. This is not a banning, nor a desysop, this is just AP rights. This is not a punishment as mj claims, it is housekeeping for the sake of patrollers and article quality. Removing AP rights is only a punishment if your goal on Wikipedia is to create as many articles as possible and never revisit or polish them (or if you just want a shiny digital badge). If your goal truly is to make good articles for the sake of WP, then being patrolled strictly helps you by identifying where your efforts should be directed. Again, it's no big deal. GabberFlasted (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep autopatrolled rights and swarm MJ with apologies instead of a pile-on per above and my comments at the fire station AfD. MJ is an excellent Wikipedia editor with a long list of written and designed articles. This didn't have to be taken to ANI, and this discussion should be withdrawn. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (non admin). As no-one yet seems to have mentioned the essay WP:HATCOLLECT, I will. Its spirit (with which I agree, and which seems pertinent in the context of this long thread) is that advanced permissions are granted in order to reduce workload on other editors. Narky Blert (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• I have no opinion about revoking autopatrolled or not, but I would like to observe that this is not the first time the problem with using a link to a library log-on page have been pointed out ɱ: BrownHairedGirl raised the issue just over a year ago, and three months ago I had a very unpleasant exchange with ɱ at Bemelmans Bar in which they were aggressive and condescending in defense of these garbage links. Eventually a couple of other editors intervened and talked ɱ down in that instance, but their abrasiveness has dissuaded me from trying to do a cleanup of the 150 or so articles where they've left these useless URLs. I think the comment here is illustrative of the perspective-warping effect of WP:OWNership, but it's not obvious to me that removing autopatrolled status has much to do with solving the underlying issues. --JBL (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  a link to Ɱ saying that all that was required was to find an Ohio Wikipedian – That's [42]. EEng 05:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  The tragedy is this whole thing can be resolved very easily. I don't see any malice from any editor here. An experienced editor simply got called out for a very specific issue with their editing, thought they were in the right, were surprised when it boomeranged when everyone else told them there was indeed an issue (in spite of the fact it wasn't the first time they've been made aware of it), and then posted diffs like [43] [44] and [45] (calling those who called them out abusers.) No one wants to lose experienced editors - there's been too much drama recently and I feel like we're quick to judge on things as a community at the moment - but the WP:IDHT, ownership issues, viewing the loss of autopatrol as a punishment, accusations of gaslighting, and rage quit here make me think we should be at least a little careful about welcoming them back into the community. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

IP editor still changing British to English post-block

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

• Previous report here.

This IP editor has been changing "British" to "English" in various BLPs for a few weeks now. They've received blocks from Black Kite and Materialscientist (across different IPs - see the thread). Despite this, 80.189.40.109 is continuing with this edit warring.

The best part however, as I've reverted them across several articles, is that they felt the need to write an essay about me. This user has had the current BLP consensus explained to them in the past, but it's clear they're not going to stop edit warring, despite blocks. — Czello ^(music) 11:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean the editor is indeed acting quite silly but their verboseness aside, don't they have a point? I don't edit in (or follow) the boxing sphere but from a little searching it seems that *most* Scottish or Welsh boxers here are called such in the lede. If English is more specific than British, and we use the more specific term for Scotland and Wale s, why not do the same for England? Am I missing something? Respectfully, GabberFlasted (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked them for personal attacks. Maybe we should introduce them to the editor who keeps changing "English" to Jamaican or British and let them work it out (similarly blocked). Maybe they have a point, but it's lost in the nationalist dudgeon. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

All of them (English, Welsh, Scottish - and Northern Irish though that's more complex) should really be "British" as that's their actual nationality. There are plenty that don't conform to this, but this editor is taking things too far. See also the edit summaries from their previous IPs [46] [47]. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Follow the lead of high-quality references when talking about nationality. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland compete as separate nations in association football (soccer). See Northern Ireland national football team. In other sports, there may be an all-Britain or all-United Kingdom team in international competition. It's probably best to discuss any change in nationality on an article's talk page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There no easy solution to this, WP:UKNATIONALS is a good read. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• More edit warring continuing here, with the personal attack You are a typical petty and bigoted male editor. Women editors would be tempered and reasonable. No wonder the world is in a mess with children in men's bodies like you. Sick and depraved evil bastard. You do wiki more harm than good when it is not consistent. There are plenty of British people called English on here under the same criteria you robotic freak!. — Czello ^(music) 09:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Following the links in this report reinforces my determination to someday figure out why people who refer to WP as wiki are always trouble. EEng 10:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked the new one. I'm not sure anyone planned to play whack-a-mole today, but here we are. --Jayron32 13:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

