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

Aarp65 disruptively creating categories and pages about names

I became aware of User:Aarp65 just a few minutes ago when they added "Category:Surnames of Vanuatuan origin" to Jimmy. I noticed that this category page was also added to David (surname) and John (surname) which are of biblical origin, and George (surname) which states that it has many origins, none of them Vanuatuan.

I then noticed that Aarp65 had put "Category:Surnames of Marshall Islands origin" on Joseph (surname), Peter (surname), Philip and Samuel (name).

The next thing I noticed is that for the past two months, User talk:Aarp65's talkspace is filled with at least 25 mostly successful speedy deletion nominations for creating categories and other pages. More pages have been moved to draftspace as suitable and several disrupted editing warnings posted by User:Uricdivine, User:Leschnei, User:Joy, User:Pppery and especially User: Liz.

As far as I can tell, Aarp65 does not state reasons or cite sources for the creation of so many of these pages. Probably because they are factually incorrect. In my opinion, this user is WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia. Warnings have already been given, so if the consensus agrees, I propose a discussion about the possibility of a WP:TBAN on creating categories and pages having to do with names and surnames, etc. for this user. The exact topic could be decided later. I hope this makes sense. I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, Aarp65 knows a lot about this topic and most of their contributions are very productive. I take back my WP:NOTHERE accusation but these categories and 25 warnings in 2 months are genuinely concerning. I'm going to try to talk to them more about it in their talkspace. Nothing urgent needs to be immediately addressed by others here, but I don't think it should be closed until a response can be had. Again, suggestions welcome. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Jimmy is a DAB page. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of adding such a category to surname pages, it should not be added to a DAB page per WP:DBC. Narky Blert (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC) It's either too late or too early. Origin-type categories are fine (indeed, recommended) on DAB pages also categorised as surname or given name pages. Narky Blert (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted a whole bunch of their recent edits, as they were indeed bizarre and non-constructive. Things like this, this, this, or this are just some samples of the type of edits. If they don't or inadequately reply, a topic ban from categorisation (or name categorisation) may be needed. I mean, on a long disambig where none of the entries are for Samoans, they still proclaiml that the name "Meredith" is of Samoan origin.[1]... Fram (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering that this is continuing while this section is open, with Raisi (disambiguation) created today and added to e.g. Category:Zimbabwean surnames despite nothing on that page relating to Zimbabwe; can please some action be taken? Letting someone continue to add such fake information to Wikipedia while this iss being discussed at ANI doesn't look good (on us, and even less on them). Fram (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I've DABified Raisi (disambiguation) (which was a needed page) and deleted the Zimbabwean category as unsupported. Narky Blert (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Any suggestions on how to avoid or minimize further such issues? The editor involved seems unwilling to join any discussion about it, giving little hope of improvemeñt. Fram (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

For a specific problem like this, the time-honoured solution is digging through contribs, and if necessary following the usual escalation procedures aimed at persuading or forcing nuisances to stop. I have no solution to the more general one of under-, excessive, or over-precise categorisation of DAB-with-surname and surname pages other gnomishly than fix when found. (A moderately common case of over-precision is labelling a Germanic surname as specifically Jewish/Yiddish when it is not specific to that community. Bernstein and Kahn (an unusual case with two distinct etymologies) are models of how it should be done.) Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Another strange DAB creation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wodarz&oldid=1118543166 (current version) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That was a weird one; notably in the mismatch between title (Wodarz) and lede (Holetschek). It has already, and correctly, been WP:BLARed into an {{R from surname}} page. Holetschek exists, and is another recent creation by Aarp65; a good one, which I've minorly tweaked. Narky Blert (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I just added a Level 3 warning before I noticed Fram's proposal below. He's definitely been warned. Kire1975 (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

And another bizarre edit: Ranseier was redirected to Karl Ranseier, which itself is a redirect to RTL Samstag Nacht. No reasons given. Kire1975 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

And this: why does "Category:Malagasy given names" exist? Even if it had more than one entry, Aarp65 should at least give a reason for it? Every new page gets added to his impressive list of "Written pages" created on his username. Kire1975 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• It looks like User:Joe Roe granted Aarp65 the autopatrolled status. And a quick review of Joe's talk page, it looks like he has a history of ignoring ANI discussions as the discussion on his talk page from 18 days ago indicated. There is an active ANI discussion right now that has User:Bishonen pinging Joe Roe to find out why he hasn't responded. Perhaps we should be exploring possibility of removing Joe's ability to grant autopatrol status. Kire1975 (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Kire1975: A "history"? Please don't be ridiculous. I am one of the most active admins at WP:PERM/A (at times I've been the only person responding to request there), and I've granted autopatrolled to about 100 editors. As far as I know, the three incidents you mentioned are the only problems that have arisen. I participated fully in the first ANI thread. I had no way of knowing about this one, since I wasn't pinged and I don't have ANI on my watchlist. The third thread, below, was started on Saturday evening in my timezone, and autopatrolled was pulled by Sunday morning (also when Bish pinged me). I have no problem with that "error rate", and in any case, I can only grant or refuse to grant autopatrolled based on the criteria agreed by the community, which I have been trying to get tightened for years. – Joe (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  Unless evidence can be provided that the three editors were demonstrably problematic at the time the permissions were granted, I don't think its fair to point fingers at the admin who granted a right for any issues that occurred after the right was granted. Lots of editors don't demonstrate problematic actions until well after permissions have been granted, and that says nothing about the person granting the permission. - Aoidh (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban (user:Aarp65)

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

---

I propose that Aarp65 is topic banned from all name-related pages (articles, categories, templates...) broadly construed. Their recently granted autopatrolled right should also be removed again. They have been warned about their problematic edits in the past. During the above discussion, they created Lipovsky (disambiguation), with 4 completely unsupported categories, created multiple unnecessary name disambiguation pages (with only one bluelink), added name categories unrelated to the contents of the page they were placed on ([2]), and so on. They show no indication of changing their approach or participating in this (or any) discussion. Expecting other editors to check all their edits and revert this many of them is not useful. Fram (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Their recently granted autopatrolled right was removed once before? I'm not sure what that is or where to find evidence of that. Can you put that in the discussion please? Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, originally they (like everyone else) didn't have it, it was granted in June or so, and should now be removed again. Fram (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The "again" is the problem, it suggests that it has been removed before. 66.44.22.126 (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a colloquialism in some American regional dialects. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know -- Kire1975 misunderstood Fram, and Fram didn't understand the nature of the misunderstanding, but at this point I'm pretty sure everyone understands everyone else or doesn't care. 128.164.177.55 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Support: Aarp65 does seem to have some expertise in the field, or at least a lot of experience working on this topic, but the prominence of the multiple "Veteran Editor" badges in their infobox makes me think they might be just trying to create so many tiny little name pages and DAP's so they can bulk up their numbers to increase their "rank" like this is a video game. Of course, all we can do is speculate on what they're doing because they are ignoring so many warnings and invitations to participate in this ANI discussion. I don't want them to be TBAN'd but what else is there left to do? It's disruptive, not productive and makes a lot of work for other editors to fix. Kire1975 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• No opinion on the topic ban at this time, but I see enough valid concern from editors in the section above that I've gone ahead and pulled the autopatrol permission. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support - They have not responded on their talk page or here about the valid concerns raised, and are instead continuing to create these articles with the same issues, for example Nganga (surname) was created just a few minutes ago, and these categories were added to an article that in no way supports those categories. Since this discussion has opened they have not used a single talk page of any kind, but have updated their user page well over a dozen times since then. There's absolutely nothing wrong with displaying pages you've worked on, but it's not okay to ignore the basic concepts of collaboration and verifiability in that pursuit. - Aoidh (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

...and it's still going. No discussion or addressing the issues, but they're still adding to their trophy case. - Aoidh (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

They're still adding categories that make no sense and aren't supported by reliable sources. This edit added Category:Surnames of US-American origin, a category they created that seems to be full of names that did not originate in the United States. It seems like they're seeing if someone with that last name lives in country X, and adding "Surnames of X origin" without actually checking to see if that name originated in that place or not. - Aoidh (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support Aarp65 has also created many navigation templates about names. He clearly just dumped names in there, without checking where the links were going. Request to fix links to disambiguation pages went unanswered and seeing that he is still doing this, something has to be done. I can't see if (s)he ever responded on talkpages. The Banner talk 12:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Still ongoing, [3]. Not only the randomness of the cats, but even the bizarre placement of the two cats, all creates extra work for others from an editor who has absolutely zero inclination to adjust their approach or to discuss the concerns. Can this please be enacted? Fram (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support ongoing problematic behaviour, with no intention of stopping or listening to other editors. A topic ban would seem very much necessary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support this has become disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support - total non-compliance and repeated disruption. Why have they added Krautheimer to Category:Surnames of US-American origin? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Utterly horrendously written articles from an auto patrolled user

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

I have come across this user's articles and they are horrendously written. The English is awful and completely broken. I am unable to even attempt to make corrections to some of these articles. Sure English isn't everyone's native language, but this user for some reason has auto patrolled rights, meaning the articles he's creating are not even being checked or reviewed properly. How Wikipedia can allow this is astounding, there should be a basic level of English required before such articles are published. Two examples of poorly written articles that I cannot even attempt to try and fix: David Mark Hill and Samuel Hartsel. The Hill article did not even correctly name the execution method which I had to correct: [4]. There are many more. Please can an admin review. Inexpiable (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• FYI, you need to post a notice on a user's talk page when starting a discussion about them at ANI. I've posted the notice on MATF's talk page. Levivich (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I usually find that the non-native English users are better than the native editors whose English is just bad. The former are usually happy to be corrected but the latter often take great offence at anything that could be construed as criticism of their writing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Those are indeed practically unreadable and would definitely have benefitted from an NPPer tagging them with the copyedit template. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that their prose is atrocious, and that their autopatrolled status should be revoked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree - WP:CIR. Very inappropriate for them to be an auto-patroller. DeCausa (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Joe Roe gave the user the AP right last year. I'm reluctant to revoke the right without Joe's views.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Folks, before we discuss removing perms or any sanction, perhaps we could give our colleague the opportunity to respond first? AFAIK, this ANI thread is the first time these problems have been raised? It's kind of rude to jump straight to talk of sanctions without even talking to the user first, particularly when it's someone who has donated thousands of hours here. Before any of the rest of us give our opinion, shouldn't we hear what MATF has to say first? Levivich (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Three comments. First, we should definitely allow MATF to respond before any further steps are discussed. Second, please remember that the AP flag isn't really a right; while some stigma likely attaches to its removal, fundamentally it exists to benefit reviewers and readers, and has no benefit to the holder. Third, I would like to hear from MATF whether they have used machine translation to assist them at any point; some of the phraseology strikes me as similar to the meaninglessness that google sometimes produces. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that hearing from the editor for clarification is a good idea, but I also agree that revoking their autopatrolled status is called for and shouldn't be dependent on it. First stop the problem, then discuss with the editor. Their status can easily be changed back if it appears to be warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• MATF has created 1,152 articles. I just spent a half-hour 45 minutes fixing a relatively simple one, John Harllee (admiral). If that's typical, we're talking about volunteers spending something like 500 800 hours cleaning up after their mess. That's a problem that's significant enough to warrant acting first, and listening to explanations later. Please, would some admin remove their autopatrolled flag? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  There appear to be some major content issues here. For example, the article Talmadge L. Heflin states

  In 1983, Heflin won the election for the 149th district of the Texas House of Representatives. He was honored by the Alief Independent School District which it was renamed as the Talmadge L. Heflin Elementary School.

  The source [5] however states

  Mr. Heflin served on the Board of Trustees of the Alief Independent School District from 1973 to 1980. In 1982, the district honored his service to the area with the opening of Talmadge L. Heflin Elementary School.

  The article implies that he was honoured for winning the election, rather than because he served on the board of trustees, falsely states that something was "renamed" when it was actually a new school being opened, implies the school naming occurred after the election in 1983 when it actually took place in 1982 and it confusingly suggests that the school district turned into a elementary school somehow. There are other examples of exceptionally poor writing,

  In 1980, Heflin was apart of an election, in which it had involved being unsuccessful against Georgia's United States senator Mack Mattingly.

  Is an extremely convoluted and confused way of saying he lost an election, which somehow avoids actually telling us what the election was. The article is also full of grammatical errors and nonsensical sentences, MOS issues ("politician" and "business" should not be linked), and a plethora of categories that are not verified in the article text - the article contains no information on his involvement in the energy business, his religious beliefs or his non-fiction writing.

  @Beyond My Ken perhaps it would looking into running a bot to unpatrol their article creations after they were granted the right? 192.76.8.88 (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm continuing to look to their articles, and indeed you are correct that grammar and construction errors are the least of the problems; the information itself has in many cases been corrupted. I would suggest that all of their articles be moved to draftspace, where they can be worked on without being generally accessible to the public. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken: Are they actively creating bad articles without responding here? If not, removal isn't urgent, though I agree it's likely to be warranted. AP removal isn't retroactive; any articles they've created would still need to be manually reviewed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

They don't seem to have edited since last night. I understand the principal of not acting unless there is a need to stop ongoing activity, but I think the need here is obvious enough (as I continue to review their articles) that lifting the flag is warranted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with the editors above that the issues here go beyond spelling and grammar errors. I attempted to copyedit David Mark Hill before giving up in frustration. At the time I found it, the article stated He had his own The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints church. This was sourced to [6], which says The Hills' Mormon church helped pay their mortgage, utilities and groceries - obviously that doesn't mean that he ran a church!
  The next paragraph is extremely convoluted, difficult to understand and leaves out important context: Hill had began to act as a spree killer after receiving a notice from his wife to file a divorce against him. He was involved in some murders which had resulted three people being killed, in which he was suspected that Hill was the murderer since he had visited a department of social office. It was stated that he also assaulted a person which was his daughter. He killed them since it was for taking his children away from him, in which there was a restraining order against Hill. The actual story, from [7], is Hill went on the shooting spree in North Augusta after his wife asked for a divorce and a social worker accused him of molesting a child. He lost custody of his children and blamed state workers. Killed were case worker Jimmy Riddle, 52; Josie Curry, 35; and Michael Gregory, 30.
  I can understand why autopatrolled was granted because many of their articles are brief stubs where these issues with writing coherently aren't as apparent (e.g. Nicolas Becker (sound engineer), Andy Lewis (screenwriter)). However, considering the factual errors and general incomprehensiblity of their longer creations I don't think it is appropriate for them to hold this right. Spicy (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Did the admin who granted them this permission actually review any of their work? Every single article I’ve checked so far has been plagued with the above mentioned content issues. Now I’m seeing that they’ve created over 1000 articles? This has the potential to be a massive problem. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:FC3F:FA47:1CA0:2CF8 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  I thought the same, but then looking at their page creations before they were granted the autopatrolled right, a lot were stubs with short sentences or lists of films/shows obscuring their language deficiencies. So if Joe just looked at a handful of the stubs on Academy Award winners he wouldn't have noticed anything egregious. The typos and sentence construction chaos are only really apparent when MATF attempts to expand beyond a stub. Perhaps in the case of serial (notable, sourced) stub creators AP grantors should look for any larger page creations/expansions by the user to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Remove the user right. There is sufficient evidence presented here. Additionally require that all future articles from this editor are created as a draft. Per Beyond My Ken: First stop the problem, then discuss with the editor. Donating thousands of hours here has never been a hurdle to stripping of special rights if the content quality is a serious problem and creating unnecessary work for others. Furthermore, autopatrolled is the one right that accords absolutely no benefits to the user whatsoever other than giving them another hat to wear. NPP has been acutely aware of the abuse of the auto patrolled right for a very long time. Their best suggestion to date is to deprecate this user right which having become a contentious issue has already been recently removed from the sysop bundle. To suggest that it would increase the workload of the reviewers (the usual contra argument) would be a straw man - articles of the quality expected by auto patrolled users only take a second or two to review. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with removal of AP as the first step. Per WP:AUTOPAT, "Autopatrolled is a user right given to prolific creators of clean articles". It's quite clear that this editor is not producing "clean articles". I just spot-checked six very quickly and could not identify any major problem without comparing them with the sources. But 5/6 need a copyedit cleanup minimally, with things like Born in Bentonville, Arkansas. (The sixth was a two-line stub). MB 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

According the autopatrolled right based on a random look at a few stubs (if that's what happened) is not the best way to go. Stubs, however clean they might be, are not sufficient to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the requirements for producing a fully fleshed out article. I do recall that mass creating stubs to obtain the autopatrolled right has been deliberately used in the past by users with a specific agenda. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

If there's an agenda here, I haven't glommed on to it yet. The articles I've reviewed and fixed so far are about minor politicians and officials, both Democrat and Republican; the encyclopedia would not be affected in any significant way if they were all moved to draft to be worked on.

The problems I've seen are misrepresentation of what sources say (apparently because of misunderstanding), stilted writing, incorrect use of idiomatic constructions (especially in the use of prepositions), convoluted and awkward phrasings, use of infobox parameters that don't exist, nonsensical facts (such as a legislator being suceeded by three people), categorization not supported by text in the article (almost as if MATF has personal knowledge they're using), inclusion of unnecessary information, failure to update information from more recent sources (a person is reported to have 4 brothers, but a correction in the same newspaper changes it to 3 brothers; both sources are cited, but the article still said 4 brothers until I corrected it), etc., all of which are, I think, neither deliberate nor malign, but nevertheless result in sloppy articles that are well below the expected standard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

They're also creating these articles pretty quickly - 7 articles yesterday, 10 articles on the 16th, 11 articles on the 15th. No indication of automation or anything like that, but from the results, they don't seem to be spending any significant amount of time crafting them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

So, is everybody waiting for the user and/or Joe Roe to weigh in here..? I've removed the autopatrolled right. Bishonen | tålk 08:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC).

Thank you. I hope we'll hear from the editor soon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

There are two active ANI discussions right now regarding users granted autopatrol rights by User:Joe Roe making bizarre and disruptive edits. It also appears in his talk page from 18 days ago that he intends to ignore ANI discussions? Looks like he had a spot of trouble regarding a third autopatrolled user here. Kire1975 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not "ignoring ANI discussions". I haven't been editing for a few days, and by the time I saw the pings in this thread, it had already run its course and I didn't have anything to add. WP:AGF, please. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• Going to weigh in here briefly on some of the articles; I'm the one that's moved a few articles of MATF from a temp page to mainspace. However, I don't have AP, so all of those pages went through NPP regardless of MATF having AP at the time. The work I've seen from MATF is rewriting bad Billy Hathorn content; crap that's already got a plethora of issues beyond just copyright, and how copyright rewrites are usually done is by simply taking the content and rewriting it, not remaking an article entirely from scratch. We usually only check for copyright issues; we're not NPP 2.0. Regardless, I find the other problems troubling, but I don't think that we should be jumping to sanctions beyond AP revoking just yet. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Side discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Five questions: (1) Is some entity trying to use WP as an AI learning tool? (2) Is this an effort to discredit/disrupt WP? (3) What methods/tools can be used/invented to monitor these events (which will probably increase)? (4) Why did I receive and emailed link to this discussion? I am not an Admin and have no special privileges here (as far as I know). (5) Am I eligible for AP status? FINALLY: why did this page disappear a few minutes ago when I tried to post the above? WEIRD! Shir-El too 13:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC) If you received an e-mail with a link to this discussion, why don't you ask the editor who e-mailed you why. Your other questions make no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC) @Bbb23Bbb23: the sender was wiki@wikimedia.org! The other three questions make sense if you view this problem as a possible trend, not just an isolated incident, and make good sense in an era of 'fake news', 'fake images' etc. Wikipedia may be this planet's best source of free, relatively unbiased information, which some minds can't stand: it makes them vulnerable. The 5th question is now moot; I looked it up and don't want it. All the Best! Shir-El too 15:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC) @Shir-El too: I can answer that last question: it's because you added your comments to a version of this page from ~6 hours ago, effectively reverting to it. Then Beshogur reverted you. I'm guessing the email you received included a linked DIFF instead of a link to the current discussion, like this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Utterly horrendously written articles from an auto patrolled user. Woodroar (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Thank you! Cheers! Shir-El too 15:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC) Three answers: (1) Is some entity trying to use WP as an AI learning tool? No. It bears very few of the hallmarks of AI article writing; also you'd not teach an AI how to learn by having it do something else. (2) Is this an effort to discredit/disrupt WP? No. There are far better ways of doing both. Writing crappy articles is a function of this being an encyclopedia anyone can edit and goes with the territory. The cock-up theory is always better than the conspiracy theory. (3) What methods/tools can be used/invented to monitor these events (which will probably increase)? Very few, even assuming we could do anything. In this particular case, not granting the Auto-Patrolled right would've made discovering this annoying-but-minor (in the scheme of things) event happen earlier. It wouldn't've prevented it because anything that prevents this type of thing also prevents people from creating good articles too. — Trey Maturin has spoken 16:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I know this is late but this is the evidence that I will provide: For Vanamonde's third comment, I write the articles in my own words and I don't use a machine translation unless I have to which I would use it for the articles that's in other different Wikipedia languages that included Àngel Casas. I would say that with my writing, I would change up my words with searching up another word to "insert word here" in a website, where I would use that word instead. With the Talmadge L. Heflin, I didn't mean that the school was renamed after him when he won the election but I don't know since like sometimes I don't notice. I didn't see anything wrong with my writing. The article Talmadge L. Heflin was a rewrite to get rid of Billy Hathorn's copyright version along with Teel Bivins and Flip Mark. You'll notice when I create them rewrites, I put recreated without copyright and what I do is I copy the categories from the archive version of Hathorn's to make it easier. Then I write it with using the cited sources in my own words. If I'm not editing in like a Saturday or for a few days then I'm like away from the computer since like I'm in somewhere else and while I'm away, I write articles in my Google Docs and then when I finally come home, I would copy-paste then fix it and then make some changes but this is how I write and with Hathorn's writing I use them but I avoid its copyright and make it my own words, but I will mention that I am a Spanish speaker but I do better in English.

With the David Mark Hill edit with the church removal I saw, it had said The Hills Mormon Church which would have meant he had his own church and with the Mormon church link it had redirected to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, in which its also known as Mormon church. With the sentence in the Talmadge F. Heflin article, "In 1980, Heflin was apart of an election, in which it had involved being unsuccessful against Georgia's United States senator Mack Mattingly" (which is already removed), well I didn't know what election it was but I included it since it was sourced but I don't entirely have access to newspapers.com articles but just stuff that's already clipped, like I clip another thing since there is something clipped in the article and so on, I only have the free version of it. That newspaper article came up while I searched up Talmadge Heflin and it had mentioned the surname Heflin and I just took it as a ref. I didn't mean to cause disruption with my writing but if the community says there are issues with my articles then I would like to fix it if the community gives me a chance to improve it and see what they think. I just include info that's already sourced and just add them, which I saw with the Sally Wheeler article.