SM Supermalls

I will like to block that IP User because he or she create hoaxes that aren't reliable source as per WP:Hoaxes. So please report that IP User ASAP. Thank you so much. Rhianna543 (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Presumably this IP user is meant. Rhianna543, you must notify the editor on their talkpage when you report them to ANI. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I even warn the IP User anyways. Rhianna543 (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Formally warn them. There’s a template for that. Borgenland (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you Rhianna543 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Agamino911 - disruptive page moving

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

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

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

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

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

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

Father of the Nation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My point is, this is not the first place you come to get problems addressed. It is the last. You apparently have enough skin in the game to raise the matter here and take up everyone's time with a discussion. If you want to back out now, fine, do that. If you just have an idle question about how to handle something at Wikipedia, and don't really need an admin to use their tools, then WP:HD is thataway. Please reserve this board for when things become so bad, you expect blocks, bans, protections, or deletions to be needed. --Jayron32 17:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow. — Trey Maturin™ 17:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hm? --Jayron32 17:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like closing this thread is in everybody's best interests here. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Trey Maturin was presumably responding to the inexplicably high level of aggression / hostility in your responses to them. --JBL (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I was being aggressive or hostile. There was certainly no hostility in my intent. I have never met Trey Maturin before the above exchange, I certainly haven't built up any knowledge of them or who they are in order to form a hostile feeling towards them. --Jayron32 12:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Three editors, four if you include me, have opined about your aggression and rudeness above, which I believe was conduct unbecoming an administrator. I have no further comments to make about this matter. — Trey Maturin™ 12:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You could start a discussion on the talk page trying to establish a consensus. If the editors can't agree you could start an WP:RfC. That way there is (hopefully) a consensus that people can point to when there are issues. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Article's a pile of OR that inherently can't help attracting trouble. Most entries are unsourced. Ought to be deleted. EEng 03:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Lists don't need sources. I just checked the pages of the first 5 unsourced entries and their main articles verify the information. With over 63 references the article, it is clearly visible that the article is aware of WP:V. You can tag any particular entry if you have issue. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Surely that can't be true. Can we all just add unsourced lists to any article simply by putting them under a "List" heading? Nigej (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Of course it's not true.

  • Lists don't need sources – Perhaps C00's taking one of those pharmaceuticals that warns you not to drive or operate machinery, because DUH! of course they do -- see WP:SOURCELIST.
  • I just checked the pages of the first 5 unsourced entries and their main articles verify the information – We must be talking about different pages, because I just checked the first five unsourced entries (Kemal, Bird, de San Martín, Hayk, Parkes) and made quite different findings. Heyk might arguably be said to be verified by his article, but the other four are described (by the page) as "Father of [something]", but the word father doesn't even appear in any of their articles except in reference to priests and, well, literal biological fathers. And the sources that are present often extremely flimsy.
  • it is clearly visible that the article is aware of WP:V – That is indeed clearly visible, and combining this with fact that the page has been in its same sorry state for decades makes the case for deletion or WP:TNT even more compelling.

  EEng 06:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  See FA list High courts of India. It does not have sources for most of the entries because it is not necessary to have references for articles that are merely putting information that is already verified by the linked Wikipedia article. Capitals00 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  That page got the gold star in 2005 via this pathetic "discussion". It certainly wouldn't pass today. EEng 06:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  High courts of India is not as "FA List" (whatever that is) it's a "Featured List" and was promoted to that status on September 8, 2005. Father of the Nation is not a "list" article. Nigej (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Both articles are in list format however. Capitals00 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Whatever. I've marked the article {More citations needed}. But really, without very carefully thought out inclusion criteria, this page will be a never-ending source of conflict. EEng 14:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Father of the Nation article