With the Neil Haven Klock article, I’m gonna revert some stuff until consensus is made because according to the Louisiana House Members source it says who preceded, served alongside and succeeded him but Beyond My Ken goes along with the obituary, but the Louisiana House Members verifies that he served as a member of the legislative with other info too. It didn't say he left office during 1942 other than the obituary, since it says his term ended in 1944 and the legislative keeps the correct track of the members and years when I see it and it's verifiable. Klock was succeeded by three people according to the Louisiana House Members pdf, even in the archive version of the article, it says that he was succeeded by three people and it was sourced so I added it and just went along with verifiable Louisiana Members pdf, this is an answer to the nonsensical facts thing that has "such as a legislator being suceeded by three people". With T. J. Hooks, I’m gonna revert more stuff too until consensus is made since Hooks served along with E. A. Wilson for which they had both represented Lake. He and Wilson were succeeded by two people, according to the Florida House Membership. The one that Beyond My Ken decided that could stay is William A. Hocker, a politician who has a blue link and was succeeded by Hooker. Also there is this reason that they said was "They're also creating these articles pretty quickly - 7 articles yesterday, 10 articles on the 16th, 11 articles on the 15th. No indication of automation or anything like that.", well those articles were created normally, since it was because I created them in google docs when I didn't edit for a week so I copy-pasted them and made them into Wikipedia articles when I came back and had lots I made in google docs and I still have some leftovers that includes Donald Jonas, Vernon Peeples, Bob Terhune and many others too.

Well now I see Beyond My Ken states that "I created seven articles yesterday" which was the (27th-28th), well the first two were from Google Docs, the third-fifth were Billy hathorn's rewrites since I was gonna be gone and I took my time into writing them and the Georgia's politicians stubs were created easily since I couldn’t find anything else but I found information in the pdf so I used it since it was SOURCED. Then I left to go somewhere else. The 16th had ten articles they say and most of them were from my Google Docs and some like Barry Oringer and William Wood (screenwriter) were created instantly. The article Taky Marie-Divine Kouamé was created when I woke up, since she won a medal in a notable event and had coverage too. The article Bo Callaway was recreated since it was gonna remove lot of stuff except the beginning so I rewrote it without copyright, that I'm adding more info. The 15th is when I came back, since I started off with Andy Detwiler who I written in my google docs and then the rest I wrote in google docs mostly. This is all I could say if it makes sense. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I really hate to say it, but WP:Competence is required, and MaTF's long comment above speaks volumes about their lack of competence in writing acceptable English (as well as some basic misunderstandings about American electoral procedures); I won't embarrass them by pointing out the many basic errors it contains.

I believe that it is necessary for the following actions to be taken:

1. Move all the articles listed here to draft space. Editors who have fixed any of MaTF's creations can move them back into article space, and reviewers can whittle away at the rest of the list over time.

2. Topic ban MaTF from creating articles more complex than the most basic stub (their stub articles seem to be OK) or extensively re-writing existing articles. I'm not quite sure how such a TB would be phrased, but I do think it's necessary. They can continue to do other non-textual work around Wikipedia - there's plenty of that to be done that doesn't require extensive ability to write acceptable English. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

But can I try improving my articles like I've seen many copyedits in my articles, but can I get a chance to fix them and then see what the community thinks. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• MATF, that manner of paraphrasing sources is completely inappropriate. You need to understand what the source has said, and construct your own sentences summarizing that material. If you carry out word-for-word replacements, you're going to alter the meaning of the text and produce incomprehensible content, and you're also not avoiding copyright issues at all. If you're not using machine translation, and English is your native language, I'm sorry to say I don't know what advice to offer you; but you need to be able to understand the sources you're using, and if you lack the ability to do Wikipedia isn't the best hobby for you.
  I don't think a TBAN will achieve anything here: the issue appears to be with any non-trivial content. Either MATF can fix this approach; possibly be reducing the speed at which they work, and by taking the time to understand what they're reading and writing; or they can't, in which case, what are they doing on Wikipedia? I would suggest that MATF be required to work on and fix any five articles of their choosing from among their creations, and if they can address the issues here, we can work out a system of probation. If they're unwilling or unable to do so, we need to consider a site-ban. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't care about the AP role but I just want to still create articles, but I need to improve the others first. Can someone check how I did with James Sturch. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@MoviesandTelevisionFan: Your changes to James Sturch were improvements as far as they went, but another user (Larry Hockett) still had to make further changes, correcting some pretty basic errors in English phrasing. It doesn't speak well to your ability to fix the problems with the articles you created. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@MoviesandTelevisionFan: If you'd like, take a look at the list on my talk page of your articles which I have worked on. While not perfect, they may give you more of an idea where your mistakes lie if you compare their condition now to how they looked when you stepped away from them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I will do that, thank you. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I moved Nick Mackey to draft as some content was unintelligible, user has made numerous efforts to improve this with zero success “resigned for which he was probed from a reason" “"he was resigned due to being investigated from some issues” ”he was resigned from his duty due to being investigated from his fabricating hours" now “In 2003, he was resigned.” WP:CIR is appropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

That article has been worked on by several editors and is now fine. I've moved it back into mainspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this a situation where, rather than a TBAN, having a mandatory AfC draft submission for all their articles would be appropriate instead? Silverseren^C 21:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

As a reasonably active AFC reviewer, our workload is heavy enough without having more than the few mandatory AFC users we have already. All this would achieve is moving the problem around the various willing horses. Mentorship, assuming that still exists, would be a more immediate feedback and education loop. AFC has a large backlog and our role is to accept drafts that have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. We are not meant to strive for perfection, though some reviewers do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the user from article space. Frankly, I don't think that's sufficient because they will just create work editing badly in draft space. I would prefer a topic ban from article creation in any space, and if my prediction is valid, I can also add draft space to the pblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  Bbb23, I'm not sure there's consensus here for such a drastic action. Also, it does seem both unnecessary (given that the editor has accepted the criticisms here) and counterproductive (given that they've expressed the intention to go back and correct problems with their articles). – Uanfala (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Admins can take actions on their own discretion, which I assume was the case here. As for MaTF's intention to fix the problems with their articles, given the nature of their comments here, I do not believe that the editor is capable of correcting the type of mistakes their articles are replete with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I want to get the attention of what I'm gonna say. In my opinion, I think that I should create articles in draftspace that way it could be reviewed by AFC reviewers. I will read the guideline correctly and take my time into creating articles in draftspace. I'm just asking for a second chance from the community and this will be all I will say. I will mention that I should get access to edit namespace again but I would mainly just edit a bit and also add refs. I would still like to improve my articles in namespaces so I can fix it, but I didn't mean to cause disruption. I'm gonna stay back and come back for a few days to see what happens. Thank you! Please ping me if necessary. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@MoviesandTelevisionFan: Is English your first language? If not, how would you rate your proficiency in English? — Trey Maturin has spoken 23:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

English is my first language. This is how I write in English. I apologize if I'm not intelligent at it, but this is my English. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Well then that is a very serious problem for us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe English is MATF's native tongue. Sorry but... Just got through cleaning up some of their articles. I came across Eloise Hardt on my own. The others I sought out. I will clean up/clear up as many as I can. A list of articles MATF created or worked on is here. MurrayGreshler (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@MoviesandTelevisionFan (Non-administrator comment) Hi! I wanted to give a few suggestions to you since I was at one point in your boat with regards to newer articles. Firstly, I will not be making any comment about age or grade level but if you are under 18/21, I suggest you read WP:YOUNG, it has a bit of guidance aimed at those under 18/21. Secondly, if you say that there are problems with your English, I'd suggest you find a wikitask that you can do that does not require making your own prose (like typo fixing or anti-vandalism work). If you are not comprehending a source then you should not be adding the content from that source. Some sources use extremely specialist terms that only a handful of people (like doctors, mathematicians, historians, etc.) understand, and no amount of reading those sources will make you suddenly understand them. Lastly, it is important that you understand your limits. From WP:CIR: Everyone has a limited sphere of competence. For example, someone may be competent in nuclear physics but incompetent in ballet dancing or vice versa. Some otherwise competent people may lack the skills necessary to edit Wikipedia. If one specific task you are doing is causing problems to the project, then you should cease such task and select another task that you would be able to help with. If you are unable to do that, I am afraid admins may come in and place sitewide blocks and bans. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus for mass move to draftspace?

• Request - We've had numerous editors here examine MaTF's articles, and the consensus seems to be that, other than very basic stubs, their articles are in need of serious attention. Could an admin or page mover who has the ability to do bulk moves please move this list of articles to draft space? I am a page mover but I don't have the automation or semi-automation capability to do such a mass move. After it's done, I will move the 15 or so articles I worked on back to article space, and I hope other editors who fixed MaTF's articles will do the same.
  (If there's another method of accomplishing the same thing, then that's fine too.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Beyond My Ken there are userscripts to do mass moves. Wikipedia:User_scripts/List#Moving_and_merging. – robertsky (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll take a look tomorrow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see any consensus for a mass move to Draft. Your list has over 1,000 articles going back over a year. MB 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  So it would be your preferred course to leave 1,000+ badly written and sometimes inaccurate articles (less those fixed by other editors already) in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will fix them randomly, as opposed to moving them to draft where editors actively vet possibly problematic articles? That hardly seems helpful to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Moving the articles to draft space to allow active editors to triage them seems sensible given the level of incompetence demonstrated in the creation of the articles. There are a number of editors currently working on mitigating the damage done and if moving them to draft space helps those editors willing to put in the hard work then I support the move. Not everything has to be complicated and bogged down in process, especially when the ultimate result will be better (comprehensible) articles for our readers. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  BMK, with respect (I mean that), I don't think you need to be so hot and heavy with MB. A mass move of over 1000 articles needs a clear consensus - it's fine for someone to question whether that consensus is there yet. I looked at one of the articles today myself, and did some copy editing, which essentially involved restructuring every sentence. I agree that draftifying is probably a good idea. Let's just try to avoid snarling at each other while we discuss what the best course of action is. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think perhaps you read more into my comment than I intended, or I did not express myself well. If MB took offense at it, I apologize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  I've now hived off this section of the discussion to serve as a formal discussion of whether there is a consensus for a mass move of MaTF's un-fixed articles to draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• To help coordinate efforts to improve MaTF's articles, I've created User:Beyond My Ken/MaTF-created articles. Editors are encouraged to delete from the list any articles they have worked on which are of sufficient quality that they do not need to be moved to Draftspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Larry Hockett, Brunton, Teblick, MurrayGreshler, Spicy, and Girth Summit: Please see my previous comment on this thread. Apologies to other editors whose efforts I missed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I removed an article that I rewrote. If possible, it may be a good idea to introduce a length-based cutoff - I haven't seen any evidence that there's anything wrong with all of the basic substubs in the format "[X] was an American [occupation]. He won an Academy Award for [Y]." Spicy (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the sub-stubs I've seen have been fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Urgh - I just looked at Nate Monaster, and it's not just poorly written, but it seems to be full of factual inaccuracies as well. The second sentence runs as follows: He was nominated for an Academy Award for Lover Come Back and That Touch of Mink and a win for Pillow Talk, and Mink won him the Writers Guild of America Award win for Best Written American Comedy, which he shared with his partner Stanley Shapiro. At first, I thought this would just be a copy-editing job, but then I checked the sources - as far as I can make out, he didn't write on Lover Come Back or on Pillow Talk. I can't read all of the sources, but the ones I can see only mention the nomination for That Touch of Mink. In short - put me down as supporting a mass move to draft space. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly moving these articles to draft. NPP is the first port of call for every new article. The fact that this has been subverted by a holder of the AP right means that they should first be marked 'unreviewed' and put back in the NewPagesFeed where they will receive the appropriate first attention by vetted New Page Reviewers. Their triage will ensure their future destiny be it Draft, or any one of our deletion processes. Contrary to what is often misunderstood (including by the WMF to whom I had to explain this yesterday in a planning meeting with them), moving to draft does not automatically increase the workload at AfC; that only happens when the creator submits the draft. Beyond My Ken's work on this delicate issue - where the creator should never have been accoderd AP - has been excellent, but mass moving to draft is not the immediate solution. With their backlock at an astounding low of around 500, the NPPers have more than enough time to process a 1,000 stubs and other inappropriate articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: Thanks for that information. Can articles be mass-marked "un-reviewed" or does it have to be done one by one? Beyond My Ken (talk)

@Beyond My Ken: unless a bot or a script could do it, it would need to be done one-by-one. I know this means seeing the pages twice but it's the proper way to go and would avoid inviting any new precedents that we might regret later. So proper in fact, that I don't mind doing some of it myself. The NPPers could take care of the reviewing or I could even do that on the fly too while marking them ureviewed but the New Pages Feed has to the the first logical stop in the correct workflow. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: It's worth noting that Moving to draft will not give MTF the benefit of any doubt because he is blocked anyway. There is the possibility of a little known system at NPPNE. If nothing comes of that, the articles can then be PRODed along with any other unsuitable ones. That would give them 7 days exposure to the wider community which they wouldn't get as drafts, and after that they would be deleted. That would also ward off any accusations that NPPers are using draft as a backdoor route to deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Does the article space block extend to drafts? If not, or if there was a way to make it so that it doesn’t, then moving the articles to draft would enable MTF to carry on working on them. Brunton (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Unless Bbb23 has extended the block, it's just for editing mainspace at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest that a move to draft is the ideal solution. It allows them to be checked before being moved back, and it will also give MTF a chance to work on them and demonstrate that the mainspace block is no longer necessary. Brunton (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support I mean it's just embarrassing how poorly written these articles are, not just that but the information also seems to be incorrect in most of them as if he didn't even bother to read the sources. Good job I found this user before he did even more damage. The admin who gave him auto patrolled rights really messed up here I'm afraid and should be called out for this serious error. I'll help go over some of his articles but it will take up a lot of time to go over all of them, a lot of unnecessary damage here that could have been avoided if his articles had been thoroughly checked before he was granted this right. Inexpiable (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• As pointed out above, at the time MaTF received the autopatrol flag, he had xreated primiarily sub-stubs, which -- as far as I've seen -- are acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  AP is supposed to be granted based on a reliable history of creating "clean" articles. Wikipedia:Autopatrolled says an editor should have written at least 25 "articles" and specifically says redirects and dab pages don't count. It shouldn't be necessary, but that could be changed to also say the articles should at least be Start-class. MB 05:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Given the attitude of New Page Reviewers expressed in the section below, I do not believe that Kudpung's suggestion to not move MaTF's articles to draftspace, but instead to mark them as needing review would be an adequate solution, as the problems with them won't be fixed, they'll just be rubber-stamped back into mainspace, because the subjects are notable. Therefore, I request that an admin assess this discussion -- which has been ongoing for 10 days now -- to see if there is a consensus to move MaTF's articles (the ones that remain on the list here) to draftspace. My assessment is that there is a consensus (4-1) to do so, but I think an admin should make the call. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, despite about a dozen or so editors working on MaTF's articles for almost 2 weeks now, there are still about 800 on the list which haven't been fixed or checked and passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. Admins seem to have more important tasks to do in any event. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Sometimes, no article is better than a bad one and that appears to be the case here, particularly NPP doesn't believe they are able to address the issue through their processes. BilledMammal (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support I picked two random articles from the list BMK developed and found similar factual issues as others have. There's just no reason not to go with the more proactive approach here in the face of the scale of the problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Another aspect of the problem

Another aspect of the problem with MaTF's articles is that they appear to be being approved at Articles for Creation in a state which is not actually up to Wikipedia standards. User:Ingenuity just passed Paul Bolster, J. E. Jumonville Sr. and Paul Taliaferro despite all three of them required editing to fix basic errors of grammar and style - and this despite Ingenuity being aware of this thread. Is there a problem with AfC's standards? Why are articles that are not up to Wikipedia's basic standards being approved? Or is the problem with this particular reviewer? Who is responsible for seeing that AfC's standards are sufficient to protect the encyclopedia from mistakes such as these? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You can take a look at the AFC reviewing instructions, specifically WP:AFCPURPOSE. From the guidelines: Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace. All of the above articles pass WP:NPOL and would easily pass AfD. The purpose of AfC isn't to decline every article that has grammar mistakes. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress; not every article in mainspace has to be perfect. If you feel that the requirements to pass AfC should be more strict, feel free to open a discussion at the AfC talk page, which is probably a more appropriate venue for a discussion like this. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

What's missing is the content of the box in the workflow diagram before the article even gets to review: "Correct and submit for review", which is to be informed by (green box) "Communication: reviewer comments / in-line message / AFC discussion / User talk page / Tea House / IRC". Did any sort of communication take place between you, the reviewer, and MaTF? If not, why not, when there were basic problems of grammar and style in the article? If there was discussion, why weren't the errors pointed out to MaTF?

Perhaps I'm naive. I thought that AfC reviewers were actually doing something to protect Wikipedia from badly written articles, and not simply checking off boxes on a checklist by rote. You seem to believe that your job as a reviewer to to approve anything that doesn't fail preset criteria. I see your job as being to make sure that badly written articles stay in draftspace until they're fixed. Your way lead to our having to re-check over 1,000 articles written by MaTF, so I don't see it as a very successful methodology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

We accept articles that would survive an AfD discussion. Articles with spelling errors don't get deleted. The queue is too big for us to be holding drafts over every issue. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

These were not "spelling errors", the articles had bad grammar and basic style mistakes. We are a reference work used by millions of people. We cannot afford our articles to have sentences in them such as

"In 1991, Taliaferro was pleaded guilty of bank fraud by a federal jury. It had resulted him from being suspended of the Oklahoma Senate."

We sound like something written for little children when our articles say things like

"He attended Eastern Baptist College, where he earned his bachelor’s degree in 1966. Bolster also attended the University of Mississippi, where he earned his master’s degree in 1967. He attended the University of Georgia, where he earned his doctorate degree in 1972. He also attended the Georgia State University, where he earned his law degree."

We are better than that, and we should demand that new articles meet our standards of quality.

You say your queue is too long, and I'm sympathetic. But when articles like that are thrown into Articlespace they're no longer in any queue at all. There's no additional process to check over articles for basic problems except blind random chance - AfC is the process. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought we as a community already held the view that the bar of "mainspace acceptable" was far below "well-written". This is the quality you get when you entrust the general public to write an encyclopedia. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you point me to a policy which advocates that Wikipedia articles should not be written to a basic standard of quality? What the heck is Draftspace for if not a holding place for articles that aren't ready for prime time? If we're not going to check the articles out properly before they move into the encyclopedia, we may as well get rid of it altogether. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

One of the most important parts of Wikipedia is that it's a work in progress. This is said pretty much everywhere. I don't know, "bad grammar" is not a decline rationale on the AfC script. There isn't even a consensus for what should be incubated in draft (page movers draftifying is usually an arbitrary decision or based on unspoken precedent), so what are meant to act on? —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The policy is WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: Don't you think that "This is the quality you get when you entrust the general public to write an encyclopedia" is a rather inappropriate attitude for a New Page Reviewer to have? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No. there's a difference between me having an opinion and it affecting my work, and my attitude at NPP vastly differs from that at AfC. I'm also not accepting any imperfect articles through AfC, since I'm autopatrolled and the articles I accept don't enter the NPP queue. Users without AP can more freely accept drafts because they still get manually reviewed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You make good points. But, the community has simply been reluctant to empower one editor, NPP or AFC, to gatekeep articles on notable topics from mainspace. Most of the large-scale issues such as this are taken care of at AN/ANI. A reviewer could get into trouble for doing the exact same thing an AFD or ANI consensus might do about these problem articles/editors. Because individual editors don't have that mandate. Some power users good at argumentation maybe could get away with doing what you suggest, but you can't fault an average AFC/NPP editor for not going that route. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

So I gather that the attitude is that if the subject is notable, any old piece of garbage article is better than none at all. That's ... sad. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not an attitude, it's the state of the community consensus today. You know as well as I (maybe better) that we have a spectrum of editors on the project from include everything to delete everything. The balance currently is to not allow an individual reviewer to keep articles from mainspace using other excuses not to do with notability of the article (I assume, for fear that deletionists will overrun AFC/NPP). I don't know why this surprises you since this is the state with AFD as well where if an article passes notability, other issues rarely if ever result in deletion or draftification. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This issue is fundamental as the essential feature of Wikipedia is that it's quick and dirty. This was the big breakthrough after it was found that the perfectionist model of Nupedia was an utter failure. This approach of making a weak start and then refining the content has long been enshrined in the policy WP:IMPERFECT which explicitly says that " Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ... the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." That's why we have the article grading system in which the Start level says "Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use." So, if there are grammar issues of this sort, the article should be graded as Start class and left where the relevant projects and copy-editors will find it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to comment as I figured I was just missing something, but this sub-section kinda reinforces my feelings... Are these articles really that bad? I checked over a random ~15 from xtools, all had some grammatical issues and some had some trivia in them, but overwhelmingly seemed fine. I see an example of actual error above, but not many of them, though that's not to say they don't exist; much of the focus in this section has been on the grammatical quality. It doesn't seem much worse than the avg article I stumble across when I use Wikipedia as a reader. The examples BMK cites above, like In 1991, Taliaferro was pleaded guilty of bank fraud by a federal jury. It had resulted him from being suspended of the Oklahoma Senate I don't this are that bad. a) it conveys the information clearly, even if the grammar is broken; b) it's an easy copyedit job, including for an interested reader who stumbles across it, giving them an easy in into the world of editing. I think WP:IMPERFECT is aptly cited: Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ... At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing. Unless there's a pattern of greater errors (i.e. of matters of fact and sourcing), IMO remove autopatrolled from the user and let them continue; NPP can deal with articles, or tag them as required. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• In the face of such determined resistance to a minimum basic standard of quality, I'm dropping the entire matter, at least as far as I'm concerned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Welcome to the club, meetings are Thursdays at 6 in the WMF office basement; please bring a snack to share. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• I suppose as an inclusionist and someone who's expressed horror several times at particular AfC rejections, I should welcome the revelation above, that AfC reviewers are applying only the standard of notability sufficient that the article would probably clear AfD. But there are several areas of concern with MoviesandTelevisionFan's articles (those that are not stubs) beyond grammar and spelling errors that can be cleaned up in the ordinary course of copyediting.

• For one, the standard of English is so low, it's hard to understand and requires emergency fixing by some other editor(s) at the cost of whatever else they may have planned on working on. Samuel Hartsel in the version by MoviesandTelevisionFan flagged in Inexpiable's original post, containing the headscratcher He had a brother who was Joseph Hartsel, in which he had died in 1901 for which there was consensus that he was murdered and was considered deceased but there was proof to show that he was strucked by lightning while his body was found in 1903. The article has now been fixed, but I made a note to myself to try to sort out from the sources what on earth happened to Hartsel's brother, what people thought when, including whether there were doubts about his being dead, and how in any case this was relevant to Hartsel. It goes far beyond "in which he" when the editor should have written "who", or "strucked" for "struck" into CIR territory.
• Beyond that, as noted by Spicy with examples from Inexpiable's other example, David Mark Hill (again, I've linked to MoviesandTelevisionFan's version of an article that others have now fixed), the editor has misrepresented the sources, based presumably on imperfect understanding, but nonetheless that means the articles have to be checked for accuracy, too. This is similar to the concern with machine translation: the work is so poor that it may mislead the reader. Regardless of good intentions, we have to fix such articles or remove them. This is the other reason competence is required. Wikipedia is writing for publication, and real people with real descendants and real historical achievements are potentially being misrepresented in inaccurate articles.
• I don't doubt anyone's good faith here, including anyone not appreciating why these articles were draftified and re-mainspacing them, I dream of horses for nominating MoviesandTelevisionFan for autopatrolled and Onel5969 for seconding a year ago. MoviesandTelevisionFan has shown willingness to fix the problems with the articles and has responded frankly to questions here. Unfortunately their responses demonstrate that they aren't up to extended writing in English, and also that there may be an issue with self-assessment: they've said here both I will mention that I am a Spanish speaker but I do better in English. and, in response to a question, English is my first language. Maybe a definition issue with first vs. native? Maybe it really is a writing problem? But we operate in writing here.
• There are also copyright issues. As Vanamonde93 noted above, MoviesandTelevisionFan doesn't have a good grasp of how to rewrite text that is copyvio or overly close paraphrasing. But according to Sennecaster, they've been recreating articles by Billy Hathorn. Billy Hathorn was indeffed for copyvio in 2011, unblocked in 2013, and community banned as a serial copyright violator (and sockpuppeteer) in 2015. MoviesandTelevisionFan's initial statement above refers to using the archive version of Hathorn's as a starting point for categories and text, then rewriting to eliminate copyvio. Other than that there has been a massive copyright investigation for Billy Hathorn's articles, I didn't know what happened to them, but following the trail from a thanks message on MoviesandTelevisionFan's user talk, I see that they created Noreen Corcoran after it had been deleted as a Billy Hathorn article that had not been cleaned up by April 2021. By "archive version", does MoviesandTelevisionFan mean versions of deleted articles at the Wayback Machine? In addition to accuracy, any articles they've recreated based on Hathorn's work also need to be investigated for copyvio of the less obvious lexical substitution type. Any of those that haven't been thoroughly rewritten by other editors should be at CCI until they're pronounced clean, and there may be need for revision deletions. (Sennecaster thanked them for working on Hathorn articles, but from what has emerged here, we can't assume they fixed the copyvios adequately.)
• As I recall and as alluded to by Sennecaster, there were other problems with Hathorn's articles, including IIRC notability concerns and poor sourcing. If MoviesandTelevisionFan has been working based on Hathorn's articles, we shouldn't be so sanguine that their article topics are notable.

Since CCI is horribly backed up and in any case just looks at that; both NPP and AfC don't check for accuracy and can't be expected to do either the extensive copyediting needed or the deeper check for copyvio of the rewording type; and since some editors have already thoroughly redone some of the articles, I recommend they be segregated as a special project list in either draft space with a big notice at the top or some poor blighter's userspace. And in drafting future articles, MoviesandTelevisionFan should not work on any more Billy Hathorn articles, or create any biographies requested by someone else. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I would assume that MTAF's been taking them off of archives or mirrors, or rewriting them before they get deleted. When I checked the rewrites for copyvio, nothing read as a copyvio or close paraphrase. I couldn't reword the sentences another way, so they were able to pass under the threshold of originality. I went back and rechecked Flip Mark, Talmadge L. Heflin (both fine), Clarence Addison Brimmer Jr., and Bo Callaway which had some suspect text I should have rewritten before moving but was subsequently CEd down. There's not really an efficient way to track down anything else I approved without manually searching individual pages. I apologize for not catching this sooner, or telling MTAF about the full extent and problem of Hathorn articles. I would suspect though that only longer rewrites and more complex sentences need attention on the copyright end, as much of what is written in those articles still falls below the threshold of originality that would push it into close paraphrasing. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I am not remotely blaming you here, or even MTAF. But what we have here is someone with poor English skills (in the written dimension) who has recreated articles that were deleted for good reasons, and in doing so has used paraphrase techniques that both introduced inaccuracy and made checking for copyvio more complicated. It's not a matter of notability—although Billy Hathorn was not a good judge of that in politicians, outside politics he may have been perfectly capable of judging notability, and in any case actors, for example, have since had several years to accrue further roles and further press—if these articles cannot be segregated and stubbed/checked (with revision deletion likely needed), the Billy Hathorn aspect is a good argument for mass deletion of those nobody has rewritten and taken responsibility for. They should definitely not be re-mainspaced on the basis of apparent notability if they derive from Billy Hathorn. Anyone who recreates a deleted article from an archived version (and MTAF says above that he started with an archived version and reworked it ina document file) should realize it's a dangerous proposition; it's probably spelled out as a no-no somewhere in our voluminous PAGS. This is why reconstructions exist on places like Deletionpedia, Everybodywiki, and Wikia/Fandom, because Wikipedia deletes things and doesn't allow simple re-creation. @Ingenuity and VersaceSpace: Please note this dimension of the issue. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just to note that the vast majority of MaTF's created articles have not been draftified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The Billy Hathorn aspect

I'm making a new subsection because the fact MoviesandTelevisionFan has been creating articles previously written by Billy Hathorn deserves consideration by itself. Billy Hathorn is a banned editor, and is banned not for his communication style or something like that, but because of his article work. If all MATF's article creations these days are recreations of Billy Hathorn articles, it comes awfully close to proxying for a banned editor even if the copyvio has been fixed. For example, Kenneth Osterberger, created via AfC from a draft that MATF started on November 9, was deleted on October 25 as an unfixed Billy Hathorn article; Google cache shows me a blanked version (and since only admins can now see the old version, here's what it looked like on June 26; also the basis of the Military History article at Wikia/Fandom). MATF should have been working to fix such articles through the CCI, and instead is backdooring them into the encyclopedia again via a route that makes it a crapshoot whether they're examined for remaining copyvio; but of course MATF can't currently work on the published articles, because they're p-blocked from article space. I remain concerned about accuracy, too. I recall problems with Billy Hathorn's sourcing, and when I worked on the Kenneth Osterberger article today, I was unable to find anything that doesn't go back to Wikipedia that gives his date of birth. MATF's article sources that to a newspapers.com page that I can't see, and also gives the guy a father with a different last name; the article based on Billy Hathorn's work has "Kenneth Osterberger, Sr. (died 1946)", which I can't verify either. I was able to find an independent obituary in the same newspaper as the family-submitted one MTAF cited; and it has him dying a week later than the earlier versions of the article. I think this article is substantiating that there were more than copyvio concerns with Billy Hathorn articles. I've asked MATF on their talk page how they came to work on Billy Hathorn articles. But despite their evident good faith and commendable readiness to work on their English prose, I don't believe we should be allowing wholesale re-creations of Billy Hathorn articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC) Edit to the foregoing: I'm bad at numbers, but the family obituary and the archived version of the old article both have the death date that I corrected to; unless the error was introduced between June and the article's deletion last month, MATF appears to have miscopied it. Can someone with newspapers.com access please check whether this reference is about the same person and supports the birth date and his father's name being George Breazeale? Yngvadottir (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

On the one hand, I take your point, but it's also arguable that the editor's fixing the situation left behind after a banned editor ruined a bunch of articles. Obviously, we shouldn't encourage banned editors, but we also don't want a situation where a bad editor having worked on something ruins its chance of having an article, so there is at least some merit in fixing things behind them.

That said, this feels like a very bad way to do it, and if it's using the deleted articles' text and not just its sources, that's an attribution nightmare. Like, shouldn't we technically be crediting Billy in the page history? Probably better to delete them than to just create a different sort of copyvio. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 09:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

MATF, for a small amount of the articles, did the rewrites before the article was deleted. I haven't seen other rewrite movers like MER-C credit Hathorn or really anyone who wrote the original text for rewrites, but those are a very small subset. The ones written after deletion need to either be below the TOO, aka basic sentences, rewritten/cleaned of any close paraphrasing, or deleted again. I'd suspect that some could be AFD'd or "merged" elsewhere for sheer notability reasons. I've myself plans to rewrite some and it's literally a pinwheel game of "notable or not" with it being rigged towards the latter. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Oh, I hear you. That's the trouble with deletion of banned editors' articles; there's damage to our encyclopedic coverage. However, one of the things that made Billy Hathorn problematic—including when he socked—was that he had an eccentric view of notability. His articles on Republican politicians tended not to meet notability standards. It's been a long time and I was just an observer, but I have the impression that that's how he came to notice and his close paraphrasing was discovered later. Sennecaster, that's also my impression, that several of MATF's recreated articles are on people of borderline notability, if that—Kenneth Osterberger, for one (longtime state senator, chief claims to fame as the successful opponent in David Duke's first run for public office and as founder of the prayer breakfast in his state senate, which is not in the new version of the article and the former wasn't till I found independent coverage and added it). There must have been run-of-the-mill elections coverage, but even MATF, who apparently has newspapers.com access, didn't find and add any, and I struck out, barely finding an obituary. If I were choosing a banned editor to recreate their articles as a suggestion for what to work on, Billy Hathorn would be low on my list. MATF has now responded to my query about how they came to start doing this, saying it started with Noreen Corcoran, but I'm still puzzled as to how they found the name Billy Hathorn and decided his articles were good candidates for recreation. Thanks for noting that some were pre-deletion clean-ups, Sennecaster. I also see that Casey Toof, which MATF created as a draft on November 11, cannot have been a Billy Hathorn article, because Toof was only elected in 2019, and (unless I'm being misled by the deprecation of deletion logs last month, what on earth is that about) has not previously been deleted. However, Toof is another state, not national, Republican legislator, and the depth of the cited sources is unimpressive. Something smells here. I think MATF may have been taken advantage of. I think they should stop writing biographies and I still think the best solution to the convoluted problem of underlying copyright violation / poor writing with inaccuracies / notability problems / effective proxying for a banned editor is mass deletion of those of their biographies created since they started working on Billy Hathorn articles that other editors have not carefully looked over and improved and thereby vouched for. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Aye. I think you could probably just about make a case for most state senators if you wanted to - they're going to meet WP:GNG somehow, if only in the election reporting - but it's a pretty narrow notability, and not exactly a primary focus, is it? Now, I've not reviewed MATF's work intensively, but somewhat thinking this is a simple "Competence is required" issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 01:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

If the subjects of these articles aren't Wiki-notable, then why are they being passed through AfC? I've learned from the above discussion -- to my surprise and deep concern -- that AfC doesn't check for quality, but checking for notability is something they're supposedly doing, is it not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Election to a state-level legislature is considered an automatic NPOL pass regardless of GNG. We have numerous one-line stubs about minor American politicians who served in the whatever state senate for 10 minutes in the 1800s. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Joe Roe and autopatrol

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

---

So far, we've had two of Joe Roe's autopatroller grants revoked. Should there be a review of other autopatroller grants by Joe to check for further problematic autopatrollers? The very nature of the permission allows bad autopatrolled edits to slip away more easily unless direct investigations are done. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Joe Roe can be faulted in this case; as noted above by others, MTAF was writing a very different kind of articles before getting autopatrol, which didn't reveal the writing problem. Also they were recommended for the right by two very experienced Wikipedians. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that blaming Joe Roe is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Concern about behaviour during an ongoing RfC at Republics of Russia

The talk page of Republics of Russia has been turned into a mess by Jargo Nautilus and Cambial Yellowing during a delicate RfC. The diffs:

• At 23:44, 28 October 2022, Jargo Nautilus (JN) made a totally unprovoked and incomprehensible personal attack on Seryo93, an editor who had not even posted anything in that RfC: I caught him blatantly lying … he was gaslighting me and other editors on purpose.[8]
• At 00:01, 29 October 2022 JN stood on a soapbox: If it comes to the point that Wikipedia actually ends up endorsing some of Russia's criminal actions, then I will boycott this website,[9] Russia has brought its downfall upon itself by electing the criminal Vladimir Putin,[10] Russia ... a lawless wasteland of bandits[11] while also being unnecessarily rude to me:Gitz's logic regarding sourcing is a bit nonsensical.[12]
• I noticed but didn't particularly mind JN's soapboxing and rudeness. However, three days later I noticed the personal attack on Seryo93 and I thought it was unacceptable. I replied to it [13] and I also collapsed the off-topic and soapboxing remarks.[14] I contacted JN on their talk page to address these issues.[15] JN denied any wrongdoing and deleted the whole thread becauseThis is ultimately a waste of time, so I am wiping it clean.[16] Waste of time notwithstanding, JN stared a long conversation on my talk page (this one).
• Immediately before starting that conversation, JN removed from the article talk page both their personal attack on Seryo93 and my reply to it.[17] JN also removed the collapsible box I had applied to their remarks, and heavily edited their remarks or removed them altogether from the article talk page.[18] Note that these comments had been posted 3 days and half earlier and I had already reacted to them by applying the collapsible box.
• I reverted JN’s removal of both their personal attack on Seryo93 and my reply to it, and I explained You shouldn't delete comments! And collapsing off topic comments is fine. Have you ever read WP:TALK?.[19]
• JN made a partial revert of my revert: they deleted their personal attack on Seryo93 and left my reply to it in a collapsible box with the title "off-topic."[20]
• On my talk page Deepfriedokra commented Jargo Nautilus Please do not edit other people's talk page contents. Please do not change your own talk page comments after they have been responded to.[21] While they were probably meaning "article talk page" rather than user talk pages, the message was clear.
• Encouraged by this, I restored the status quo ante - both JN's personal attack and my reply to it. I also restored JN’s soapboxing comments in their original drafting. However, I didn't restore my collapsible box on them[22]. So this was now the talk page as it used to be before my intervention and before JN edited and removed both their old comments and mine.
• However, Cambial Yellowing (CY) restored JN's edited version of their own comments and explained restoring unreplied comments to version by the editor who wrote them[23]. CY also left a warning on my talk page (vandalism)[24] and commented on the article talk page that It's generally acceptable for an editor to amend their own comments to which there has not yet been a reply. So your editing of another editor's comments is not acceptable[25].
• I believe that JN should not have edited and removed their comments because it had already been three days (not a "short while" per WP:TALK#REPLIED) since they had posted them, and because I had already reacted to their comments by putting them in a collapsible box. CY doesn’t agree and we had a discussion on this here, where CY speaks about my inappropriate refactoring and pointless, reaching wikilawyering to try to excuse failing to observe conduct policy. CY was trying to justify JN's disregard for WP:TALK by muddying the waters and making it look like I was the one who misbehaved.
• CY has been both uncivil and tendentious in that talk page since the beginning of the RfC. They had tried to modify the opening sentence without consensus in a way that strongly affected the ongoing RfC[26][27] and had engaged in edit warring on a related issue[28][29][30][31]. Once I had expressed and argued for a view different from theirs in the RfC, they replied that If you're not keen on that policy [WP:OR] this may not be the website for you[32] provoking the reaction of a fellow editor Furius, it comes across as rude and patronising.
• Apart from restoring JN's edited comments and reproaching me for not respecting talk page guidelines, CY provided JN with "good advice" on their talk page[33]. CY encouraged JN to edit their comments yet again because your edit summary suggests you edited them at the behest of another editor. Worse still, CY suggested to JN that they were justified in calling a fellow editor a liar because of WP:IUC: you may find this section - part of WP:5P4 - of interest (note point 2(d)). Obviously CY was wrong: even if Seryo93 had lied in the past (which none of us have reason to believe) it would be entirely inappropriate to call them a liar in an RfC where they have never posted.
• I think that this is just battleground mentality, disregard for talk guidelines and lack of civility on CY's part. I contacted CY on their talk page[34] and they reverted because Not of interest[35]. So here we are.
• Final note. I'm not a Putin supporter, but I find JN's view that Putin supporters should be permanently prohibited from editing Wikipedia simply appalling. Wikipedia does not discriminate editors on the basis of political views, as I tried to explain to them in this conversation on my talk page here. IMHO these two editors should be prevented from editing in the EE area.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement Jargo Nautilus

Firstly, I have not replied to the RfC in days. Secondly, I am not in "cahoots" ("you and your pal") with User:Cambial Yellowing. I have had no direct contact with that user (except very recently at my talk page). Thirdly, I am very busy at the moment and probably can't reply to this thread for the next three weeks. Fourthly, I would hardly describe your own behaviour as appropriate, including the fact that this dispute was started by you when you collapsed my comments. And also, for over a day I believe, I didn't actually respond to you. You spent a considerable length of time arguing with Cambial Yellowing in my absence, and that isn't my fault because I didn't ask him to argue with you on my behalf. So, even though you may view Cambial Yellowing's actions as an escalation on my part, they actually had nothing to do with me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, your logic yet again does not track. You originally collapsed my comments on the charge of being "off topic" and "soapbox" (charges which haven't been verified by a third party, I will add), so I deleted the parts that I thought might have caused my comments to be flagged, since I was under the impression that you wanted me to remove the offending parts. However, remarkably, after I did this, I was only met with more outrage from you. Apparently, you actually wanted me to keep the information there, perhaps in order to make me "look bad". I'm not sure how it makes sense that you are angry at me for simultaneously "writing inappropriate things" and then subsequently deleting those things after I was told that they might cause offence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The first edit (deleting my comments) was my original attempt at conflict resolution. Gitz has highlighted this as a "crime" or an "escalation" for unknown reasons. Clearly, with that edit, I was attempting to improve the situation, not to worsen it. I deleted the parts that I thought might be considered "soap-boxy". My comments hadn't been replied to yet, so I figured it was okay to delete them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have not commented in the "Republics of Russia" article ever since I deleted some of my comments on November 1 (it's now November 4). Ever since then, I have only been interacting with Gitz at his user talk page. As I've said, my time is limited at the moment. | Update: I have commented on the talk page again after three days of absence, on November 4. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement Jargo Nautilus #2 - In light of the fact that no administrators have commented in this ANI discussion after two days and yet it is already impressively lengthy, I'm going to have to conclude that this ANI discussion has only served as a platform for derailment rather than as an actual attempt at conflict resolution. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Other comments

This extremely verbose comment from Gitz6666, which I have skimmed but not read, is I assume occasioned by reminders to both Jargo Nautilus and to Gitz6666 of the importance of observing WP:TPO, and especially so during a contentious RFC. The template used was Template:Uw-tpv2. Both editors edited each other's comments. Gitz6666 first hid Jargo's rather prolix series of comments, citing OFFTOPIC but neglecting to err on the side of caution.[36] Jargo then removed two of his own comments, to one of which Gitz6666 had responded, and removed Gitz6666's response.[37] Gitz6666 restores; Jargo then removes his own comment and collapses Gitz6666's reply.[38] Gitz6666 then removes the collapse, and changes Jargo's other comments to an earlier version.[39].

The only reason any of my comments about this are on article talk, is that Gitz6666 insisted on responding in a thread on article talk. The content of that discussion, in which Gitz6666 merely seeks to justify ignoring WP:TPO, is relevant context.

I reject Gitz6666's specious accusations above, including a fabricated charge of "edit warring" and the claim that I suggested Jargo was "justified in calling a fellow editor a liar" - a phrase and a notion of his own invention. The charges he makes are refuted by the diffs he purports to adduce in support of his claims. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you please explain what did you mean when you said note point 2(d) (per WP:IUC) in your conversation with JN quoted above? Who was the liar you were referring to? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 06:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I made no reference to a liar: that's yet another example of the complete fabrications you've made in your comments on this noticeboard. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, I would advise to avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS. You have accused me and Cambial Yellowing of collaborating, which is not true aside from what can be seen publicly (which is not that much; I've interacted with you -- Gitz -- more than I have with him). This comment of yours was especially direct in this accusation -- "you and your pal". And the phrase "your conversation with JN" in your statement above is seemingly suggestive of this accusation. It certainly wasn't much of a conversation; Cambial Yellowing left two medium-length messages at my talk page, and I left one medium-length reply, and that's it. It's more of a brief "chat" if anything. Indeed, Cambial Yellowing's messages to me are not strongly relevant to the statement that he has made above, which means you are going into WP:TALKOFFTOPIC territory. | EDIT: Also, what is this quote -- "good advice" -- in the segment at the top here a reference to? Is this another accusation? I have been searching through the history of this three-way dispute and I can't find that precise phrase anywhere else but here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

In terms of Seryo "lying", you can see what I am referring to in the most recent discussion on his talk page. Effectively, he repeatedly kept misquoting another user by changing the wording of a phrase that they had said -- specifically changing "in Europe" to "in the world". This incident occurred in a discussion on Talk:Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have now had time to go through Gitz6666's bullet points above. The level of obfuscation, distortion, and outright fabrication in Gitz6666's post is so extreme that I am left with the impression Gitz6666 is unable to edit in this topic area without resort to totally inappropriate conduct. I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG for Gitz6666 in the form of an indefinite article ban and a twelve-month topic ban in the Russia and Russia-Ukraine conflict areas.

Re: the above -

Gitz6666 claims that I left a warning on [Gitz] talk page (vandalism)[119] and commented on the article talk page. This gives the false and inaccurate impression that a) my warning was for vandalism and b) that I commented on article talk right away. In reality my warning was the normal template for "Editing, correcting, or deleting others' talk page comments" personalised with "It's always best to strictly observe WP:TPO, and particularly so in a formal RFC. Where comments have not been replied to it is generally acceptable for an editor to make amendments to their own earlier comments." My comment on article talk was made later and only in response to Gitz6666 starting a thread on talk after he had first responded on his talk page.

Gitz6666 claims that I was trying to justify JN's disregard for WP:TALK by muddying the waters and making it look like I was the one who misbehaved. Gitz6666 gives no evidence for this groundless, dishonest claim. Leaving reminders on two editor's pages for the same thing - editing each other's comments - would be no way to "muddy the waters" were that someone's aim, but Gitz6666 does not let mere logic get in the way of his fabrications.

Gitz6666 claims comments on talk were uncivil and tendentious. The only talk diff they refer to in this paragraph is this one, a response to Gitz6666's suggestion that rather than requiring RS that support southeast Ukraine as Republics of Russia, I ought to have RS saying that the Republic of Crimea, DPR and LPR are not federal subjects/constitutive elements of the Russian Federation. Gitz6666 is at this point moving into sealioning territory. My response pointing out the absurdity of approaching sourcing this way (assuming something is true until RS deny it) remains accurate. The part Gitz6666 says he objects to is justified and objectively true, and I'm happy to repeat it here: "Content must be reliably sourced. If you're not keen on that policy this may not be the website for you."

Gitz6666 claims that CY provided JN with "good advice". He puts the phrase "good advice" in quotes, despite that the phrase is entirely his own invention. Gitz6666 claims that CY encouraged JN to edit their comments yet again. In reality I pointed out to Jargo that I had restored his comments to the last version created by him, and to check this was the right version.(see here)

Gitz6666 then claims that CY suggested to JN that they were justified in calling a fellow editor a liar. This is not a distortion, but an outright fabrication, as can be seen from the diff. I began Regarding the comment in this edit summary, linking to where Jargo says Indeed, as far as I can tell, it's not a crime on Wikipedia to tell a fib on a talk page, but it's definitely very annoying.. I pointed out to Jargo that lying is considered uncivil in Wikipedia conduct guidelines. I made no comment about another editor, Seryo, whom I know nothing about, nor about whether anything is "justified" – a word and a phrase of Gitz6666's own invention.