• Continued at Talk:Father of the Nation#Official versus unofficial

  ---

This notice is related to page Father of the Nation. I added Unofficial in front of Gandhi's name here Revision as of 13:29, 31 August 2023 because he has never been declared as Father of the Nation by government of India neither does the Article 18 of The Constitution of India allows conferring titles other than military and academic distinctions by the State. I supported my point with a reliable source from The Times of India Mahatma Gandhi was never declared ‘Father of Nation’, reveals RTI reply Now, I understand that these titles are honorific but at the same time there are people in Father of the Nation#List like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and others. Then comes Capitals00 and reverts my edit Revision as of 06:23, 1 September 2023 saying many names listed here are not official father either. He then goes on to remove some more content and replaces Leader with Most prominent leader here Revision as of 06:25, 1 September 2023 and defines his edit as rm irrelevant comment. How can quoting an article of Indian constitution which is directly related to this thing be irrelevant? Then I revert his edits here Revision as of 06:32, 1 September 2023 with my point being After every name unofficial should be written. Wikipedia is encyclopaedias corner. Readers with no knowledge about the topic should know whether the person is officially declared as Father of Nation or not. Then the same user rereverts my edit here Revision as of 07:13, 1 September 2023 saying honorific titles need no official declaration. Now my point is that shouldn't there be any difference between the ones who are declared by their respective countries as Father of the Nation or are converted conferred similar titles amd the ones which are just called by people? The user served me a notice at my talk page for unconstructive edits. He here directly accuses that I am pushing my Hindutva POV just because I added whats correct. Accusing someone of something baselessly just because of one edit that too supported with source is itself unconstructive. Doesn't that come under personal attack too? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 02:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am providing some more references from reliable source that says Gandhi was never conferred this title.

• India Today-Constitution doesn't permit 'Father of the Nation' title:MHA
• The Economic Times-Mahatma Gandhi not formally conferred 'Father of the Nation' title:Government
• Hindustan Times-Who named Mahatma Gandhi 'father of nation'? Govt foxed
• TheHindu-Plea to declare Gandhi as Father of Nation rejected Shaan Sengupta^Talk 02:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You all should be using Talk:Father of the Nation to discuss this, and none of you have. Shaan Sengupta's post of 02:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC) above belongs there not here. (WP:ANI is about behaviour not content.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Toddy1 I would have initiated the discussion at Talk:Father of the Nation but @Capitals00 served me a notice at my talk page single-handedly deciding that it was me who was being unconstructive. Rather to discuss about it he directly accused me of pushing Hindutva POV. He also said that I am making edits according to Hindutva propaganda. I can't understand how is providing additional information with supported references POV pushing. So I had no choice but to report this here. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That was a mindless move since you already lost debate on your talk page. There was no need to forum shop here to mislead people. A honorific title does not need to be "official". You had agreed with this fact and now instead of grasping my message carefully you are trying to find ways to get around the Hindutva propaganda you are pushing. Anybody who is aware of this subject can easily observe that Hindutva extremists always come up with misleading reasons to dispute the honorific title of "father of the nation" for Mahatma Gandhi.[48][49] If you are really sincere over removing what you believe is unofficial then you would be removing bunch of names there but that isn't what you have done. Don't use Wikipedia for political soapboxing. Capitals00 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Capitals00 The discussion was still going on. As you ahve mentioned there that I accepted your point, I never did. Its you who took it your way. I just said that there should be a difference between Official and Unofficial titles. Like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is officially given the title of Father of Nation in Bangladesh while Gandhi isn't. So there sould be a difference between the two. This is what I said. Now coming to your second point. I never removed anything rather just added unofficial. And Why would I removed bunch of names when I don't know anything about them. My edit history can clearly make this clear that I just edit articles related to Indian subcontinent. And some other articles I read about or I am interested in. You are constantly accusing me of propaganda. And it doesn't matter to me what the extremist say. I mentioned what the Constitution and the government said. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 05:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:IDHT. Since the title is honorific, you are not supposed to make any distinction between "official" and "unofficial". If you were really only concerned about defining which title is official and which one isn't then why you missed many other names like, say George Washington[50] who is also informally called 'father of his nation'? From next time, don't engage in this forum shopping and avoid editing with a POV. Capitals00 (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Capitals00 Same IDHT might go for you as well. Seems you didn't read my last reply well. I clearly said that I don't edit something that I am unaware about. I don't know anything about George Washington other than that he is a founding father, revolutionary who fought for America and first president of The USA. So why would I do something I have no idea about? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

IDHT applies only on you since you have been told too many times that honorific titles don't need official recognition, yet you are citing "the Constitution" to justify your POV. If you don't know about a topic then you must familiarize yourself before editing it. Capitals00 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I am very much familiar with Gandhi and his status. I said I don't know too much about other names in the list. Specifically those who are outside Indian subcontinent. Don't read parts of the reply. Read it full and understand then reply. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't understand the topic of "Father of the nation" as a whole, that's why you are eagerly misrepresenting it and that is the issue. Capitals00 (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

We have an editor who very prominently touts their support for the BJP seeking to de-emphasize Ghandi -- doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure this one out. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll It's pretty obvious that this comment of yours is directed towards me. I would want you to kindly tell me how am I de-emphasizing Gandhi. Just because I said what's true I am de-emphasizing? I very clearly have reliable sources to support they Gandhi has never been declared. How am I wrong? Or how am I de-emphasizing Gandhi. Please tell me. And how did you come to a conclusion that BJP doesn't believe in Gandhi. Although some people don't buy it can't be termed as full party is against Gandhi. PM Modi and other top BJP leaders have always kept Gandhi in high esteem. So how did you accuse the whole party of being Anti-Gandhi. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 18:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hindutva proponents including BJP members are known for worshipping Gandhi's murderer.[51] The dubious admiration you are citing is also recognized as dubious even by another prominent Hindutva political party Shiv Sena in the words that BJP members pretend to uphold Gandhi only when they are meeting foreigners because they are not up for buying their propaganda contrary to Hindutva audience.[52] It is easy to acknowledge that you are trying to get around Hindutva propaganda. Here is another conclusive evidence of your Hindutva POV pushing. Capitals00 (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You have tagged the wrong ShivSena. You can keep saying what satisfies you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue I had is solved so I am outta this discussion now. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Shaan Sengupta, a timeline helps here.

• 17:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC) the discussion on this topic at WP:ANI started.
• 07:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Shaan Sengupta made an edit to Father of the Nation adding an unofficial tag with a citation.^[53]
• 15:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Shaan Sengupta made an edit to Father of the Nation changing the image in the lead from Mahatma Gandhi to José de San Martín.^[54]
• 01:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Shaan Sengupta reverted two edits by Capitals00 at Father of the Nation.^[55]
• 01:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Capitals00 made his/her first post on User talk:Shaan Sengupta.^[56]