Gitz6666 says he contacted CY on their talk page, which is true, but they neglect to mention that I already indicated in the thread Gitz6666 started on article talk that I was not interested in attempts to justify ignoring WP:TPO in a contentious RFC. Given that Gitz6666 had seen that, it should be unsurprising to him that I had no interest in his doing so at even greater length and with even more specious arguments on my talk page. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm involved at the RfC, I'm not going to add anything here. I feel the situation would best be served with less heat. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I have not actually edited any of my statements in the RfC at "Talk:Republics of Russia" after Cambial Yellowing messaged me on my talk page, so it's a bit of a moot point how Gitz is suggesting that Cambial Yellowing was inviting me to cause more trouble when I basically haven't caused any further trouble over there. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Close this complaint without action. The discussion at the RfC does not seem very problematic, given the contentious nature of the subject. I did not check a lot (tl;dr, sorry), but few first diffs by the complaining contributor are not convincing, or at least it is not clear why they would warrant any administrative action. My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite article ban and twelve-month topic ban for Gitz6666

Given the extensive degree of distortion, omission, and outright fabrication that Gitz6666 engages in in his OP here, some kind of WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate in this instance.

I note that Gitz6666 is already indefinitely blocked on both the Italian and Spanish Wikipedias for incompatibility with the Project, irredeemable violation of Wiki etiquette, and block evasion (Italian), disruptive edits, and edit wars (Spanish).

On the article talk, Gitz6666 has pushed a POV that is a common talking point for the English-language editions of Russian media: that Russian constitutional law has established southeast Ukraine as part of Russia. Gitz6666 does so

• here, saying the member states of a federation are determined by the federal constitution, not by international law or international consensus
• here, saying In fact it is obvious that the constitutive elements of a federation are determined by the federal constitution rather than international law or international consensus
• here, suggesting sourcing policy ought to be turned on its head in saying Do you have a RS saying that the Republic of Crimea, DPR and LPR are not federal subjects/constitutive elements of the Russian Federation?
• here, saying I have been asked to provide sources to support the claim that, according to Russian constitutional law [the regions of southeast Ukraine] are federal subject of the Russian Federation [emphasis added]. In fact Gitz6666 was asked for sources which directly support the notion of southeast Ukraine as Republics of Russia, which of course do not exist.

Gitz6666 has previously been civil, and his pushing of this "Constitutional law establishes fact" line can best be described as WP:Sealioning. As he has now escalated this POV-pushing to a crass attempt at WP:SANCTIONGAMING in which he fabricates actions and quotes by other editors, I propose an indefinite article ban on Republics of Russia and a twelve-month topic ban on Russia and Russia-Ukraine conflict articles. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - At this point in time, I don't support banning Gitz outright. Requesting him to get banned would make me no better than him, who has just recently requested to get me banned. I believe that the best course of action right now is to de-escalate the dispute between the three users involved. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I am an uninvolved editor who does not wish to become involved in this matter. I would like however to point out the very similar threads here and at Arbcom in late June 2022. I *was* involved in those, and still believe that Gitz misrepresented a source, as I discussed there (and do not have the bandwidth to re-litigate). As above, Gitz was filing a complaint about someone pushing back on his inevitably prolific pro-Russian spin. Perhaps that may shed some light on the matter. I will find and post links. Elinruby (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Links:

• AN/I

• Arbcom Elinruby (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Cambial would like to turn this dispute over behaviour on the talk page into a dispute over the content of the article. I'd be happy to oblige, but this is not the place to do so. Therefore I've just posted this comment on the article talk page. I hope it will help create some interest in an RfC that is languishing for lack of contributions. So far we have had no less than 18 comments from Cambial, 23 from Jargo and 20 from me, thus bludgeoning the discussion and hampering the participation of other users: everybody's contribution is welcome. From now on, I'm abandoning that RfC. I suggest that Cambial and Jargo do the same.

Instead of replying to Cambial about contents, I'd like to ask them the following:

1. Are you sure that it was appropriate for Jargo Nautilus to edit their off-topic comments, remove them and remove the collapsible box? It had been more than three days since they had posted them, and Jargo did not used any <ins> or new timestamp when they edited them. Most importantly, I had already reacted to their comments by putting them in a collapsible box titled off-topic and soapboxing comments. In the edit summary I had explained collapsing off-topic and soapboxing comments per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.[40] Are you sure that, in doing so, I hadn't already replied to them (per WP:TALK#REPLIED)? I gave you my reasons on this[41] and you replied that No-one is interested in pointless, reaching wikilawyering to try to excuse failing to observe conduct policy.[42] Are you still sure you were right in point of policy?
2. In a conversation with Jargo on their talk page you said the following about editing their own comments in the box: if no-one has replied to them by all means remove/edit them. After you had restored Jargo's edited comments, you wrote to them Please check that this is the version of the comments you wish to remain, as your edit summary suggests you edited them at the behest of another editor.[43] If I understand you correctly, you were encouraging them to further edit their comments. Or do you have a different explanation for your suggestion?
3. You quoted our policy on "lying" as incivility per WP:IUC on Jargo's talk page. You also chose the subject "Fibs" as the name of the section you opened there.[44] Let me understand your reasoning: Jargo deletes from the talk page their personal attack and my reply to it, and in the edit summary Jargo writes that it's not a crime on Wikipedia to tell a fib on a talk page, but it's definitely very annoying.[45] You then feel the need to contact Jargo on their talk page to let them know (my words) "no, look, it's not just annoying: if Seryo93 was telling fibs that would have actually been against policy!" Does that make sense to you?

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Brief answers to questions: 1. Yes. Your editing of Jargo's comments does not fit any of the exceptions to WP:TPO. 2. I was neither encouraging them nor discouraging them. Your interpretation of that sentence is sufficiently removed from usual English meaning that one has to assume that either a. your level of English is insufficient to edit this wiki or b. you are WP:GASLIGHTING to try to make another editor's actions appear utterly different to reality. If Jargo had edited their own comments, that would have been acceptable given that no-one had replied to them and your immediately preceding inappropriate editing of the same comments. 3. If an editor lies that is considered uncivil. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment #1 - Gitz, your comment would make sense if I hadn't already abandoned the RfC four days ago. I haven't commented there since November 1 (except for a brief comment on November 4 saying the same thing I'm saying now). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to highlight the fact that Gitz wrote a 2,427‎-character essay within the RfC merely seven minutes before writing above that he is planning to abandon the RfC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment #2 - Based on what Gitz has written above, it seems that they are unwilling to resolve the dispute. Some of their claims just don't make sense. For example, they unilaterally (i.e. without approval from an admin or another experienced third party) collapsed some of my comments in an "off-topic" template, and they told me on my talk page that the comments were inappropriate (according to Gitz). So, I deleted around 70% of the comments that had been collapsed by Gitz, leaving only the parts that I thought were core to my point. I don't see anything wrong with this particular action. It doesn't make sense that Gitz views the deletion of these parts as some sort of a crime, especially since he was the one who told me that those parts allegedly did not belong on the talk page and needed to be hidden/removed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it would be very much appreciated if some admins and/or experienced users were to help us clarify the point of policy here above addressed (point 1 of my last comment, comment#2 of Jorge's reply). 1) Do involved editors have the right to apply a collapsible box to an off-topic discussion/off-topic comments? 2) Once the collapsible box has been applied, has the author of the off-topic comments the right to modify them, delete them, and remove the collapsible box from the talk page? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC) P.S. Note that there is no real dispute between us about the off-topic/soapboxing nature of the comments: the point under discussion is how best to react to these kinds of situations, which I imagine are recurrent, per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.; edited 12:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, it would be appreciated if you would stop rehashing points that haven't been verified by admins or experienced users. That would be a good start. Indeed, if you are wrong about some of your points, that would not be a good look. So, I would advise waiting until experienced users arrive and letting them tell their opinions, rather than predicting the things that you think they will say. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Quite amazing, but not surprising, that in response to my pointing out the fabrications and distortions in your original post you respond with more of the same. You claim, Cambial would like to turn this dispute over behaviour on the talk page into a dispute over the content of the article. You provide no evidence for this whatsoever: nor could you, given that it's a fabrication on your part. This is about you trying to push a completely inappropriate, Russian-government-centric POV. It's also about your pointless, unhelpful (bordering on uncivil) contrariness towards another editor and your inappropriate editing of their comments. It's also about you making things up here at ANI.

On the pushing of a Russian-government-centric POV, I've already provided diffs above where you directly state that what we include as Republics of Russia should be determined entirely by the Russian Constitution (e.g. [46][47][48] Another editor has pointed out above that you have been pushing this POV on other articles. I also note that you have pushed a similar Russian-government POV at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, suggesting we don't need a source saying that [alleged Ukrainian killing] was a war crime[49], and that the representatives of the Luhansk People's Republic called it a war crime[50] (you cite TASS); editors Volunteer Marek,[51][52] and Adoring nanny[53] have had to remind you that the opinions of Russian or Russian-puppet politicians do not establish fact.

On the contrariness towards another editor, you really shot yourself in the foot on this one. Having read Jargo's comments, I see quite how absurd your actions actually were. To wit (and for the benefit of admin):

• Jargo writes a series of posts. [54][55][56]
• You respond to one of them (about international vs constitutional law). [57]
• Jargo gives his view on Russian constitutional law, and writes another series of posts. [58][59][60]
• You reply to an earlier, unrelated post. [61]
• You then collapse Jargo's comments about constitutional law (but not your own), claiming they are "soapboxing" and citing "off-topic". [62]
• Jargo, having seen that you hid his comments about constitutional law (but not your own), and your citing of "off-topic", deletes the parts he thinks are not directly relevant and condenses the rest. [63]
• Jargo then deletes the earlier, unrelated post and your reply to it. [64]
• You restore the earlier post to which you had replied (and your reply). [65]
• Jargo deletes his earlier post (and collapses your reply). [66]
• You uncollapse your reply and restore Jargo's earlier post. You also change the series of posts by Jargo, that you collapsed citing off-topic, to their earlier version (the version that you hid saying off-topic soapboxing). [67]
• I remind first Jargo to observe WP:TPO and WP:REDACT,[68] and then you to observe WP:TPO.[69] I also stress to Jargo that with his own comments he should edit only if they have not been replied to.[70]

That you chose to first hide a series of comments as off-topic soap-boxing, and then, when the editor changes them to try to be more on-topic, you edit their comments to the version you claimed was off-topic, shows a level of contrariness that suggests you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. Your series of fabrications in your original post here suggest the same. I have therefore struck my proposal above and propose an indefinite block. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Behaviour during the ANI discussion

Gitz, what is this? With this edit, you have amended a comment onto the end of Cambial Yellowing's comments, and you have not signed it. At the moment, it looks like something that Cambial Yellowing has written, rather than you. Please explain your edit below, and if there has been a mistake, then please fix it promptly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's a weird mistake - I had intended to add that "post scriptum" to my comment. I'm now moving it to where it belongs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz6666 is NOTHERE

Gitz6666 has been pushing common talking points of the Russian government public relations machine at at least two, possibly more articles. A number of editors have also indicated POV-pushing on Gitz6666's part at this noticeboard and at Arbcom. Gitz6666 has also collapsed replies to their comments citing off-topic; when the editor who wrote these replies tried to focus them on the topic, Gitz6666 insisted on changing them back to the version Gitz6666 had claimed was off-topic: this shows an extraordinary degree of contrariness or editing other's comments just for the sake of it – highly disruptive. They have also made a series of fabricated and unsupported claims about other editor's actions here on ANI. Together, these strongly suggest Gitz6666 is not here to build an encyclopaedia. They have already been blocked on the Italian and Spanish Wikis for similar reasons.ITES I propose a similar block on this wiki. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, for the reasons summarised above and outlined in detail in the previous section. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This proposal looks like Battleground retaliation and raises questions about Cambial Yellowing's ability or willingness to collaborate respectfully with good faith contributors on complex and controversial subject matter. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

While your input is always interesting Specifico, your own inability to collaborate on far-less controversial topics, even though you claim to have expertise in that topic area, indicates you would be a poor judge of the nature of other editor's actions. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Apparently Cambial has serious problems with civility and is incapable or receiving the slightest criticism without overreacting, attempting to undermine the interlocutor's credibility and making personal attacks. The topic of this discussion is Cambial's, Jargo's and mine "inability to cooperate", not Specifico's. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: The topic that you started this under was in fact "concern about behaviour". Much of the behaviour you went on to describe turned out to be fabricated, to be sure, but the ostensible subject was different to "inability to cooperate". Neither Jargo nor I have had a problem collaborating or discussing, despite contentious disagreement, with each other or with other editors on the page. It is only you that has caused extensive problems both at that page and others, which have led to your complete ban on two other wikis. It is only you that has been difficult to collaborate with, continually pushing a notion that "Russian constitutional law establishes fact" without regard to the content policies of this website. It is only you that has moved from a simple reminder to respect the talk page guidelines, in a series of bizarre escalations, to the extensive series of fabrications about other editor's actions that you make on this noticeboard. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

So far you've used the word fabrication, which implies intentions, no less than 12 times in the course of this discussion, yet you have failed to share even one single diff showing a lie on my part. My account of our interactions was correct and, I believe, it shows your disregard for our policies and guidelines (TALK, CIV, NPA, AGV) and your battlefield mentality (NPOV) meaning your inability to cooperate in the EE area. Moreover, your remarkable behaviour during this discussion (I propose tban! - I support tban - silence follows - I propose nothere! - I support nothere - silence and coughing from the audience – more personal attacks, more accusations) is verging on the bizarre and suggests that it's time for an admin to handle the matter, possibly with some consideration for the high level of distress and discomfort shown by all editors involved.

Finally, since you mentioned my history on it.wiki and es.wiki, I intend to publish a short explanation (with diff) of these events, which I will post on my user page, so as not to burden this discussion with other irrelevant materials. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I referred to fabrications, not lies. You have made various statements above which are demonstrably false. I make no judgement about intention, but it would be interesting to see you try to explain how some of these statements were not intentional. It is again unsurprising that you exhibit such a degree of unselfconsciousness that you inaccurately accuse others of having failed to share even one single diff, after making an OP in which you make accusations for which you offer not a shred of evidence. Given that the diffs you appeal to above are your comments on this noticeboard in this section, linking them seems redundant, but for completeness they are your OP (I detail the fabrications in a post below it); your response to another post (you ask Who was the liar you were referring to? – given the number of times you've linked to my 2 comments at Jargo's page, you cannot be unaware of the fact that I made no reference to any "liar"); and this post (you claim Cambial would like to turn this dispute over behaviour on the talk page into a dispute over the content of the article - again you offer no evidence). Your bizarre speculations about an imaginary "audience" speaks to the performative nature of your posts here, which suggests they are designed largely to waste editor and admin time. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"Audience" refers to the community and to the admins who will read and hopefully see through this better than you and me, including the semantics of "fabrication" (as distinct from lie and not implying ill-intentions) that you've just... fabricated![71] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I referred to fabrications, not lies.

Let's not play rhetorical games. If you accuse someone of fabrications, you are accusing them of making up something they know is false, aka lying. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It is possible to say things that aren't true, and also believe them. Gitz for example firmly believes that Wikipedia is unfairly portraying the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He also believes that Ukrainian territory is part of Russia, apparently, and that a Russian law proves that this is so. He is now complaining that these assertions weren't received as he thought they should be, shrug. As civilly as I can, I would like to say that a thing does not become true merely because Putin said so and Gitz believes it, and has posted wall after wall of text about it. Elinruby (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC) 04:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

this thread is now turning into a workshop on the notion of "fabrication". As the discussion is quite long and few editors will read it carefully, I'm forced to rectify Elinruby's claims: I've never said the things they attribute to me. It's pure (intentional? unintentional?) fabrication. Some of them are too generic (Wikipedia is unfairly portraying the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and others are entirely false (He also believes that Ukrainian territory is part of Russia), not to say insulting. They are not a reasonable interpretation of my claim that the number and name of Russia's internal subdivisions (republics, oblasts, etc.) are determined by Russian public law. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Why would Russian public law make Ukrainian territory part of Russia? For purposes of the Russian secret police, perhaps, but for purposes of the English-language Wikipedia Putin's flights of fancy are not RS for our encyclopedia. I was mercifully uninvolved in the original dispute here, and don't know who did what to whose hatnote; frankly I don't care and think you should be ashamed of yourself for whining about it here. It's hilarious that you complain, in an utter lack of self-awareness, about the length of a thread largely made up of your own walls of whatever. You routinely post torrents of legalese that exhaust those who disagree with you into just wanting you to go away. And yeah, by the way, by your own definition, you just accused me of making stuff up. But never mind all that. My point is that if you are going to maintain that the massacre at Bucha was exaggerated (see also All Russian war crimes are only "alleged") or that children taken from their parents aren't *really* kidnapped (see "interests of the child" 22:13, 5 June) because Russia passed a law that made it legal to take them, then any reasonable person would expect you to meet with a certain amount of exasperation. However "civil" you may be in your utter certitude that you are correct, you insert stupefying amounts of spin into the encyclopedia. I have dealt with hundreds of editors on dozens of highly contentious topics, and you're the only one in all these years that I have ever had to instruct to stop speaking either to me or about me. Rectify, my left foot. Obviously, it is no longer reasonable now to expect you not to answer me here, which is why I have tried so hard to stay out of this, but kindly refrain this time from the dissertations on my talk page. I have watched you intimidate or discourage one good editor after another and am unlikely to change my opinion that you are a serial bully who for some reason truly believes in irredentism, and a net negative to the project who should at a minimum be topic-banned from anything to do with Russia. Now if you will excuse me, I feel the need for a shower. Elinruby (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

When does a crime ever stop being alleged? Even some people who were historically sentenced to death in the United States eventually became rectified of their convictions decades later. Crimes are never 100% proven nor disproven. Even the court of law's verdict is merely an opinion. Hence, placing the descriptor "alleged" before every Russian war crime is semantics. The Russian war crimes will never be proven beyond all reasonable doubt (unless captured in video footage). Most war crimes never get proven or punished. | Clarification: This is an argument against Gitz's suggestion that the Russian war crimes haven't yet been proven, so we must describe them as "alleged". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, this formulation is much better than Reading through some of the comments left by Gitz here, I think I am losing brain cells by the second, so I'm going to stop now before I need to be placed in an intensive care unit.[72][73] It's a pity you don't understand the notion of personal attack. This, for instance, is another recent one: Hopefully, you can help yourself on how to become a better person and find your way onto the right side of history.[74] You have no right to write things like these on this platform and I hope the closing admin will not let them go unnoticed.
• I also hope the closer will uphold WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and provide some clarity on how WP:TALK#REPLIED should be interpreted in a case like this.
• Shouldn't Cambial's funny headings be removed from this thread per WP:TALKHEADPOV? Or is it better to leave them there because they are another sign of disregard for WP:TALK?
• Regarding the off-topic stuff mentioned by Elinruby and Jargo (Bucha, kidnapping, "alleged", etc.) if asked by a good-faithed editor I can provide diffs showing that my comments have been grossly misrepresented here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't let him goad you, JN. It's true that you need to find another place to vent; we talked about that. But don't answer him here or he will request clarifications and diffs and claim to be misunderstood until you're suddenly the mean one because you "hate Russians". Or are "fooled by Ukrainians" or whatever. Gitz, it's a pattern with you and the diffs are right there, but as far as this particular thread goes, I ask again, *Why would Russian public law make Ukrainian territory part of Russia?* it's the mind-bending nature of this conviction of yours that is the heart of the issue here, I think. Can I declare myself a country and pass a law that says that your account no longer belongs to you? How about if I appropriate the International Space Station, let's say because a legend in my country says that its inhabitants have always been destined to rule from up in the sky??? I would almost be ok with you believing this stuff. But you keep dragging people to AN/I for supposedly being rude to you when they won't let you convince them how right you are. Elinruby (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course, this is not the appropriate place to respond to Gitz. He is clearly trying to start trouble. My previous response was merely about the one point he was making. Meta discussions are neither needed nor wanted. Indeed, my original point still stands... at which point do we draw the line between something that is "proven" versus "unproven"? As I said, even people who get executed on death row can eventually be deemed not guilty fifty years or so later. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, you would benefit from acquiring a sense of humour. That's the great thing about the country where I live; humour abounds. In that sense, I see nothing wrong with "funny" headings per se. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby, the question you asked twice in bold, as if you were shouting something very topical, urgent and conclusive, actually makes no sense, neither here (where we discuss behaviour) nor in the RfC at Republics of Russia. It is obvious that Russian public law cannot make Ukrainian territory part of Russia: no one has ever argued otherwise. But Jargo, Cambial and I were not discussing about Russia–Ukraine border nor about Borders of Russia: we were discussing about Republics of Russia. And it is precisely Russian public law that regulates the constitutive elements of the Russian Federation by determining, among other things, which republics are member of the Federation and how they are called. Analogously, Provinces of China lists Taiwan Province despite the fact that the People's Republic of China does not rule on that territory. So your argument is irrelevant and in any case it does not belong to this discussion. I suggest you continue to discuss in the user talk pages with editors complaining about your sanctimoneous insults[75] and long rant[76] instead of bringing them here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:33, 8 November 2022 (UT

Well it certainly made no sense to me when at 07:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC), in this very thread, you said I was "insulting" and my remarks were "not a reasonable interpretation of (your) claim that the number and name of Russia's internal subdivisions (republics, oblasts, etc.) are determined by Russian public law.". So....if nobody let alone you ever said that Russian public law was our RS for whether or not Kherson and the Donbas were of Russia, which one of the other words in that sentence did you say or not say? The man on my talk page is not part of this and perhaps he misread or misspoke. Or perhaps you did. I am all AGF over here just waiting to hear how it is that "the number and name of Russia's internal subdivisions (republics, oblasts, etc.) are determined by Russian public law" actually clearly means "Russian public law cannot make Ukrainian territory part of Russia: no one has ever argued otherwise." and yet-- didn't you just now draw a parallel to Provinces of China, where you say that Taiwan is listed? Maybe *you* should go talk to the man on my talk page, and the two of you can put you heards together....shrug. You can withdraw your complaint at any time, you know. You're the one that wanted other people chastised. If there is some sort of language or medical issue here I am happy to help. I told you that before. But from here it really does look like you are denying that you said something that you clearly did say. 13:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs)

If there is some sort of language or medical issue here I am happy to help. OK, I'm done with this, I'm out. I will no longer reply to these editors. I'm not withdrawing my complaint: I'm still asking for administrative oversight and action, and I'd like them to include also the behaviours held here during this discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I've participated at the RFC-in-question, over a week or so ago. FWIW - So far, nobody has tried to push me into changing my position there. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

more than 1,000 possibly bad edits

The last 1,000 and more edits by experienced editor User:Dicklyon used an automated editor to impose their view of comma treatment, which in at least some cases is completely wrong grammatically, and which also changes bluelinks to existing articles into redlinks, disconnecting them. I noted one such bad edit at their Talk page, but now I see they have made more than 1,000 edits in their campaign, and there may be a huge number of errors implemented by them. I don't happen to have "rollback" feature so it would not be convenient for me to roll back all of their edits, and it is a bigger cleanup problem than I can tackle right now myself. Could others please speak to this situation and how it can be fixed, please? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC) P.S. Please see this diff at their Talk page, in which I notified them of this ANI section at their Talk page, and where I see they had quickly replied to my first posting, and I requested they to continue here. There, they stated that they would fix all the problems, but I pointed out that without some further discussion showing understanding of the multiple types of problems caused and/or willingness to roll back ALL of the edits, that offhand I would rather expect they might fix some but not all of the errors introduced. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of us have fixed a good number of articles in this series of edits where they showed up in a maintenance tracking category. I'm sure we can get through the rest without a mass rollback. Dawnseeker2000 06:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, now I see (but did not just read in detail) a discussion section on their page. I'm not clear if Dicklyon is making fixes, as their edits all show the same type of edit summary as the bad edit I noticed. Are they using the same edit summary??? Why would they not change the edit summary to indicate they are fixing their previous mistaken edits???