There is and was nothing to stop Shaan Sengupta posting on Talk:Father of the Nation to explain his/her point of view. Though, he/she did provide helpful edit summaries in his/her posts.^[57] An advantage of using the article talk page is that other people who watch the page can become involved in the discussion. And you never know, maybe through discussing it, you and Capitals00 might end up agreeing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Please could you have the content discussion at Talk:Father of the Nation#Official versus unofficial.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Guerriero-Castaldo family at Capriglia Irpina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Their seventh edit includes possible WP:FRINGE undertones as they say "I wonder why the WHO took this down" when discussing the WHO's dead link regarding a report which said that studies suggesting that the DTP vaccine "may be detrimental ... are at high risk of bias and have failed to replicate when conducted by independent groups". Apparently they are suggesting that the DTP vaccine may be harmful?
• They then began placing errors carelessly into articles, saying "Don't care. A bot can fix it", so it already seems like they are here more focused on a mission and are not interested in achieving WP:COMPETENCE to perform edits correctly.
• Placed contentious information in a WP:BLP because the individual criticized the COVID-19 lab leak theory. They have recently continued to attempt this edit.
• Seems particularly interested in vaccine injury.[58][59]
• When the user placed unsourced information without apparent competence of WP:MEDRS, they were reverted due to the lack of a source, later leaving an uncivil edit summary towards the reverting user saying "Some nutter sanitizing FDA-published info on FDA warnings? SERIOUSLY?".
• Then there are the COVID-19 edits... They attempted to promote WP:FRINGE information with their interestingly titled section, "Fauci used taxpayer money to finance a Chinese laboratory where [SARS-CoV-2] was [perhaps] developed is NOT 'a baseless conspiracy theory' per reliable sources these days." They tried to introduce a PDF from Rand Paul to push such content. A notice was placed on the user's page warning about COVID-19 being a contentious topic, the user responded uncivilly to the notice saying "Apparently reality is a contentious topic" and when an explanation was provided to show their errors, the user responded saying "I didn't think informed people still seriously disputed that" and said they were trying to "connecting the dots", suggesting they were attempting WP:SYNTH or WP:OR.
• Regarding my recent interaction with the user, they replied to one of my comments saying "You're not listening. Seems you didn't comprehend anything I wrote." and suggested that I was attempting to "mislead someone reading the comments to close the RFC". After asking them to be WP:CIVIL (and attempting to answer their question), they continued WP:BADGER behavior, writing an uncivil reply that said "I wrote, ...ONLY, please, and only diffs wherein La Patilla articles, cited on wikipedia have been "stated before" (and shown) to be BFN. Otherwise, please don't reply. Total failure. Yes, WP:BLUDGEON, err, WP:BLUDGEON. STOP. Not cool." So... they obviously are not receptive towards being civil.

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

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

The picture that emerges at WT:MED is of a knowledgeable pharmacist or physician trying to learn their way around Wikipedia,[60] [61] and several of the interpretations of diffs above amount to bitey failure to assume good faith. (See WP:EXPERT.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report concerning IP adress 119.94.140.154

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

User:TheCatLife reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

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

The specific edit in question is [62] which I think shows an unfortunate attitude towards collegiality, civility, and collaboration. --JBL (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Cortador collapsing my additions to a talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortly afterwards, they reverted my formatting fixes and moved the span of the collapse to include my new post, with the edit summary, Restored as per below. Editor complains about sources they haven't read and appears unable to challenge the actual sources instead of voicing pre-emptive complaints about the process in which they were supposedly obtained, a gross misrepresentation. They then inserted new posts ahead of mine in the collapsed part of the thread, leaving the collapsed thread orphaned out-of-context at the the end of the sub-thread thus: [63].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- At first they justified the removal due to a specific word used, "renege", and demanded citations to back up the existence of public pressure. I replied with sections from the already cited sources and as an act of good faith removed the word "reneged" when reincluding the cited additions (along with extra ones showing that there was public pressure) despite not agreeing with DeFacto's claim it was "loaded" or "editorialised".[64][65]

- Following this they then selectively applied WP:LEAD, falsely suggesting that you don't use citations in the lede yet notably only removing citations I had added, while leaving other citations they didn't dispute in the lede, before then once again removing my additions. [66] Also of note, they had recent previous in that recent talk page for suggesting you don't use citations in the lead according to policy (which they linked, demonstrating awareness of it) despite said policy explicitly supporting the use of citations in the lede. [67]

- At this point I deemed that I could no longer consider them to be acting in good faith and reincluded the lines in the lede and further expanded the main body of the article to detail with numerous reliable sources that there were several sources of frequent and consistent public pressure on her to resign in the immediate timeframe, from June to August this year, before her resignation.[68]

- From this point, as can be seen on the talk page, they then continued to come up with a myriad reasons to support their obtuseness in denying inclusion of "public pressure" including unevidenced claims that news reporting by reliable sources was instead their opinion and therefore isn't valid, that literally mentioning there was public pressure or that her stance changed was a combination of "exaggerated/loaded/editorialised/undue/OR, take your pick" and that mentioning it was "spin", and by the end that actually finding a reliable source making the most explicit connection possible that public pressure led to resignation was now overciting and a "red flag".[69]

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

- Beyond this they also made a "just asking questions" reporting of myself to an admin where they didn't name who they were accusing me of being a block avoiding second account of but just left it for implication I must be.[70]