But, anyhow, which kind of errors are you "fixing"; would you be catching all the situations where disconnections were made? I understand that two-comma treatment "Bob Smith, Jr., House" or zero-comma treatment "Bob Smith Jr. House" is grammatically okay, though currently many editors prefer the latter. And I understand that "one-comma" treatment "Bob Smith Jr., House" (which is what Dicklyon was implementing instead of two-comma treatment) is completely wrong. But simply changing the bad treatment into zero-comma treatment does not address the disconnection issue. This applies to numerous NRHP list-articles which were set up with "two-comma" treatment, linking to both bluelink articles and to redlink articles. The linked pages would have to be moved to zero-comma names, first, before perhaps changing two-comma links to zero-comma ones. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

There were some articles in this situation that were listed at Category:Articles with missing files and myself and at least one other editor took care of it. I did not roll back any (just fixed manually) but I see that Sumanuil rolled back about 10 to 15 articles. Dawnseeker2000 06:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

That category would not identify any of the problems I am talking about. So their editing spree must be causing even more kinds of problems than either of us know about. I scrolled back by 1,000's in their edit history 12 times and did not reach the end yet... they have made more than 12,000 edits with a faulty process! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Don, the faulty process (not reviewing the semi-automated edits closely enough to catch these errors) was limited to 1200 rapid edits on Nov. 8 as far as I know. On the previous rounds of case cleanup and comma cleanup edits, there were some transient issues that were discovered, discussed, and fixed. If you have reason to believe there were any significant number of unaddressed errors before that, please point out one or two so we'll know what you're talking about. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the problem with automated or semi-automated edits. When it works, it's great. When it doesn't, it can introduce hundreds of new errors in minutes. Is speed really worth it?Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I introduced "hundreds" or errors, and it took hours, not minutes. But yes that's a risk of not careful enough use of semi-automated edits, and it's a slower process to fix. Sorry. I'm on it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Another problem is that they change the name of the linked-to article in one place (e.g. a NRHP county-level list-article, but not at other places (at disambiguation pages showing the place as either a bluelink or as a redlink with a supporting bluelink as required by wp:DABRL) and at other list-articles such as a list of rectories or Elks buildings or other building-type-specific lists.

And, now I recall, this editor's doing something very similar to NRHP pages has caused problems before, which were discussed out, and they promised NOT to do it any more without following a procedure to list all the pages changed at a work page set up specifically so that the second-level problems introduced by their zeal could be monitored and fixed. That work page is Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Hyphens vs. dashes issues, created specifically because Dicklyon had been charging ahead changing hyphens to dashes. Now, their charging ahead with changing two-commas to zero-commas creates the same problems. (Because existing bluelink target pages need to be moved, leaving redirects behind. And where target pages are redlinks, a redirect would need to be created, too, but those would be deleted automatically, so the workaround was to create that worklist which would allow for one to go back later and create the necessary redirects.) I doubt this is easy for others to immediately understand. But Dicklyon once did understand, and agreed to cooperate in a workaround process, which they are not doing here.

This is irritating. Could they be enjoined not to do any edits of these types? Or any mass-editing campaigns, or what? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Don, I've continued to list redlinked articles with dashes there in case you or someone creates the articles with hyphens. Did I miss something? Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, let's not draw & quarter him. Yes, there were some errors introduced, but these can be taken care of. As an AWB user, I create similar situations, and that is why I monitor the various tracking categories. If you're an editor with a goal (commas) then speed can become paramount, and I see he was saving pages at a rate of around 20 per minute on at least one occasion tonight. If you're an editor with a goal (typo-fixing, for example) and you also are focused on not populating those categories, the edit rate drops dramatically. Based on the article about him, he's 18 or 19 years older than I am, and I know my eyes fail me here and there. Dawnseeker2000 07:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

"these can be taken care of"??? by whom, how? Some/many/most of the errors introduced do not show up in a tracking category which could be addressed. You probably don't see all the types of problems caused, and I probably don't see them all either, because the edits are hitting completely different kinds of articles and situations (e.g. inside redlinks vs. inside bluelinks vs. outside links) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

"Speed can become paramount". For heaven's sake, why? Are the Internet Comma Police hovering over our website, threatening to swoop down and send Wikipedia to Comma Prison if the "errors" weren't changed immediately? These kinds of mass changes can most certainly wait for a consensus before they're made, and if errors are introduced they should certainly be corrected before moving on with the grand project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm sympathetic to what Dick is trying to achieve - the Jr. comma debate was settled many years ago, and most article titles now match that. But it does look like this mass edit was done without due care and attention, and most likely with the myriad different combinations of offsetting commas and other constructs, it isn't really possible to do a mass edit of this nature without verifying each and every one for breakages. Dick, you need to commit to slowing down and doing this task carefully, or else a topic ban on mass edits may be incoming.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Amakuru, it's not just that they would need to look for breakages where a bluelink was changed to a redlink. There also needs to be redirects set up from valid two-comma versions to also valid zero-comma versions, and that is different than a breakage. And they were doing neither, they were introducing completely bad one-comma errors!!! (This is not entirely easy to explain, sorry. But basically their approach (if they were actually making two-comma to zero-comma changes) is also setting up future disconnects/breakages which you can't see yet, so further action like the work page workaround is needed.) Their edits are not being part of any solution; they are the problem now, and IMHO they should not be allowed to be involved in addressing the Jr., and Sr. business at all (which would gradually be "fixed" naturally without them). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I see they have made more than 12,000 edits with a faulty process, causing multiple types of problems. Their very latest few edits included one more of the type I identified, too, it is not as if they have changed over to being a fixer. Can 12,000 or however many of their edits 20,000? 50,000? be rolled back, ASAP, before other edits are made to those articles and then rollback cannot be used? This is on the scale of a pretty big bot run, and they have been running an unapproved bot in effect. If one does that, wouldn't one get blocked??? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Kill-It-With-Fire (mass undo) is a thing now, so it doesn't matter so much if edits happen after theirs. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, is it appropriate to remove commas before Jr. or Sr.? (e.g. this edit) Nythar (💬-🎃) 07:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Nythar, it is not completely simple. In that edit, they made one change which is okay (in shifting to a now-somewhat-preferred form, but not really a necessary change), in a case where there was no comma following the "Joe Smith, Jr." But also they made one change that introduced grammatical error, where there was a comma following it. In the second change, in effect, they changed from "two-comma" to "one-comma" type, which is just absolutely wrong. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 07:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Not "absolutely wrong", but I agree I should have removed another comma there. I further fixed that article just now; it had quite a few missing and extra commas that nobody had cared about so far. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:JRSR: Do not put a comma before Jr. or Sr. (or variations such as Jnr). Ljleppan (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just interested to know the MOS for these. Nythar (💬-🎃) 07:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

But, User:Ljleppan, it does not follow that removing a comma before a Jr. or Sr. always constitutes an improvement. Instead it can be introducing a gross error. Changing "Joe Smith, Jr., House" to "Joe Smith Jr., House" is making an absolute error. (While changing "Joe Smith, Jr., House" to "Joe Smith Jr. House" would be okay grammatically and is, i guess, now somewhat preferred.) And there are the immediate breakage problems which can be caused if the phrase is part of a bluelink, and the implied problem that the bluelinked page needs to be moved and a redirect set up. And there is delayed/hidden/future breakage-type problem caused too, when the phrase is part of a redlink, esp. where that redlink is used in other articles too. So one partial fix to their type of campaign would be to prohibit them from making any change to a redlink, but rather allow us all to wait until the redlink is turned into a bluelink by article creation. --07:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Also they shouldn't be changing citations. This edit[77] introduced 2 citation errors (cites need to match sources, not WP usage) and also broke a link in V-12 Navy College Training Program. Given the quantity of edits, even a small error rate is going to throw up a lot of errors. Semi-automated tools should automate the data entry, not the editors judgement. This is very annoying. Jahaza (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yet more damage to citations[78]. This comma is in the title of the cited Senate resolution. There's also damage to sports articles.

• 2016–17 Pac-12 Conference men's basketball season
• 2020 Atlantic Coast Conference men's soccer season
• 2016 Mountain West Conference football season
• 2016 Atlantic Coast Conference men's soccer season
• 2016 North Carolina A&T Aggies football team
• 2017 Mountain West Conference football season
• 2019 Colonial Athletic Association men's soccer season

Here Jr. and Sr. are in reference to college player year and have nothing to do with postnominals. With thousands (tens of thousands?) Of edits, how many of these are there! Jahaza (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that Dick seems to have paid almost no attention to whether the commas in question were part of an offsetting pair, as well as removing them in renditions of titles of external sources, which I don't think should be edited that way, I'm starting to think a mass rollback may be necessary, unless Dick or anyone else is prepared to examine them one by one. I have to say I'm disappointed by this, as I consider Dick a good editor and while his zeal and determination to see through certain style issues is well-known, his heart is in the right place. What's happened here isn't good though, unless we really are dealing with only a handful of cases.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• This seems to be something of a repeat of an earlier automated mass edit campaign by Dicklyon a few months ago. (See [79].) Perhaps Dicklyon shouldn't be using automation to make edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

More than 30,000 uninformed/faulty edits with edit summary including "(via WP:JWB)", and many more thousands with a different mass editing error: I paged back 30 times 1,000 edits per page of their contributions, and am still amongst their automated edits.

And then I am seeing a bunch more different edits which I also disagree with, where they are willy-nilly changing titles of pages about proper noun things into mixed upper and lower case titles. Which seems completely wrong. E.g. this diff about a disambiguation page on the Sun Belt Basketball Tournament with edit summary indicating they are applying their view of what's proper for upper vs. lower case "norm" ("(Dicklyon moved page Sun Belt Basketball Tournament to Sun Belt basketball tournament: case norm)"). In this specific case it seems they did move the constituent pages (incorrectly, IMHO) already. I have seen them blithely making case changes to articles on proper noun places listed on, and formally named by, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) program of the U.S. government. (E.g. they would change "Bob Smith House", listed on the NRHP as "Bob Smith House" rather than "4125 E. 4100 Rd." to "Bob Smith house", which is just wrong: the formal name of the place in all usage by national, state, and local historic governing bodies, and in local tourist and information pages, and in pages of the local historic house museum etc., is the proper name "Bob Smith House"). I had noticed a few of those and regret now that I did not raise a general problem about those edits, which now I think number in the thousands, or many many thousands, as well.

Dicklyon has been notified of this discussion and directed here, and has not commented. Offhand I do not believe they understand the facts of the multiple types of errors they have been introducing, and I do not believe they could fix them all, even if they plausibly claimed they would revisit all 30,000 or more (60,000?) edits in the last few days, plus many thousands more of at least the case-change edits over a longer period. Their claim in immediate response to my first talk message to them was "OK, yes, I messed up and will review and fix that and other recent edits." I note they did not make any fixes since then, and it is certainly not just "recent edits", and this is a big mess. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 16:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed these case edits as well to basketball tournament names (when I was fixing comma errors introduced in some), but wasn't sure if there was a consensus about capitalizing the tournament names. --Jahaza (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• I find these mass automated edits to be problematic. It is putting the burden on the rest of us to try to catch and fix the mistakes. See, e.g., here, [80], here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Have to say that I noticed issues with some of Dick's edits related to the basketball tournament case moves mentioned above, most of which were done in September IIRC. When moving titles in various articles, he made case changes to reference titles that happened to be similar to the event titles. Examples can be found at [81], [82], [83], [84], and [85] among others, and I'm sure there are many similar instances I'm not aware of. As someone who cares about upholding MoS standards when possible, I can't tell you how annoying it is to have clear errors mixed in with legitimate changes and have to spend time looking at each individual piece of an edit for problems. My hope is that Dick takes this and the above feedback to heart and exhibits a little more caution with his editing, as he says he will do going forward. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Giants2008, it would be polite to let me know if you see mistakes I've made, rather than save them up for ANI. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Re the consensus on baseball and basketball tournaments and such, a good place to check for discussions is WT:MOSCAPS#Concluded. These all had clear consensus, enough to get a bot to do the hundreds of moves. I was pretty careful in the cleanup edits, but of course a few errors may have slipped through. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes I screwed up

By going too fast and not reviewing each edit carefully enough, I did let quite a few errors through (that is, removed some commas that should have been left, and left some that should have been removed), so now I have to either revert all or review and fix all. I appreciate those who have already reverted or fixed errors that that they noticed. I'll get started today (but my editting availability comes in blocks, so I beg your patience). Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe we're talking about approximately 1200 edits on 08 November, which is when I was hurrying through. If anyone sees errors in any older edits, I'd like to hear about that, too, but that's not what any of the ones mentioned above are about, in spite of one user's comment that this problem goes back many thousands of edits. There were a few accidental edits of file names earlier, and I did several times thank Sumanil for noticing and fixing those; it's great that they are automatically flagged. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed I also got about 40 thanks for these comma fixes. It's good to know that some of these at least are recognized as worthwhile improvements. Again, I apologize for the ones that were not, and I'll be working on finding and fixing more of those. Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Just out of curiosity, are you saying above that you were thanked about 40 times – via the "Thanks" notification – for the various comma-related edits that you performed on 8 November, or am I misunderstanding? DanCherek (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That is what I was saying, but checking again I see many fewer thanks than 40. Not sure what confused my count there. Maybe counted over a longer time span; looks like about 40 over the last month. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Checking again, I see most of my last 50 thanks were in early October, with edit summaries comma rm per MOS:JR (via WP:JWB) and fix Jr/Sr as last name (via WP:JWB). So, it Jr Sr comma related, but not the recently problematic batch, which only got 5 thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Going through the reverts first, to see how I messed up, I find three main categories: First, in names of historic houses I broke some links by taking out one comma instead of the two it would take to avoid the redirects. So I've got a JWB pattern that will help me find and fix all those; and I'll check them carefully. Second, I changed a few file names; glad to see those get fixed almost automatically by Sumanuil. Third, I was surprised to find that in sports articles, ", Jr.," or ", Sr.," after a name actually are non-restrictive, and need those commas since they are college years; probably would be better as ", junior," and ", senior,". I don't know whether those have all been reverted; I'll be checking for more. Again, sorry, I got in an inappropriate rush last night. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

By the way, several of the complaining editors above have complained in the past about my quantities of edits, but are generally unable to point out any errors, since my error rate is generally well below 1% (unlike last night's 1200 edits, where it may be closer to 10%). So let's focus on what I got wrong, and just acknowledge that I did about 100,000 other edits this year, with relatively few errors. I'm not doing this just for fun, but to improve WP, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I advised you in the past, to slow down. A speeding train, always runs the risk of causing destruction. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your advice, on commas. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'm doing something right. Three different users thanked me for the above comment. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I suppose lots, of people just appreciate good, comma usage? A humorous retort, always has the chance of inspiring thanks. Begoon 11:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Working through these is slow. What I rushed through at about 4 seconds each is taking about a minute per review and fix. So it will keep me busy for a lot of editing hours. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Given how much time it's taking, it's a wonder that you have time to repeatedly revert the use of the comma in Joseph P. Riley Jr. Park, when that's what the official city sources use. See: Talk: Joseph P. Riley Jr. Park § Silly comma in name --Jahaza (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I take time to fix errors. We don't ape the style of official sources, especially when they're agrammatical and most sources don't copy their errors. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I've got these three identified categories of errors all fixed (sports player years, houses, and file names). The rest are slow because there's no clear patttern to look for and because they typically have more comma errors to fix than the ones I created. So it will take a while. Plus, I have work and some other RL things (including a death in the family and the death of a friend) limiting my time on task. I've also got a big backlog of cleanup edits on the hundreds of page moves done after Talk:Mid-American Conference baseball tournament#Requested move 23 October 2022. I'd be happy to have help there, especially from someone good with AWB or JWB. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the "House" fixes are still in progress, not finished. I found the JWB tab working on that and did a bit more. And did some more of the random ones. Anyone feel like helping? Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Finished those, I think. If I missed any, I'll come across them as I continue to work through the whole list looking for errors to fix. I've been fixing lots of other comma errors in historic house/farm/etc. articles as I go, too. I think Don was saying that if I fix something in one place I should fix it in other places, too; but I don't see how that's possible, nor has it ever been an expectation laid on editors. I do try to move things in that direction, but there's really no good support for global consistency. Dicklyon (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This editor can't hear us

Dicklyon has been asked MANY TIMES on their talk page to review their edits as they make them, not to depend on other people to find and point out their mistakes. Many of these edits resulted in clear, obvious red links, missing images, broken footnotes and other error messages, but Dicklyon is going too fast and editing without enough care. Continued advice and remonstrances, including the discussion above, have not worked. I recommend some sort of sanction at this point. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

AWB/JWB enabling comes with acknowledgement that you are responsible for every edit made (WP:AWBRULES). Yes, mistakes happen, and Dicklyon has owned up to the mistakes and worked to correct them. I do not doubt their sincerity in that regard. But it is my opinion that they have (1) not considered the full impact of some of the regexes they were running while at the same time (2) operating too fast (when I ran across previous issues, they were running 30-40 edits per minute, which is considered bot-like editing). AWB & JWB come with significant responsibility because misuse can cause widespread damage very quickly. Simply slowing down would solve the problem, and that has been advised numerous times([86], [87], [88]) over the past six weeks; yet here we are. One possibility would be that if Dicklyon is going to continue to use JWB in this manner, they need to submit for a bot approval (see WP:MEATBOT). A more severe sanction would be removal from the AWB check page (as the aforementioned AWB rules indicate: Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled). ButlerBlog (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for you perspective. Let me summarize what I've been up to. First, I sought and obtained clear consensus, about 4 or 5 times this year, to get large batches of pages moved (mostly in sports, for case correction); and some in previous years (like a lot of these Jr. and Sr name articles). Then, to follow up, I took on the complete task of cleanup edits to use the same case in the text as we had decided for titles. Sometimes I'd take weeks to develop good enough regex patterns, going relatively slowly and trying to figure out what kinds of errors might happen. Sometimes others spotted errors that I missed. Eventually I got to where I could edit real fast, as you noticed, and sometimes a new type of problem would be discovered (like when I case corrected links that turned out to be redirects and so hadn't been moved, resulting in redlinks). I fixed a ton of those manually, while working with Tol on getting a bot to help (which he's about to finish up real soon). A few editors were annoyed by the shear volume of edits showing up on their watchlists, and complained about that more than about actual errors. That's mostly in the past, but a bunch of baseball tournaments and such are still awaiting case cleanups. When I get to it, I'll have had the redirects taken care of in advance, and I'll develop regex patterns carefully, and probably go real fast again; I'll seek bot approval for that, now that I see such a process exists. But what happened this week (1200 edits on Nov. 8 at a rate of about 10 per minute) was a big mistake on my part. I watched, checking previews, developing what I thought to be a low-error-rate regex pattern, before I started going faster, watching the diffs but not the previews. In retrospect, it's clear that no amount of Jr/Sr comma hacking is going to be low error rate, and I should have seen that at the time. The file redlinks were automatically found and kindly and quickly fixed. The "House" article redlinks took me a while longer, using JWB and careful checking; its hard when so many of the redlinks were already redlinks before my edits (that is, I edited redlinks more than I created redlinks). Got those all fixed. And the ones that looked right because I didn't see enough context to notice that were college player years, not postnominals, all got fixed (some by me, some by the editor who pointed them out to me). I've been going through what's left, now with the help of JWB, with a regex that can remove the commas I left after Jr. and Sr. For each such edit, I have to OK it or edit it back, or skip the file; and in the process I tend to notice and fix other commas and such. I need JWB for this. The alternative, since I have a good list now of which articles have not been fixed or checked or reverted by me or anyone else yet, would be to just revert all those; if someone has a bot that can take my list of titles and just revert my current edits, I'd go for that as an OK alternative to completing the fixes. Then I intend to pretty much give up on Jr./Sr. fixes except in new article titles, since I've decided there's no way to make it easy enough to make much headway. Anyway, I like your ideas of asking for meatbot approval when I think I'm ready to go fast on a big batch. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The Sri Lanka and unsourced WP:RGW

The Sri Lanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Whilst this user has made some good contributions, they seem to be out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS when it comes to the topics of Sri Lanka, Buddhism and Hinduism. They don't seem to think that they need to provide sources (see their talkpage), and just edit war their additions in (see their contribs, clear patten of revert, revert revert going on), with summaries along the lines of "stop spreading prejudice" and "Erroneous" (yet hadn't provided any sources). They have continued past a final warning, and don't seem interested in discussing anything except for telling everyone that they are spreading prejudice and racism. A shorter block may bring them to their senses, and give them some time to read up on Wikipedia:Verifiability, as they seem to be (mostly, I think) WP:HERE. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• Mako's concerns (and several others') are justified - notably that after responding to an initial reminder to use RS, when they then started receiving warnings, they give such comments as Why are you so interested in inciting racism and religious prejudice? Wikipedia is not a platform for spreading prejudice.. A reasonable case could be made for a personal attack, but even AGFing that, the non-sourcing issues are legion. I'm not sure a temporary block is likely to work. Instead, I'd go for an indef block (not a ban), liftable by any admin who is satisfied when Sri Lanka engages suitably. Underlying that, I'd also impose a community 1RR restriction. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Here, they just revert me to re-add their unsourced content, whilst claiming that my edit was somehow "Erroneous".

  Here they remove content, mostly to a single source (Lehr, 2019) claiming it "incites racism". Oddly, they make no challenge of the reliability of the source though, as they don't attempt to remove other content sourced to "Lehr (2019)". This suggests that the issue is more IDONTLIKEIT than believing the source to be unreliable. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

My last edit to Buddhism in Sri Lanka filled in a citation. The "prejudicial" content edit by The Sri Lanka is still in place. (edit - restored the sourced content Adakiko (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)) Adakiko (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@The Sri Lanka: Can you please comment here? I see you have edited since the notice was added, but haven't commented here yet. I would like to hear your side of this, as I note that your edits in other topic areas seem to be better than those in the topics of Sri Lanka, Hinduism and Buddhism. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Friends,

Buddhism is the Dharma preached by the Lord Buddha. Dharma is the way of life. Buddhism teaches what is right and wrong, just like other religions, and especially gives the freedom to question and accept the teachings by volition. Hence, it is free for everyone to accept the Buddhist teachings and take part in Buddhist religious activities, regardless of their ethnic or religious denominations. Buddhism values peace and harmony and advocates non-violence. No where does Buddhism justify violence in any circumstances.

Buddhism was introduced to Sri Lanka in the 3rd Century BCE, and the people of Sri Lanka embraced Buddhism at their own will. Since then, Buddhism has enriched Sri Lankan society and culture in many ways, becoming an integral part of the Sri Lankan identity. People belonging to different ethnicities and religions had lived peacefully and harmoniously in Sri Lanka. It is highly appreciated, if you would read the unaltered history of Sri Lanka, which will give you a clear picture of inter-faith and inter-communal harmony in Sri Lanka. The ethnic and religious diversity in Sri Lanka was exploited by the British colonial rulers, who concocted to create tension, following their policy of "divide and rule". So, sources from the colonial era, thus create a distorted picture regarding ethnic and religious diversity in Sri Lanka, which can be attributed to misunderstandings and also to fabrications.

However, the Buddhist culture and heritage was threatened under more than four centuries of colonial rule. As a result, Buddhist leaders like Anagarika Dharmapala, who intended to preserve the Sri Lankan Buddhist culture and heritage, educated the Buddhist community about their culture and heritage which was waning due to colonialism, and elaborated on the Sri Lankan Buddhist identity as distinguished from the the culture of the colonialists who attacked not only Buddhism but also Hinduism which was followed by the Sri Lankan Tamils. Unity in diversity was always the norm and racism was never encouraged, for it does not take violence to preserve the heritage.

The excerpts from a certain book, which were removed and subsequently created controversy, claim that the Buddhist culture in Sri Lanka is a driving force behind the ethnic conflicts. In reality, a great majority of Sri Lankan Buddhists disapprove of such racist ideology, and live in harmony with all other communities and protect victims of such racial violence. Since there is no ecclesiastical authority over Buddhism in Sri Lanka, there is no official standpoint of the Buddhist community. The author clearly explains this in his book the existent reality. But to understand that one must read the complete version. By providing a few excerpts that describes only the violence, it conveys a wrong message to the reader that Buddhism is behind the racial violence. It is a clear distortion of what the book says. Such misleading content can incite racism. Since Wikipedia adheres to the truth and values peace and also avoids taking a political stance, such content do not comply with the policies of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sri Lanka (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm discussing on their talkpage to work out a summary of this, I'll add it when it is available. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Stefanowski IP

There's an IP address Special:Contributions/200.69.80.131 that's posting a giant POV wall of text [89] about Bob Stefanowski across multiple pages. It appears to be the same person as Special:Contributions/179.19.61.228 which was doing this yesterday. Could an admin block the 200 ip? It's getting tiring playing whac-a-mole and I've warned the first IP twice already. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

No idea what that's about, but since it's a mass spamming of external links and copy paste info across irrelevant pages I've reverted everything and blocked the IP for 31 hours for disruption. It may be partially relevant on one or two of those pages, but this seems more like a hit job of pre-prepared text. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm also struggling to figure out why an IP geolocating to Colombia would've sought to publish this kind of spam. It's pretty weird. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: VPN. Very unlikely to actually be in Colombia. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

They're back at it again today as Special:Contributions/190.145.199.225. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. DanCherek (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: Nope. From what I can tell, it's not a proxy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. Seems to probably be someone using several different networks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Stale revert war and refusal to discuss at List of warez groups

Back on October 27, I removed a Non-free screenshot from List of warez groups and marked the image for deletion as unused non-free. I was reverted in both cases by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), who also left an edit summary falsely accusing me of malice [90]. So, I began a discussion on the talk page and notified him on his own talk page of the discussion. He ignored this entirely, and over the following 6 days made many other edits to other articles and was quite active elsewhere. Since he was refusing to discuss, I again removed the image from the article. At this point, he reverted me again saying there was "no consensus to remove" and added a similar comment to the article talkpage discussion [91]. The comment did not respond to my questions/concerns about the image whatsoever, so is still not a good faith attempt to participate in the discussion. Instead he is seemingly weaponizing WP:CONSENSUS passive-aggressively by saying consensus is required but refusing to participate in my attempts to gain consensus. This is bad faith, disruptive editing and not helpful to the project. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a content dispute and probably not appropriate for this board. That said, the "D" is missing from the WP:BRD cycle here: ...using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. It should be possible to justify the status quo beyond "it's been that way and I like it", especially when reasons have been given as to why the status quo should change. Maintaining a non-free image of a defunct website mentioned in a long list doesn't speak for itself. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

How long have you been getting away with this? You insist that someone follow a process (making a personal attack in the process), they attempt to follow that process and then you refuse to take part in it? The content dispute is beside the point. Now you've also templated a regular. Your behavior is reprehensible, frankly. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I am following the process. I've taken part in the discussion - you just don't like what I'm saying, which is that you need a consensus to remove the image - so go get one. If you get a consensus, there will be no beef from me. But, of course, you choose instead to WP:FORUMSHOP here. First you attempt to remove an image, and insure it stay removed by deleting the FUR from the image's page, then you bring a content dispute to ANI when you don't get a consensus to remove, now you're going around the back by attempting to have the image deleted. Why haven't you gone to WP:3O instead of sneaking around? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It would help an eventual third opinion process if you respond affirmatively on the talk page of the article explaining why you disagree with EnPassant's edit. Stare decesis isn't a helpful reason on its own given the absence of any previous discussion on the question. Mackensen (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Your response was obstructive. You didn't respond to my question regarding the value of the image to the article, you engaged in a circular argument demanding I obtain consensus... which is what I was attempting to do by starting the discussion. So clearly that avenue of consensus building was closed to me. I decided to gain consensus at a deletion discussion, and now that discussion isn't going your way so you're accusing me of forum shopping... when you were the one reverting me and demanding I reach consensus. If you can't see the problem with that I don't know what to tell you. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

And templating a regular is "reprehensible"? Do you actually know what that means? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, they list a whole bunch of things (personal attack, etc.), then they say "reprehensible." I would guess that that last sentence was for the entire paragraph, not just the sentence right before. El_C 08:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Demanding someone follow a process and then obstructing it is cynical and dishonest. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• BMK, as Mackensen notes, you can't argue for something to be there because it's been there. The essay Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" speaks to that directly, while WP:SILENCE does more generally. Likewise, at the FDD discussion, you don't even provide a rational beyond declaratively stating that the fair use "isn't faulty," and that's it. You also speak of a ploy ("another ploy," even), also without explaining any context. And then WP:FORUMSHOP, which, I suppose possibly, if you really squint at it. Anyhow, the OP states in the opening that you've been stonewalling their requests to WP:ENGAGE — which would be conduct, even if at the heart of it is content (as are most conduct matters). As well, couple of days ago, you stated: You made a change to the status quo of the article, and it was contensted. This means that you need a consensus to make that change. You do not have one. Lack of discussion is not consensus (diff). Were you saying you intended on stonewalling them indefinitely?

Now, beyond that, even with substantive argument, that is not how it works. If it were, a contending version would always be at the mercy of a longstanding one. If that was so, everything would be Wikipedia:Consensus required. So, while WP:ONUS and WP:BRD are, indeed, generally recommended, one can't expect to gain major advantage from invoking either (again, even with a substantive argument). So, you need to take a step back and reassess. Reassess how you conduct yourself; how that conduct is being perceived by others. If you can will yourself towards that kind of meaningful reflection, well, then I'd be impressed, and the dispute may resolve okay in the end. But if not, then it'll obviously become more likely for it to end up... not so okay. So, now there's two concurrent discussions: (1) at WP:FDD, please discuss the merits for the fair use rational, etc. (2) Here, the rest. Thank you. El_C 08:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, there's really no defending BMK in a situation where the other person specifically started a discussion on the talk page, specifically notified BMK of the discussion, and waited for 6 days with no reply before reinstating their edit. BMK basically reverted just saying "I disagree", and then because he said "I disagree" claimed he could start saying "consensus required". Obviously that is not the case and it is a very serious detriment to the collaborative spirit of the project. BMK has a bad habit of occasional petty edit warring and he overwhelmingly gets let off the hook for it because he's a reasonable person, a highly respected pillar of the community, and someone who usually has an understandable rationale behind his actions on a human level, even when he is in the wrong. Both for all he contributes to the project and for his reasonable temperament, he is generally trusted to self-regulate. I respect and have defended BMK. But this type of stonewalling behavior is really bad. I was literally just castigating someone for this exact behavior, telling them "You are lucky not to be fully blocked for a lengthy period for your ownership behavior." I have issued lengthy blocks over such behavior against established editors which have withstood community scrutiny. I don't wish to see BMK dragged over this, but OP did everything right in this situation and BMK crossed firmly into what I consider to be routine block territory.

BMK, it appears to me that EnPassant was attempting routine copyright compliance, which you mistook as a malicious attempt at backdoor deletion of an image that you have previously saved from deletion. I think all of us can understand that becoming defensive is human nature, but you definitely crossed the line here and you should never think that you're entitled to revert someone if you're refusing to engage in their attempts at discussion. It may not seem like a big deal, but I have seen situations like this deteriorate into editors being gaslighted and having their experience here turned into a living hell, and when they reported it and I intervened as an uninvolved admin, that same living hell was unleashed upon me.

"Reprehensible" is not an exaggeration, and BMK should apologize for his failure to engage in communication and dispute resolution to deescalate the situation, at a minimum. Regarding the content dispute, it is at FFD so it is being handled appropriately. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Why is this even a discussion? The image clearly fails WP:NFCC criteria 8 (because a blurry screenshot of a website doesn't increase the understanding of anything about that fairly obscure group which are mentioned in a single line of prose) and so "consensus" is irrelevant anyway. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Even if it wasn't covered by NFCC, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Disputed content defaults to being left out. If BMK doesn't have consensus to include the image, it needs to be left out until they do. --Jayron32 15:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  The NFCC also echos this and specifies that in dispute situations, the burden is 100% on the person who wants to include the content, and the person who wants to remove it has no obligation to defend their position. The NFCC can be subjective, but whether they actually apply is irrelevant…OP did nothing wrong and BMK was obligated in that situation to actively defend his content. When he failed to do so, there was no dispute, so OP moving forward should have been routine. When BMK continued stonewalling, OP was completely justified in both reporting him and starting an FFD. Apart from this being stonewalling behavior, which as I’ve said is blockable on its own, it’s stonewalling to include non-free content which only makes it that much worse. Administrators and the community take copyright issues very seriously, even too seriously at times. It is an area where there is very little tolerance for ineptitude or misbehavior. I commend @EnPassant for their exemplary conduct in a difficult situation. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure seems like we should at least get an acknowledgment that this could have been handled more appropriately by BMK. Everyone makes mistakes or has the occasional lapse in judgment, acknowledging them is usually the best way to move forward. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:6D5E:81E8:39B0:B329 (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

43256ds - possible AI-in-training?

• 43256ds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been watching the edits of this user for the better part of a week and something tells me this is someone trying to train an AI to edit Wikipedia, given their exclusively editing in their own mainspace (minus an excursion to Wikipedia: space) and their edits mostly being non-sequiturs or otherwise disjointed/disconnected. In any event, it doesn't seem like they're actually here to edit Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 00:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks more like meatware than software to me. In any event, fails WP:CIR. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is, but see also WaheedRathore. ST47 (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

If that is the case, then both accounts should be blocked as WP:SOCKs per WP:DUCK. 2601:647:5800:4D2:98E6:C606:B7CF:D59D (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

.....and it continues, as it has after all previous warnings. Time for it to stop I think.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the original account for WP:NOTHERE and also turned off TPA as all of their edits seemed to be there. As for WaheedRathore, they have not edited in 4 years, so I'm not ready to block just yet. If they do come back to edit and the editing continues, then a block is warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

No, but now that I'm looking, a version of their sandbox that I'd deleted mentioned Waheed. I'm going to SPI them. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

See also User:Dehaw Malia and User:Constitutionabc. They seem to have been creating similar word salad articles and promoting Dehaw Malia, like User:43256ds and User:WaheedRathore. Both accounts are stale though. 2601:647:5800:4D2:38A9:46E2:DC17:D4DD (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz, @Spicy: User:Dehaw Malia is globally locked, would it be worth requesting glocks for the others too? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001, sure. Feel free to request it at meta:SRG. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, SYNTH and IDHT issues

• Simulaun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User failing to acknowledge/heed discussions and warnings about their editing, particularly WP:SYNTH, and refusal to engage other editors and gain WP:CONSENSUS for their changes.

Inspired by today's improper removal of content on the Melbourne article ([92], [93], [94]), I've decided to put up.

Since April 2022, Simulaun has been engaged in what can only be described as a narrow-focused campaign to either remove or muddy the waters re the Indigenous Australian names of cities in Australia, particularly Melbourne. I don't know their motivations, but it's pretty clear to anyone that they are removing content that they just don't like and replacing it with poorly sourced -- or outright synthesis of published material. Ironically, a section on Talk:Melbourne entitled "wikipedia:Activist attempts to rename Australian towns and cities" might offer a little bit of an explanation behind Simulaun's editing (seeing as they do not seem keen on expanding when challenged), particularly their comment: "The same cultural appropriation is taking place for the city of Perth, which is now being referred to by some groups as "Big Swamp" in Noongar language." (diff).

A current favourite of Simulaun's has been to add SYNTH material to Melbourne re its Indigenous name, ignoring the need for consensus. The user will replace an existing passage with a synthesis of a LonelyPlanet source and others, making the misleading claim that the source is speaking for Melbourne (it's not). The editor has been warned about this, as will be expanded upon later. Examples:

• Sept. 20 (reverted) – SYNTH, WP:COPYVIO, ignores consensus
• Sept. 26 (reverted) – SYNTH, COPYVIO, ignores consensus
• Oct. 15 (reverted) – SYNTH, unreliable source per WP:RSP, ignores consensus
• Oct. 17 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Oct. 18 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Nov. 2 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Nov. 5 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Nov. 9 (reverted) – SYNTH, ignores consensus
• Nov. 10 (reverted) – removal of sourced content

Simulaun, when challenged about their editing, has repeatedly chosen to outright ignore or defend their edits (and then proceed to do the exact same thing they've been accused of doing). Examples:

• Apr. 24: The Logical Positivist asked Simlaun to stop adding original research to the Rottnest Island article. No response. On the article's talk page, Mitch Ames had even previously asked Simulaun to stop adding factual errors/OR to article [95]. No response.
• Apr. 25: I cautioned Simulaun for removal of content on Melbourne and to gain consensus for their edits. No response.
• Jul. 7: Padgriffin warned Simulaun for adding original research to Sydney. Simulaun defended adding original research and has continued to add OR.
• Sept. 20: I asked Simulaun to provide diffs of where on Talk:Melbourne consensus exists for their content change as they incorrectly claimed. They did not provide those diffs as can be seen.
• Sept. 25: Poketama too, told Simulaun that their content changes to Melbourne contained SYNTH.
• Oct. 15: I cautioned Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response.
• Oct. 19: I warned Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response.
• Nov. 2: I gave a final warning to Simulaun to stop adding original research to Melbourne, and gain consensus on talk page for their content changes. No response. Since then, they've continuously added the same SYNTH bypassing the need for consensus here and here, having been reverted by Gracchus250 and Meters, respectively, citing the same issues in their edit summaries.

Judging from the frequency of their edits, I think they will just keep edit warring, not listening, bypassing the need for consensus, and of course, adding SYNTH to articles. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

This user's IDHT behavior has gone on for long enough. I would personally propose, at minimum, a TBAN from Australian-geography related articles for them, considering that they've persistently engaged in this type of behavior and seemingly refuse to follow WP:CON. I would support harsher sanctions but it's a start. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Support for a TBAN here. Gusfriend (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I was notified to comment on here. This user has been mostly a nuisance but I have looked at their contributions page a few times and contemplated what value they were bringing. I remember reading a Wiki policy which I dont have on hand that says essentially a users contributions should not entirely be negative and deletionist. Besides their edits on Rottnest, theyve never actually added anything to Wikipedia and they dont listen to argument, policy or consensus. Due to their relatively infrequent edits theyve not been a huge problem to revert, but its pretty clear to me their edits are solely bad faith vandalism that wastes users time and may be harder to catch on smaller articles. Poketama (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I note that on Oct. 17 that the same unfounded claims that had to be previously removed from the Rottnest Island page in April were re-added by Simulaun and had to be removed yet again. Their contributions do seem disruptive and they have not been willing to engage on the matters for that page at least when they have been raised with them. The Logical Positivist (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinged here. I agree that something needs to be done about the continuing IDHT and SYNTH. A topic ban would work, but perhaps since the editor has never been blocked, perhaps a temporary block would get their attention. Meters (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I would agree. This editors contributions seem to almost exclusively focus on the use of SYNTH (or completely unsourced) material to further the goal of reducing Wikipedia's inclusion of Indigenous names. As seen with the edit I reverted on Hobart (diff) on the 24th of September. JTdale 🗩 04:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• So it's been a couple days, Simulaun has not responded to this nor edited. I'd be keen to hear their thoughts, just as much as I would support a TBAN on Australian-geography related articles as has been suggested by a few editors already. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• @Simulaun: I reverted the massive amount of text you posted to this page. You are welcome to respond to the complaint, but you must make it shorter and readable. In addition, don't refer to yourself in the third person.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

TCG and their one-account restriction

Mellk has noted that TheCurrencyGuy seems to be evading his block with an IP (which Cullen328 has blocked). I would like to note that there is concurrently a one-account restriction regarding TCG, as evidenced here:

Additionally, in light of the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy, TheCurrencyGuy is indefinitely restricted to the use of a single account. Editors encountering suspected socks of TheCurrencyGuy are required to log their suspicions at the aforementioned SPI page for documentation in addition to reporting them at WP:ANI for breach of this editing restriction.

Therefore, I would like to formally note this breach of restriction here. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I blocked the obvious (self admitted) IP sock, but was not aware of a requirement to log. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will remember this in future. Mellk (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't a one-account restriction sort of meaningless when it is followed by an indefinite block? Evading a one-account restriction and evading an indefinite block are both sockpuppetry. If the indefinite block is lifted, the one-account restriction remains, but this block evasion makes it more unlikely that the indefinite block will be listedlifted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The one-account restriction was imposed when TCG was only topic-banned. (By the way, did you mean "...will be lifted" instead of "...will be listed"?) NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I knew that the one-account restriction and the topic-ban preceded the indef. So the one-account restriction is sort of overtaken by worse events. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Atchoum

User:Atchoum has been adding Copyrighted material to Probiotic, Type 2 diabetes, Proton-pump inhibitor, H2 receptor antagonist, And Colorectal cancer The User continues to add copyrighted materials to articles. He has already been given a warning for adding copyrighted materials to Type 2 diabetes.

This Edit

This Edit

This Edit

This Edit

This Edit

This Edit

This Edit

Chip3004 (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Well Atchoum continues to add copyrighted material to wikipedia and at this point it is definitely an WP:COPYVIO Violation. A indef block for Atchoum is needed since he continues to add copyrighted material to wikipedia Chip3004 (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You assume you are absolutely right to revert Atchoum, tag them and report them for an immediate indef block, as you have done at WP:AIV, at my talk and here. Meanwhile, I was about to block you instead for edit warring and biting newcomers. Please read WP:CLOP#Substantial_similarity and other Wikipedia policies before tagging and reporting users. Materialscientist (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just noticed this same editor is making illiterate and badly-sourced edits at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. (e.g.[96]) WP:CIR block needed in my view. Bon courage (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Atchoum doesn't use talk-pages or respond on their own talk-page. They have been making bad edits on many nutrition articles with poorly formatted references. Whilst they are adding reliable sources i.e. umbrella reviews in decent journals they seem to be ignoring the fact that some of these have concluded weak evidence (GRADE) and are offering speculation. It's worth citing stronger reviews with significant results not citing weak or no associations like Atchoum is doing. I think this user seems to think adding any old review will do, they are not really reading through what they are citing. I am also concerned about some of the copyvio they have added. It's probably worth blocking this account if they continue to ignore warnings. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears Atchoum is now misusing talk-pages [97] Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:FF toho

Request concerning FF toho

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User against whom enforcement is requested

FF toho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Uyghur genocide discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 15:16, 10 November 2022 characterizing researcher Adrian Zenz as "far-right" in Wikivoice. An attributed characterization of the researcher as "far-right" was previously removed from the article.
2. 16:40, 10 November 2022 reverting to enforce the Wikivoice characterization of the researcher as "far-right". The edit summary accuses the filer of seeking "to obscure this with your own personal bias".

Diffs of any previous sanctions, if any

None that I can find, though the user has previously been warned for conduct in a Chinese Communist Party name-related move dispute.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

16:32, 10 November 2022

Additional comments by the editor filing complaint

FF toho has also expressed their dislike for Adrian Zenz's work on other pages, such as at Talk:Uyghur genocide where they first imply that they do not believe him to be a reliable researcher and later make this view quite explicit.

The Adrian Zenz article is under an indefinite BLP 1RR and an editnotice exists for the article that communicates this. I asked the editor to self-revert on the talkpage, but they did not do so. Instead, the content was removed as a BLP issue by Firefangledfeathers. Repeatedly re-inserting the "far-right" descriptor into the page, despite that descriptor having been removed from the page previously, is edit warring in violation of the 1RR restriction previously imposed by HighInBC. When these edits combined with the obvious expressed dislike for Zenz's work, this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to unduly mar the page of a BLP for that BLP's involvement in research relating to Uyghur genocide. Along those lines, I am requesting the use of community-authorized discretionary sanctions to place a WP:TBAN on FF toho barring them from making edits about people related to the topic of Uyghur genocide, on any page, broadly construed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

18:30, 10 November 2022‎

Discussion concerning FF toho

I have to say that it's normally not a good sign when a single editor appears across several contentious articles on my watchlist all at once. After seeing this I scouted through more of their contributions, and aside from having (reverted) after most of their edits all I'll say is, we shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions, yet I can guess FF toho's. — Czello 19:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Most this editors edits seem to be related to communism and all of those show some bias. While most communism related topics will fall under one active sanction or another a TBAN for communism broadly construed should be considered rather a narrower one under as specific active sanction—blindlynx 02:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Eeesh, the initial edit that Red-tailed hawk took issue with is pretty egregious: the source says, in a discussion of how Zenz has been targeted by CCP propoganda, that he "has been portrayed on numerous occasions as a far-right pseudo researcher"; it strains belief that anyone attempting to portray Zenz fairly could use this to support a description of "far right" in wikivoice.

That said, as far as I can see FF toho only reverted once on that page; it's not a clearcut 1RR violation. Arguing that re-instating the words "far right" is technically a partial revert of this edit from July 2020 seems pretty much like fishing for a reason to sanction to me – that was 18 months before FF toho even created their account and I can't see that anybody suggested that counted as a revert when initially discussing this with them. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: Though I did not mention this in the initial filing, the second edit to the page re-inserted material that new accounts have previously tried to edit war into the article, such as in May of this year (1 2 3 4) that led to the new user being indeffed. That, of course, was not the first time somebody tried to insert similar material into the page, but re-inserting content that's been repeatedly contested throughout the page history is a revert. The proper thing to do is to ask the user to self-revert, which I did, and had they done so I would not have brought this here at this juncture. But they didn't sel-revert, haven't participated whatsoever in the talk page discussion on Talk:Adrian Zenz despite being pinged (though they did participate on another talk page before this report was filed.

On top of that, the reason for the sanction is more plainly that, as I stated in the filing above, this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to unduly mar the page of a BLP for that BLP's involvement in research relating to Uyghur genocide. Even if you believe the 1RR violation is marginal, it's without question that FF toho's stated intent was to portray Zenz in a negative light. And, in seeking to portray Zenz negatively, the editor first made an egregious BLP violation and subsequently re-instated it after it was reverted against policy while accusing other editors of "personal bias" (which, by the way, is the same sort of rationale the new editor who was later indeffed stated in their edit summaries in May). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of the edit summaries provided by FF toho are so invective, that they ought to be revision deleted, like this one, in which they blithely called Mr. Zenz an antisemite (!) I support a topic ban from communism-, China- and Xinjiang-related articles on NOTHERE and GREATWRONGS grounds. Nutez (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

" The proper thing to do is to ask the user to self-revert, which I did, and had they done so I would not have brought this here at this juncture."