In addition to this dispute I would also like to draw attention to when this has happened recently before regarding controversy around Huw Edwards, originating in a story by The Sun (for context, a newspaper editorially supportive of the Conservative Party and also on our deprecated list). Here they inserted numerous COI tags on any reporting from BBC News (also using the word "spin" in the edit summary)[71] and then on the talk page engaged in repeated attempts of "just asking questions" to label multiple different outlets as running afoul of COI for reporting on problems with how The Sun handled the story, going so far as to accuse outlets of taking stances out of loyalty to another without any evidence.[72]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quite possibly because it's not disruptive, you just don't like how many many diffs and evidence I can provide so instead you're just repeatedly throwing templates (in some cases obviously edited) on my talk page, clearly in an attempt so when you once again harass an admin about me you can claim "I really tried but they're just so uncivil".[73][74][75][76]

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

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

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

IP disruptive editing

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

Diffs:

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

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

Scottish National Party

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

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

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

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

WP:COI and WP:NAZI issue

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

---

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

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

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

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

Uncommunicative pageant editor (August 2023)

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

This editor has not responded on their talkpage to repeated entreaties from me [77][78][79] and another editor [80], including the last one where I cautioned them for a second time on MOS non-compliance and asked if they are reading their talkpage. So their only response at this time is a repeating the same MOS-problem edit habit [81][82][83]. I don't know what else to do here. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC consensus ignored by User:Popcornfud

Hello, On the page Creep (Radiohead song), I have tried to add sourced content concerning use of the song in film. This content has been repeatedly deleted by Popcornfud. Just the simple fact of adding this section, rather standard in Songs articles, took immense efforts. I had to go on Popcornfud's TP, and then and on the article TP and then open an RFC. The reverts are too numerous for me to list wihtout this being tedious, the latest being this one and this one. I wanted to try and resolve this at the Content Dispute Noticeboard but that page makes it clear that when another user's behaviour is involved, they cannot help. I am therefore taking the issue here. Indeed my feeling is that anything that is not added to the page by Popcornfud himself, substantial or not, sourced or not, consensual or not, will be at best redacted and reduced to almost nothing, or, in general, deleted with a dismissive edit summary. Instead of going to the talk page, informing the contributor and/or adding or asking for a source, Popcornfud simply deletes. I find this behaviour confusing, problematic and, I confess, extremely discouraging. In my view, this is a clear case of WP:OWN and I wish it could be addressed. Thank you. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't ignored any consensus. The RFC consensus was to cover use of the song "Creep" in film in the article, where the use is reflected by reliable sources and when it's due. I agreed with that consensus.

Where I've removed additions since then, it's because they were cited to poor sources (such as fansites), or the coverage was disproportionate, trivial or irrelevant (like Jonny Greenwood composing for the film Norwegian Wood, which is nothing to do with the article subject). Popcornfud (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

White Supremacy v. White Power Activism

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

---

Hello,

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

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

Skyerise interfering with requested moves discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from which the response to this was -

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

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

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

I did clearly advise Skyerise [84] of the process in respect to moving the article, which she choose to ignore and delete my comment from her talkpage. If she had paid due regard to the process then none of this would have ocurred. Dan arndt (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witchcraft in Africa

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

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

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

User:Tddhoz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

62.255.13.162 talkpage abuse

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

---

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

Thanks,

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

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

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

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

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

202.169.232.151 obscenities and tampering

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

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

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

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

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

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

79.50.172.35

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

See:

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

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

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

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

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

Andriyrussu, BLP, and personal attacks

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

The user maintains a list of articles (presumably once they created) on their user page. Some of them are grouped under the header "Traitors of Ukraine". Apparently, by this the user collected associated football players who have or might have Ukrainian ethnicity but are citizens of Russia and played for Russian teams (some have done that a long time ago, certainly pre-2014). I pointed out at their talk page that WP:BLP is not optional at the English Wikipedia, including user pages. After some exchange, they responded with a personal attack [85] and said they believe that since WP:BLP does not contain the word "traitor" it does not apply to the situation. The user has several warnings for substandard behavior in the WP:RUSUKR area. May be some other administrator can better explain to them what WP:BLP and WP:NPA means. Thank you. Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A note about "unresponsive" mobile editors

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