Someone else reverted my changes before I even saw your talk page message. FF toho (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You gave me the message to self revert at 16:59, and I was infact going to do so, but at 17:00 someone else did it instead. You are leaving out crucial context and I don't find this nice. FF toho (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Oof, here's a diff where they tried to claim Stalin shouldn't be referred to as a dictator based on a single primary source from the 50s: [98]. POV stuff aside, that's a pretty blatant misunderstanding of how sourcing works. I would support a topic ban as well, but that and the misuse of Wikivoice described above make me wonder if they'd need extra scrutiny on non-communism related edits as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Coracle (talk • contribs) 03:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That's why I first brought it up on the talk page which exists for exactly that purpose. FF toho (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Is this an AE discussion? If no, may I ask what type of discussion is it? Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is an ANI discussion in which I am requesting the imposition of discretionary sanctions under the uyghur genocide general sanctions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

IP block evasion and disruptive editing

For several months now there have been IPs in Bayern region, Germany, where they remove Russian-language names as well as other languages aside from Ukrainian from articles (also other POV edits and unexplained removals on typically Ukrainian topics but also Russian ones). They have never responded to any warnings and the edits usually get reverted but they eventually return to make the same edits again and again or edit war under different IPs in an article, and this just repeats. Some of the IPs have been blocked (by Ohnoitsjamie and Ymblanter from what I can see) but they still evade the block by editing under different IPs and edit war. The IPs geolocate to Munich (IPv6 ones) and Wuerzburg (IPv4 ones) but the edits are the same and on the same articles so it looks like maybe one person or meatpuppetry (I have not looked into this yet). There are too many different articles they edit to page protect but there are a few ones they return to most such as Administrative divisions of Ukraine, Ruthenia, Tsardom of Russia and Old East Slavic. The last two were page protected because of them but they have still continued after expiration. I am not sure if a range block is possible but here is a list of some of the IPs I have collected:

• 93.224.161.167 (talk · contribs)
• 91.58.83.18 (talk · contribs)
• 93.224.168.169 (talk · contribs)
• 91.57.184.180 (talk · contribs)

• 2003:D2:5748:D438:588:2B00:F286:40FF (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FBB9:D4C6:F77B:F3A6:4898 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:5726:85E:8027:A196:4DD8 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:57C2:D54D:17E9:C2EA:95E3 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:5704:5CC:5D9D:85CD:AF (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:5725:79CB:F1EB:FA93:BDF7 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB8A:353D:3FE6:A7E3:827F (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB36:2170:12DA:93E0:F1FD (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB36:19F6:2AD0:80B0:BF3 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB36:9D46:A2F7:9502:40AC (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB37:398F:8939:9399:7E21 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB2D:D871:766B:ED52:42CB (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB37:A4E2:2A29:17A9:3381 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:571E:FB08:8122:58B2:4E36:14FA (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:57FD:FC41:D121:7C55:6CE1 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:5725:A532:680F:5EEC:A0E (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:57D8:109B:F10D:3EEF:576E (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:5726:81C7:89D:5FB3:4B27 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:5730:A40E:C9DB:DB62:3BF3 (talk · contribs)
• 2003:D2:5730:574D:3562:4074:3ADF:D1D2 (talk · contribs)

Mellk (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Also noticed that User:Dav2ry7 and the IPs were edit warring on Administrative divisions of Ukraine and Tsardom of Russia to restore the same edits at the same time. For example this revert 8 minutes after the IP was reverted. Mellk (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Dav2ry7 probably should be blocked indef, the whole contribution is disruption, I do not see a single good edit. Probably one of the LTAs who are plenty in the topic area. Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes I can only conclude that Dav2ry7 is related to the IPs. For example one of the IPs fixed a change the Dav2ry7 account made 2 minutes earlier[99] and he was already warned about potentially sockpuppetry[100]. So not only disruptive editing but also block evasion and sockpuppetry. Mellk (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

For reference all those IPv6 IPs fall under 2003:D2:5700:0:0:0:0:0/40. All the edits from that range appear to be part of this disruption, someone might won't to look into the ranges unreverted edits. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that Materialscientist blocked the range for the IPv6 IPs (thanks). I am wondering if the evidence so far for sockpuppetry by Dav2ry7 (like [101]) is strong enough for a block or if this is something for SPI. Mellk (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The recent edit history of Old East Slavic has brought me here. It appears that @Dav2ry7 is the account used by the disruptive IP editor once the page has got semi-protected. –Austronesier (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal:Indefinite block of Dav2ry7

• Per above (generally bad contribution plus sockpuppetry).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Note that the user was notified of this topic and edited Wikipedia after the notification, but apparently has chosen not to respond here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support as clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Mellk (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Long standing POV pushing by MiltenR on Bulgars

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

This user constantly removes the term Turkic from the page.

1. 27 April 2020: There are relevant theories about the Iranian root of the bulgars, as is stated in the article Removed: Turkic
2. 7 November 2020: Improvement - this is not the only modern theory Removed: Turkic
3. 13 November 2020: Improvement - that’s uncertain, it’s stated in the text below Removed: Turkic
4. 14 November 2020: Added content: Added: presumably Turkic
5. 14 November 2020: Improvement Added: or of mixed origin
6. 24 November 2020: Improvements, added content and relevant reliable source Removed: Turkic Added: of controversial origin
7. 30 September 2022: Improvements Removed: Turkic
8. 10 November 2022: The origin of the Bulgars is uncertain, stressing Turkic elements is not correct. Added contents, improvements and reliable relevant sources. Removed: Turkic
9. 10 November 2022: Undid revision 1121157410 by Beshogur (talk): Removed: Turkic

This user claims Bulgars not being Turkic, however this is a fringe view, and outside mainstream. I listed all his edits. It's up to admins to decide. Uh now personal attack: This guy Beshogur is a real vandal and Turkic nationalist, this is clear. Tries to keep page filled with inaccuracies, unsubstantiated claims. The article is not Bulgar oriented, but Turkic people oriented. Beshogur (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I left a warning on MiltenR's talk page regarding the personal attack. Perhaps an Admin could persuade them to remove or strike through said PA? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, this editor is pushing the thesis of the Bulgarian nationalists according to which the Central Asiatic invaders as Bulgars were not Turkic people, and today's Bulgarians are their direct descendants. Those views that are marginal are based only on Bulgarian sources. But this view is only partially supported even in Bulgaria. Apparently, he decided by force and through an editorial war to impose this fringe view in the article. From what I can see some troll who hasn't been active in years has jumped in on the talk page and is now supporting him. The whole story seems pretty set up and pre-arranged to me. The goal is to replace the entire previous main line in the article at the cost of an edit war and without discussion on the talk page. He periodically tries to push this line on the Bulgarian Wikipedia, but without success. Jingiby (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User-reported

• P Cesar Maldonado (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – SPA, defamatory accusations and personal attacks on my talk page. David C. S. (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: This complaint takes place after Maldonado warned David against edit warring in his talk page ([102]). I have offered more context in a complaint below (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:David C. S..) Next time, you should likewise notify the user regarding the report. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment:Take into account: The user reports without notifying, this gives rise to many interpretations and intentions. Second: The user was warned on multiple occasions, because this activity of substituting photographs comes from Wikipedia in Spanish, where he was put in context that he cannot modify the images to his liking and under political positions. The user dragged this attitude to various Wikipedias where it was reversed, not by one or two, but by several users. In addition, the user already has multiple warnings and similar cases in his main language where he edits (Spanish) and even in this one. P Cesar Maldonado (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by JudgeJudyCourthouse25

• JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk · contribs), edit warring to restore unencyclopedic prose at Judy Justice, and restoring unsourced and promotional content as payback at Erode. In short, this is what they're fighting to keep in the encyclopedia [103]; [104]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The current dust-up suggests a measure of WP:OWNERSHIP. There may be broader concerns re: npov and original research at Judy Justice and related articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• I've blocked the user for one week. The block was straightforward, but the duration was not. I thought about blocking indefinitely, but the number of edits they've made - almost 8K, the vast majority of which have been to article space - without being blocked before this held me back. Their attitude, though, is very troubling, both before the block and after. They seem to have a rather inflated sense of their own abilities and a very negative view of some Wikipedians, including right now the IP who reported them. They have a "permanent retirement" screed at the top of their Talk page from March 2022 that, among other things, attacks an individual editor. Their unblock request and other post-block comments are largely a personal attack against the IP and otherwise passive-aggressive. In the edit-war at Judy Justice, they insisted on adding material that I would expect to see added by a new user promoting the show. Considering how SPA-like they are, I don't see how they've gotten away with almost continuously editing that article and related articles for so long. Normally, I would just close this thread with a note about my block, but I'm still wondering if the sanction is sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • If this thread is still open later today, I'll add a thought or two. Thank you, Bbb23. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Bbb23 covered this well--it's difficult to justify an indefinite block, given there's no block history. But there is a history of troubling exchanges, a tendency to feel persecuted by anyone who copyedits what they've done, and a quickness to accuse other editors of conspiratorial activity and socking, as done with me [105] and earlier, here [106]. The edits at Erode, which were done solely to troll, don't weigh favorably, either. If behavioral concerns are front burner, they ought not distract from the tone of editing, per the recent revisions made at Judy Justice. A history of constructive edits doesn't provide a free pass for disruption. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

180.251.44.33

All edits by 180.251.44.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appear to be changing numbers to deliberately incorrect values, this diff being just one example. There are more than I can revert, so it needs someone with the power to do a mass revert. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I've used mass rollback on all edits. IP still needs to be blocked though. NonsensicalSystem^(error?)_(.log) 10:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked 180.251.44.33 (talk · contribs) one month for vandalism. The IP has made fifty edits that all seem to have been reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Aigurland: POV pushing

Previous :

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#User%3AAigurland_%3A_edit-warring_academic_boosterism_for_Paris_1_Sorbonne
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#Aigurland_again

Aigurland just edited again the page while implicitly admitting in talk page that the sources say what the consensus says (that it is considered as the top law school). They just say they have nothing more to say but go ahead editing anyway : [107]

More explanations in talk page: [108]

--Ransouk (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ransouk spends his time making ANI rather than talking to me, so I have nothing to add to what I've already said in the others (none of which have been successful. It might be time to stop this anti-Wikipedia behavior no?) Aigurland (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Aigurland, this is excessively snarky and uncalled for. As you know from editing this page an editor has an obligation to notify you if a discussion is opened about you here. Don't be snarky and snap at other users for doing something the rules tell them they have to do. Canterbury Tail talk 14:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

User:David C. S.

• David C. S. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

David C. S. has engaged in a slow paced edit warring for months now in articles related to Bolivian elections (specifically 2009 Bolivian general election, 2014 Bolivian general election and 2019 Bolivian general election) and about Venezuela (Venezuelan presidential crisis and Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis). This takes place after he was blocked for six months from editing in the 2019 Bolivian election and Venezuelan presidential crisis articles for edit warring (es:Usuario discusión:David C. S.#Bloqueo parcial), as well as completely in Wikimedia Commons for a month twice for the same reason (commons:User talk:David C. S./Archive 5#AN/U), insisting in a preferred version of a map despite opposition and being explained of the reasons in talk pages, while refusing to engage in discussion.

In the case of the Venezuelan presidential crisis, the user started editing by blanking he has created an own version of a map in Commons (fittingly titled "uncensored"), insisting in adding it to the English Wikipedia ([109][110][111][112][113]). The user has already had his edits challenged in versions such as am.wiki, is.wiki, it.wiki and zw.wiki, to name some, but has continued with the edits in most cases ([114][115][116][117][118][119]), including in the English Wikipedia. In the Bolivian election articles, the editor has repeatedly replaced an image of candidate Evo Morales in the infobox for a preferred version, being reverted several times ([120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129]).

David's point of view regarding the project arguably can be best summarized in his block's appeal in the Spanish Wikipedia, describing complaints against him as "lawfare" and his main goal in editing as "fighting censorship", something that is also reflected in edit summaries and is probably a textbook example of WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY. Likewise, he describes discussions as "a useless resource to endlessly dilate issues"; indeed, in the English Wikipedia David has never used articles talk pages (besides moves) or engaged in discussions. The editor has also been warned several times against disruptive editing and edit warring in his talk page[130][131][132][133], to no response. As a response to one of the last messages left by P Cesar Maldonado, David opened a complaint against the user in this noticeboard, accusing him of "defamatory accusations and personal attacks" and without notifying him, which can be read above (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User-reported).

I don't know which administrative measure is more appropriate in this situation, if any, but at the very least I think it's important to notify about these developments after the complaint left by David against Maldonado. Regards. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Notes

• I just closed the report that NoonIcarus filed at WP:AN3. I see no reason to have this reviewed at two different noticeboards. At the same time, without looking at the details, I'd like to note that NoonIcarus has been pblocked (two pages) at es.wiki until March 28, 2023, while David C. S. has also been pblocked (three pages) at es.wiki until March 28, 2023, both users for edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Since it has been brought up, I'll link the original thread in the Spanish Wikipedia that resulted in the blocks, to anyone that might be interested in consulting it (es:Wikipedia:Tablón de anuncios de los bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/3RR/2022/09#David C. S.), as well as provide more context: at the time the complaint was filed David had violated the three-revert rule twice under a 24 hours period; the first time, the admin decided not to block him, warning him instead. Without administrative action, I restored the stable version of one of the articles over the course of the year. Due to the backlog in the Spanish Wikipedia, the thread was closed after over three months when it was opened, and the closing admin opted for a long-term measure over a short-term one, giving page blocks in the involved articles. My appeal here can also be read here: es:Usuario discusión:NoonIcarus#Solicitud de desbloqueo. I'll also remind that this disputes have not only been with me, but also with other editors, both in the English Wikipedia as well as in other projects.

By seeking administrative mediation here, I wish to prevent further escalation of the dispute. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Vital articles and Cewbot

Some scientists claim that hydro­gen, because it is so plen­ti­ful, is the basic building block of the uni­verse. I dispute that. I say there are more edits tinkering with whitespace and categories and vital article des­ig­na­tions than hydro­gen, and that is the basic build­ing block of the uni­verse.

–Frank Zappa (via EEng)

Can an admin please temporarily block User:Cewbot? Something weird happened to the WP:Vital articles list, and Cewbot has been sent into a tizzy. CMD (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Bot has been blocked. A mass rollback may be needed. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If someone could figure out why Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People shows numbers while Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/History shows 0s then ideally Cewbot will be able to rollback itself. CMD (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears for whatever reason the bot decided to change it to 0. @Kanashimi: Pinging here as well even tho you were already notified via your talk page about this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis and Kanashimi: I dug through Cewbot's diffs to see where this started. It may not be 100% correct since I told it to exclude the talk mainspace, however it appears that all of this started with this diff. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The edit prior to this (this edit by CactiStaccingCrane which made the page use TrebuchetMS) might be why Cewbot freaked out as it appears to be the common edit made prior to the bot having a mental breakdown. Cacti is there a specific reason you were doing this? Cause I'm wondering if the bot saw that and freaked out since it wasn't in the format it was familiar with. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It's my fault, sorry. I just changed the font for stylistic purposes and I didn't know that it broke the bot. I tried to revert my changes but somehow the (0 article) is not reverted... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: You only reverted your own edits, not the edit by Cewbot changing the list to 0 articles. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. Guess it's time for another revert... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: If you wanted the pageto display in a different font then why did you change it on the page itself and not your CSS? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

So, how can I make a separate CSS page? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It should just be your common.css ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed your edits to the vital articles pages. Can someone unblock the bot for a minute or so and see if it fixes itself? – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: See above. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've unblocked, let me know if a reblock is needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

it restarted right away. don't know what it's actually supposed to do. is this ok now, or should i reblock? Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: It's still malfunctioning, changing lv4 VAs to lv5. Please reblock for now pending response from Kanashimi. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I checked its contribs and it immediately changed Talk:Trombone from Level 4 (which it should be) to Level 5. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've reblocked. I assume I don't need to rollback the edits, because once it's fixed it will go back to the correct number itself. If that's wrong and i should rollback anything, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of edits to revert... sitting there clicking rollback thousands of times is probably not a feasible solution. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that will take a lot of time to revert the bot's edits. Sarrail (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@K6ka: The WP:MASSROLLBACK script can revert hundreds of edits from Contribs in just a few clicks. Should it be used here? – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've just downloaded it, but right now, I am uncertain if this should be used. Sarrail (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

OOH, shiny new toy for me to play with!! I totally won't do something silly and end up in the hall of shame! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't revert all of the bot's edits, really. Sarrail (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sarrail: The script only reverts the edits currently displayed on the user's Special:Contribs, so it won't revert more than 50 by default, but the number of contributions displayed can be changed. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, time to test this thing out. Sarrail (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that rollbacks are rate-limited to 100 edits per minute. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

At first glance, the mass rollback looks uneasy... Sarrail (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll start with only the bot's most recent 250 edits, which are all bad. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say all of the bot's edits to talk pages after the first diff by the bot that caused this mess are all bad. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Dudhhr, K6ka, you beat me! Sarrail (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

My poor watchlist has been flooded. Curse you bot! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

proceeds to accidentally revert every single one of my edits ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Nooooooo... Sarrail (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh... @SpinningSpark: Why did you unblock it? The fix didn't work. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

SpinningSpark didn't unblock, I did. You can't tell whether a fix worked or not until you try it. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No he's right, I undid your reblock. I took too long reading the request to unblock for test and didn't see your posts. SpinningSpark 17:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Spinning Spark and I stumbled over each other's toes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

AAAAAAAArrrrgh my watchlist has gone mad. -Roxy the dog 17:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You'll find more. The rampage isn't over, sadly. Sarrail (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(Makes cup of tea) - Roxy the dog 17:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

All of the bot's "Malfunctioning errors" have been reverted. It's the aftermath of a disaster. Sarrail (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All bot edits have been reverted. The first edit to revert was Special:Diff/1121242625. That's nearly 6,000 edits we had to revert. And I managed to cross the 100,000th edit mark today! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(Tea. The answer to every problem) - Roxy the dog 17:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(I second this.) Lalaithan (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Finally, Finally. Now we can take a break. Congratulations, K6ka. I've only added 10... Sarrail (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest we add hidden text somewhere in the lists warning other editors not to make changes like this, no matter how well-intentioned. This might be WP:STOCKS worthy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  What if the hidden text causes the bot to malfunction again? :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Kanashimi could probably make it so the bot won't fall apart even with the hidden text. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Trainsandotherthings: I would say this is stocks worthy, although there might be some other reason why the bot is freaking out. Regardless we should Kanashimi responds here ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there a bot somewhere with rollback that does this to avoid flooding watchlists? DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Not that I"m aware of. The only bot i know of with rollback capability would be ClueBot NG ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If it was the font change, that leaves one thing unanswered. Why did it analyze Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People correctly? They also had the font change, but they were not affected by the error. And for reverting the changes, the bot should go back and re-sort them automatically once the error is fixed and it recognizes that the articles are in the lists. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the distress. I have stopped the bot and am starting to investigate what happened. Kanashimi (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is because the whole list is wrapped up with <div>. I'm working on fixing this. Kanashimi (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Solved. Now the bot should be able to handle wrapping all the lists with <div>.

Also I added an edit limit to prevent similar mass editing. Kanashimi (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Since the issue is solved, would an admin unblock Cewbot? Sarrail (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kanashimi, would you like us to unblock the bot now? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I will do a test edit after unblocking. After that, the robot will run according to the original schedule. Kanashimi (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done @Kanashimi: I've unblocked Cewbot. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm testing it now. Kanashimi (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd say this whole incident would be worthy of inclusion at WP:STOCKS. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If no one here has any objections to it I'll go ahead and add this incident to the village stocks. (as long as CactiStaccingCrane is ok with it) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

:) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done It seems to be working properly now. Kanashimi (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kanashimi, CactiStaccingCrane, and Blaze Wolf: we have a template {{Bot use warning}} that can be added to all these pages to warn editors to be careful about making changes. The mass rollback is already done now, but for future, there is revertbot.py that could have been used by Cewbot to self revert without flooding watchlists. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In fact, in the case of this task, the robot will correct all the wrong edits in the next execution. --Kanashimi (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Minahatithan and bias in article Slavery in Afghanistan

Hello. Please excuse me if I go about this process incorrectly. There is one user who appear to have bias in regard to a specific article, and I think there might be a reason to block them from editing this article. Is this possible? Please let me explain.

1) It concerns the article Slavery in Afghanistan. The article contains the information that some of the Hazara people were enslaved during the Hazara uprising in the 1890s. When slavery was abolished in the 1920s, many of the slaves excisting at the time were of Hazara origin. This is referenced.

2) User:Minahatithan have now criticised the article for a long time. The discussion can be viewed at the talke page Talk:Slavery in Afghanistan. User:Minahatithan have stated that he is himself an Hazara, and that he considers it "shameful" and "dishonorable" that some of the Hazara were enslaved, and that this is bad for the reputation for an "honorable people of Afghanistan". He has questioned that information about this is mentioned in the article.

3) He has accused me of having bias against the Hazara for mentioning this information about Hazara slavery in the article. He accused me of claiming that all of the Hazara in Afghanistan were slaves, despite the article never aving claimed this. He also engaged in an edit war about the issue. His comments in this issue is to be found both in the article talk page, as well as in the comment summaries.

4) I have explained that things such as honor, dishonor, shame and the honor of an ethnic group has no place when discussing what should or should not be in an article. I have also noted that it is rude to claim that people have an ethnic bias agenda.

5) All of this has already been raported once to this Noticeboard. That dispute was closed only about a week or so ago. User:Minahatithan would not participate fully in the discussion because of his habit to leave wikipedia for weeks at the time, and then return to the very same article to engage in a dispute about the Hazara content again. The moderator closed the discussion because User:Minahatithan would not fully participate, and because he accused me of having a persona agenda against him and the Hazara people. The moderator advised User:Minahatithan not to edit the article Slavery in Afghanistan.

6) User:Minahatithan is now again engaged in an edit war in the article Slavery in Afghanistan in regard to the Hazara slavery. He has expressed that he is willing to discuss on the talk page of the article. However, I freely admit I am not willing to. I do not have the impression that a discussion with User:Minahatithan about this article can lead to anything constructive. Because of the bias they appear to have, I find myself incapable of taking their critic seriously. The attempts so far the previous weeks have been time consuming and exhausting. I admit that I am not sure I would be able to conduct such a discussion myself in a correct manner, because of the history and behaviour of User:Minahatithan.

6) User:RPI2026F1 would, I think, be able to attest this development, but I respect if they to not wish to contribute to the discussion. I am myself deeply tired of this issue.

7) This is not about a particular issue in the article content anymore. This is about the fact that User:Minahatithan appear biased in the content of this article and therefore does not appear to be a suitable editor of this article. They have already been temporarily blocked once before from editing this article; a discussion on the noticeboard have been closed with the advise to them not to edit the article, and they have themselwes clearly explained that they have, what I would intepret as, bias on the talk page of the article. Can they be blocked from editing this particular article?

Please excuse me if I am doing something wrong in making this request, or if I am going about it incorrectly in some way. But I am simply deeply tired of having to deal with this issue week after week, and I do not consider myself capable to try anymore. I am requesting that this user be blocked from editing this particular article because of the bias they appear to express on the talk page of the article. Is this possible? I thought I should at least ask. If it is not possible, then I appologize. I ask you to please look at the discussion page (the first discussion) of the article. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aciram: You have failed to notify Minahatithan (talk · contribs) of this report, as both the red box on top of this page and while editing clearly require. I have done so for you this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Slavery in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a recurrence of a dispute that I tried to mediate at DRN at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_223#Slavery_in_Afghanistan, between 24 October and 2 November. Users User: RPI2026F1 and User:Aciram filed the mediation request, and disagreed with User:Minihatithan (the subject user), who removed content from the article, stating that it was incorrect or unsourced. The effort at moderated discussion (mediation) was a failure, because Minihatithan:

• Edits intermittently, taking breaks of up to a week.
• Does not discuss their edits in a meaningful way either at Talk:Slavery in Afghanistan or at DRN. Their comments are too cryptic to be useful.
• Did not respond to my question of what was a schedule so that they could discuss their edits (either on the talk page or at DRN).

I closed the mediation with a recommendation to Minihatithan that they either find time to discuss their edits, or expect that their edits will be reverted. I advised RPI2026F1 and Aciram that they should edit normally, but be sure that the article content is supported by the sources, which is always required in Wikipedia. I told them to avoid edit-warring.

I don't think that this is a conduct dispute. This is a content dispute, but it is a content dispute where discussion has failed, not because one editor is disruptive, but because one editor is intermittent.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Aciram's report is too long, but the basic issue is as I summarized above. I didn't tell User:Minihatithan not to edit Slavery in Afghanistan. I told them to expect their edits would be reverted if they didn't discuss them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, TheDragonFire300, I awknowledge that and appologize. I rarely report anything to Wikipedia and mostly only write articles. I have said my piece and I hope someone can view the discussion page of this article and perhaps the previous discussion here on the Noticeboard on this issue and judge whether it would be best if this user can be blocked from editing the article because of edit warring and bias, otherwise I fear this will just continue forever, and I am no longer capable of managing the matter. I have already, I have no doubt, not always been the most constructive, because I am simply tired of this and I do not have the confidence necessary in this users ability to discuss this. I am sorry to admit it, but I am afraid this is the case.

To me, this is not a content dispute. Of course, User:Minihatithan dispute content, but this is not the main issue in my view. It is a problem that he cannot conduct a discussion without being rude and emotional and, of course, absent for long periods of time. He has stated that he views the enslavement of Hazara as a damage to the reputation of the Hazara. Certain content he questioned earlier now has so many references that he can no longer remove them, but now he has started to demand that everything is spelled out exactly in the sources or else he will remove it. His criticism appear to be motivated by bias, and thus I cannot take his criticism seriously. It just appears that he would like as much as possible removed for any excuse possible. This is a problem.

Attempts at discussion has proven fruitless. I cannot do so anymore. This state of affairs simply cannot continue for weeks and weeks and months and months until other editors lets him do as he wishes simply because they no longer have energy left to deal with it. I am very sorry to express myself like this, but this is very tiring.

If you read the talk page of the article, then it will perhaps be more clear that this is more about conduct than content. --Aciram (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 has partially blocked User:Minahatithan from editing Slavery in Afghanistan, indefinitely. I agree that this action is for the good of the encyclopedia, although I wasn't sure that their editing was considered to warrant a partial block. Partial blocks are sometimes very useful to maintain quality. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This editor is free to propose and gain consensus for well-referenced, neutral changes at Talk: Slavery in Afghanistan. It seems to me that this editor has repeatedly violated WP:NPOV. Cullen328 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I see now that my request has been granted. I was sorry to ask for this, but I do think it was the best solution. It became clear from their own statements that they had bias to the subject, and without this action, this affair may never have ended, so I agree it was for the best of the article. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I am always neutral, but I am opposed to false and unsourced content. This opposition of mine does not mean that I am not neutral. I am neutral because I have never deleted true and correct content. These are all the beliefs of User:Aciram about me because they call me rude, racist, and biased for no reason. You say to reach a consensus in the debate, how can you reach a consensus if your opponents do not discuss it with you? He/She told me several times not to discuss it with me, don't answer me, and said that I don't want to discuss it with you. regards respected Admin. Minahatithan (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I don't know about User:Aciram why this issue is heavy for them that they can't find a solution for it. They are not willing to discuss and do not want me to edit the article. From the first discussion with me, they have accused me and use harsh and sometimes insulting words. Check the discussion page. I want to correct some false and unsourced contents, but instead of discussing the issue, they use insulting words. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Minahatithan - You write: They are not willing to discuss and do not want me to edit the article. You are mistaken. They want to discuss their edits and yours, and they asked me to facilitate that discussion. You did not answer my questions within 48 hours. They do not want you to edit the article without discussing with them. I asked you what schedule you could agree to so that they and you could discuss the article with my help. You did not answer. When you did explain your edits, your explanation was too brief to be helpful. You are mistaken if you say that they did not want to discuss. They wanted to discuss, because they asked me to help them discuss, and you did not answer in a timely manner. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Yes, unfortunately in ( Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard) I was busy with university exams, I couldn't. But user:Jen didn't give a convincing answer either. Anyway. But now it's about the discussion on the main page of the article (slavery in Afghanistan) where they didn't answer my questions in the discussion. If they did, all their words were judgments about my character and not about the article. Instead of suggesting resources, they accused me. For example, they said that this information is true, but you are biased, bigoted, rude, and a lot of insults. And they told me several times, don't answer me and don't discuss with me. Minahatithan (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I said several times that the article should be edited because it has no source, in my opinion this is the best answer. User:Aciram Instead of discussing the issue, they call me rude, racist and biased. The use of these types of words should be taken seriously and be a warning to block them. Minahatithan (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Minahatithan - I have reread the article talk page, Talk:Slavery in Afghanistan to see why I could not remember that User:Aciram called you racist and bigoted. Neither the word "racist" nor the word "bigot" ever appears on that talk page or at the DRN discussion. They did try to discuss bias with you, which is a subtle matter and is not a personal attack. They then did say that you were being rude. In my opinion, both of you were rude to each other. Remember that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. They did say that they had stopped discussing with you because you were not addressing the issues, and were focusing too much on the honor of the Hazara people. Because you and they were not able to discuss, they requested moderated discussion. You agreed to the moderated discussion, and I stated that one of the rules was to respond to my questions within 48 hours. Discussion at DRN failed because you not only did not respond to my questions in a timely manner, but you then did not answer when you would be able to answer. But to go back to your original claim that they have called you racist and bigoted, they have not. You are mistaken about what is written. And that makes it hard to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: it's true that they didn't call me a "racist" directly, but they called me a racist by using the word "bias" and words like honor and dishonor, shame, and etc... about an ethnic group. I wanted to make it very clear so that this is taken seriously. They have made personal attacks on me since the beginning of the discussion. I explained to them several times the reasons for the lack of sources and incorrect information in the article, but instead of talking about the issue, they accused me. I agree that I focus on the dignity and respect of an ethnic group, that's why I don't want false and unsourced information to be written as truth in the article, but this doesn't mean I'm biased or racist. They used the word "rude" at me several times in a personal attack. I never used abusive words to them, I don't know why they called me rude. Where have I been rude that they call me rude many times. Later they told me that you don't have the right to edit and you should apologize. If mistakes have been made by them, then why are they not condemned?

- It's not fair that I get blocked. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Minahatithan - No. No. When they called you "biased", they did not mean "racist". That is not what they meant. They meant that your writing was non-neutral, and so that claim was not a personal attack, but a content issue. You misinterpreted it as a personal attack because you misunderstood what they meant by "biased", in spite of their long effort on the talk page to explain. At this point, rather than continuing to attack them, you should be appealing your partial block, but should be doing it respectfully.

User:Cullen328 and any other administrator: May Minahatithan appeal their block here, since the discussion is here, and since they are not blocked from this noticeboard, rather than going back to their talk page? (If so, I don't think that they have made a good unblock request here, because they haven't addressed any of the reasons for the block.) Robert McClenon (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, in my opinion, it would be best if a formal unblock request was made on Minahatithan's user talk page. So far, they are repeatedly complaining about being blocked, blaming the OP, and venting theur emotions. That is not the way to get unblocked. Cullen328 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Follow-Up Question by Mediator

I have a follow-up question. If I encounter a similar situation at DRN in the future, should I do anything differently? I became aware, from the history and from the statements by the filing editor, that this was an editor who takes long breaks, and then edits and does not discuss, and does not respond usefully to requests to discuss. Should I do anything differently, such as telling the filing editors that they can go to WP:ANI? I didn't say that, because I wasn't sure that the editor's conduct was disruptive, although I knew it was problematic. Should I adjust and expand my concept of what sort of editing is disruptive? I would appreciate advice on how to handle such a case differently in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon

• Non Admin opinion: (Till this moment I have not visited article or dispute but slavery topic is area of my interest)
• I do not think any thing needs to be changed @ WP:ANI process for such cases.
• IMHO basically it is RFC before support requirement @ article talk where in we ask both sides to summarize there point of views and help them in writing a proper RfC question. (IMHO We (WP) lack such support system and many discussions seem to go haywire)
• Bookku (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

122.58.105.122

They have been warned but they keep doing vandalism. 178.120.71.230 (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Although cases of clear vandalism are best kept to WP:AIV, it's true, 122.58.105.122's edits are disruptive. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 00:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks 178.120.71.230. I blocked 122.58.105.122 for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Transphobia from InverseZebra in Talk:LGB Alliance

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

---

It's definitely not as high-profile as the last time I reported a transphobe here, but InverseZebra has been using vocabulary such as [a] male claiming to be trans, saying TERF is a slur, and other transphobic stuff on Talk:LGB Alliance. As a trans woman, I think such phrases are unacceptable, especially in the case of a touchy subject like the LGB Alliance. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Less than 100 edits over two years and every single one being on a talk page (or their user talk page) arguing essentially the same things as pointed out by LilianaUwU, such as wanting to put dead names into trans peoples' articles despite that not meeting name notability requirements of MOS:GID (which was pointed out to them and they refused to understand it). They basically disappear for a month or more at a time and then jump back in to pushing anti-trans things on various article talk pages. Seems like a blatant WP:NOTHERE case of an editor not here to actually edit and build an encyclopedia. Silverseren^C 02:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

As you both correctly point out, their main shtick is to bore on offensively about trans people, and closely related topics, but they do have a very few other edits and looking at those is also instructive:

• They have edited Talk:Race and intelligence to advocate for using Quillette as a source for something or other related to a racial theory of "Ashkenazi intelligence".
• They have also edited Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, seeming to advocate for the "lab leak" conspiracy theory for the origin of the pandemic.
• They have written what is essentially an essay or manifesto on their talk page in which they ascribe all the well justified warnings that they have received to "political interference", "capture", "scolds" and "discussion killers".

Taken together, we see a pattern of POV editing, on contentious issues, advocating for far-right talking points and refusing to engage with other editors in good faith. Having initially noted their unhelpful editing on trans issues, I expected to come here to suggest a topic ban from sexuality and gender related articles. Instead, looking at these other edits, particularly the "essay", has persuaded me that this is indeed a case of WP:NOTHERE with quite a bit of WP:TRUTH and WP:RGW on the side. DanielRigal (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I've stuck to discussing sources in talk pages for hot-button articles I see in the news. Everything I've discussed I've first seen being discussed off-wiki. I suggest weak sources be replaced, or that edits be made to better reflect sources. You're looking at my lack of interference and trying to spin it as disruption when I've never engaged in an edit war, etc. NewImpartial was fishing for offense and that's all this brave group here is doing. Like Liliana's "other transphobic stuff" comment without naming a single transphobic thing in the first place.

• ) Race_and_Intelligence was arguing that a Quillette article couldn't even be discussed as an indicator of Quillette's leanings. Not just not used in an article, but not even discussed on the talk page.
• ) On COVID-19 I called out an editor for not being able to separate the sources from the people, and going into a multi-page rant about fake information without citing meaningful sources or explaining how he selected them - it was simply my cites vs your cites, but with an assumption of trolling for anyone who disagrees. Again, all on talk pages and all about sources.
• ) In the LGBA case I'm arguing, again on the talk page, that all of the sources misrepresent LGBA's actual words before they criticize them, and as such are criticizing some straw man instead of the group's actual feelings which the article entirely sidesteps.

I asked about some of their stated concerns, such as single-sex spaces, and was told that it was so transphobic it warranted not honestly reporting on it. How could their concerns be raised, even just to ask about, without this crew seeing it as transphobic?

I don't believe that Wiki needs to lie to write a good article.

> They basically disappear for a month or more at a time and then jump back in

You're fishing, if I was here too much you'd complain about that, if I'm here too little you complain about that. If this account edited primarily math articles and made these same comments you'd use that to demonize me. If I have an account that hasn't edited a single article you use that against me.

> what is essentially an essay or manifesto on their talk page

A graveyard of fake warnings by people who can't handle having their sources called out. Each one is common in that it alleges some wiki crime has been committed by simply calling out weak sources and lack of editor consistency. All they have to do to not end up in the list is make a valid argument instead of trying to report me.

> Having initially noted their unhelpful editing on trans issues,

I intentionally don't edit. Stop misrepresenting. InverseZebra (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Editing Talk pages is still editing. It takes up people's time and effort to deal with your obtuse and disruptive contributions and none of us is getting paid for this. DanielRigal (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. NewImpartial didn't have to ask me questions that they didn't want answers to. I thought I'd explained myself clearly in the initial post. NI went out of their way to fish for explanations that they could try to make into transphobia. InverseZebra (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: I'm arguing, again on the talk page, that all of the sources misrepresent LGBA's actual words before they criticize them, and as such are criticizing some straw man instead of the group's actual feelings which the article entirely sidesteps - I believe an argument that all the independent WP:RS are wrong so we should base WP article text on editors' own interpretarion of WP:SELFPUB/mission statement material is a pretty clear demonstration that one is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia (as is charging in to WP:RGW in articles I've first seen being discussed off-wiki).

Re: I asked about some of their stated concerns, such as single-sex spaces, and was told that it was so transphobic it warranted not honestly reporting on it - this is a typical example of this editor's "creative" WP:STRAWMAN construction of argument no editor has ever made, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors while playing for sympathy against arguments no editor has made, while misstating their own prior argumentation. This editor refuses to provide diffs or supporting sources - by explicit design - and seems to regard Wikipedia talk pages as a WP:FORUM to construct original arguments while demanding satisfaction from other editors. Rather clearly WP:NOTHERE while only checking in to argue about a few hot-button WP:ACDS topics towards which they have been canvassed off-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> I believe an argument that all the independent WP:RS are wrong so we should base WP article text on editors' own interpretarion own WP:SELFPUB/mission statement material is a pretty clear demonstration that one is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia

I never claimed we should write the article based on my feelings. I specifically showed sources to be inadequate or biased and said that they should be replaced with other, actually reliable, sources. Ones that don't slur and lie about the subject more than they engage with their words.

> This editor refuses to provide diffs or supporting sources - by explicit design

Quit pretending you can read my mind. I don't supply diffs because I'm talking about the source, not the article (yet). There's no sense suggesting a change if you're still stuck on the bad source.

> which they have been canvassed off-wiki

More nonsense. I originally saw these articles in news and referenced elsewhere so I came to check them out. Nobody called me here. But I'll note that you convened a panel of like-minded people using your alt-right transphobic labels. You're doing everything you accuse me of. InverseZebra (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: But I'll note that you convened a panel of like-minded people using your alt-right transphobic labels - this is a great example of why the WP:TPG requires editors to back up accusations with diffs. I haven't done anything remotely corresponding to this.

You say of the authors of peer-reviewed academic work that they slur and lie about the subject more than they engage with their words, but all your comments on the source have actually demonstrated is that you are (voluntarily or involuntarily) misinterpreting the article in question and DONTLIKEIT. And all this in service of an attempt to remove an attributed statement about a group that is identified as anti-trans not only in these two academic articles but in the vast majority of independent RS in which it is discussed. You may not recognize your own POV crusade here, but I trust that other editors/admins can and will do so. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> You say of the authors of peer-reviewed academic work that they slur and lie about the subject more than they engage with their words

That's absolute fact. The Monque link didn't engage with their words at all, only their purported goals, and it did so while specifically denigrating the LGBA by calling them TERFs. Hardly the marks of a reliable source. (Monque would be a good self-evident source to point to in saying "LGBA has received much nearly incoherent criticism" but not for the actual criticism itself.)

> but all your comments on the source have actually demonstrated is that you are (voluntarily or involuntarily) misinterpreting the article in question and DONTLIKEIT

I'm not misinterpreting the article, I'm saying it's too obvious biased on the surface (TERF TERF TERF...) to be worth engaging with at any deeper level. And yeah, I don't like that, but I don't think anyone should.

> service of an attempt to remove an attributed statement about a group that is identified as anti-trans not only in these two academic articles but in the vast majority of independent RS in which it is discussed.

No, to remove a bad source that makes meaningless or biased claims, and replace it with someone willing to dig into the substance. If LGBA's female and homosexual-first platform is transphobic then find someone who explains why, not who simply screams the entire time. As for multiple sources agreeing, that's why I called out multiple sources. They've become a circularly reinforcing echo chamber, not serious academia or reporting.

Your sources are so biased in this context, that they're laughable. It'd be like quoting only Trump in an article about Hillary. Sure, the source is verifiable, but it's meaningless. InverseZebra (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to hold the mistaken opinion that, when you disagree with a sourced statement in a wikipedia arricle, that you can demand that the source include evidence for what it says that will WP:SATISFY your own "unique" requirements, or that otherwise other editors must provide a better source. This is not the way anything works. The LGB Alliance article offers carefully attributed statements about its "anti-trans" activity along with extensively documented RS descriptions of that activity. Your objections to this because "all the RS are biased against the LGB Alliance" aren't really relevant, in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> You seem to hold the mistaken opinion that, when you disagree [...] that you can demand that

I have demanded nothing. I didn't edit contentious text. I clearly stated my opinion that the sources were weak and didn't support that they were being used to support, but I made no demands. Only suggestions - find a less biased-seeming source that you feel says the same thing. You asked about my suggestions and why, but nobody forced you too. The posts you're complaining about are direct responses to your questions.

> "all the RS are biased against the LGB Alliance"

I didn't say that because I haven't reviewed them all. But I did point out two sources that were useless for criticism because of their bias. In this case those over-the-top sources mean that the entire article appears biased.

Wiki expects, and relies upon, editors discussing the quality of sources. Your links even directly say so.

WP:RS_CONTEXT "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article"

WP:RS_BIAS "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." InverseZebra (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Funny that trying to get better sources is NOT THERE TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA to you. As for verifiability over truth, a biased source can be used to verify anything. I'm not here to right wrongs, I'm here to suggest better sources. Ones that aren't so clearly biased that they make a mockery of the article. I'm suggesting that we have criticism that reflects the words and views of our subjects.

TERF may not be a slur, but that source was throwing it around as if it was and that's what made it worthless in that context. InverseZebra (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What better sources are you claiming to have produced, or even suggested? You have shouted loudly that a peer-reviewed academic source is not appropriate for an attributed statement in our article, and what have you proposed to be less biased? Your own tendentious readings of sources, mostly self-published ones. This is absurd. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> What better sources are you claiming to have produced, or even suggested?

More misrepresentation. I haven't suggested any sources because we haven't established the problems with the current ones yet.

> You have shouted loudly that a peer-reviewed academic source is not appropriate for an attributed statement in our article

And you've honestly fought back, saying that a clearly biased source is still reliable.

> what have you proposed to be less biased?

My only concrete suggestion so far is to make sure that we only use criticism that at least quotes the subject, and ideally refrains from simply insulting them.

> ... Your own tendentious readings of sources, mostly self-published ones. This is absurd.

It's not a tendentious reading to notice that the first word is terf and they make no effort to include, let alone engage with, anything that the LGBA has actually said - only their interpretations of those words. InverseZebra (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Noting this comment from DMacks a year ago: Your recent edit at Talk:Rachel Levine could be seen as disruptive enough to result in a block per this discretionary-sanctions standard. I suggest you find some other topic-area. (For those unfamiliar, Levine is a trans woman, and our article on her is something of an obsession in some online circles.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

How else can I explain the concept of a non-trans identifying male, just some guy, who makes a claim to be trans, without saying something like "male who identifies"? This is one of LGBA's issues which is why I raised it, asking if another editor could make a distinction between pro-female and anti-trans policies.

As for TERF, it is used as a slur in the source, which is one of the reasons I'm calling the source out as being low quality - they feel the need to denigrate LGBA before even examining their words, yet they're being treated as a "reliable" source.

There's nothing in that discussion that is transphobic, and I challenge you to try to find even one real example. InverseZebra (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The correct way to refer to a man who is not trans, when it is necessary to make it clear that he is not trans, is to say "cisgender man". I am pretty sure that you know this already. DanielRigal (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is this correct? Who says so? Genuine question. - Roxy the dog 16:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What kind of question is this? Was Google abolished? The definition of "cisgender", from Oxford: "denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex." — VersaceSpace (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

> whose sense of personal identity and gender

Many people say they do not have this. If someone identifies as cis-gender then sure, use the term. But if they do not you're likely going to be "misgendering" them, if such a thing matters to you.

Also, again, I was trying to draw the largest distinction between a trans woman and a man claiming to be trans. I specifically tried to explain a female sex-based issue without using any gender terms. Again, damned if I do and damned if I don't. InverseZebra (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

For the record, the first time I encountered the proposal that many people say they do not have a gender identity was from an editor who was subsequently indeffed. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Re a male claiming to be trans: if you object to this, you are saying that no-one ever lies. The comment was A male claiming to be trans won't be stopped when following girls into the bathroom, or have the police called on him for loitering in the shower, so of course any male aggressor - and there are enough to warrant the creation of single-sex spaces - is going to use this defense. This obviously refers to perverts who are pretending to be trans in order to gain access to women’s toilets.

And TERF is commonly considered a slur: see TERF Though it was created as a deliberately neutral descriptor, TERF is now typically considered derogatory.

I propose a trout for the OP.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I see our other anti-trans editors that have been hanging around Wikipedia are popping in here now. Silverseren^C 16:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:CIVIL and stop gaming the processes here. People can just honestly disagree with you. InverseZebra (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller - does this look/smell familiar to you? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not necessarily correct because it implies that he's happy/congruent with his gender - a construct he may not even feel he has.

Also, I said 'non-trans identified' because I wanted to keep that point as separate from trans as possible. The point was to discuss the millennia old female/male risk dichotomy and how it was being lost under the assumption that everything is a transphobic dogwhistle of modern identity politics. InverseZebra (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Rigal: The correct way to refer to a man who is not trans is "man", when it is necessary to make it clear that he is trans, you say "trans man", because it is not reasonable to expect the >99.9% of all people who are cisgender to change their ways of speak to accomodate the <0.1% who are not. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me if I am misinterpreting, but it sounds as though you are trying to articulate - and enfoece on others - the WP:FRINGE view that trans men are not "men" and should not be referred to or treated as such. Please let me know if I have misinderstood. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say that you are totally misinterpreting what I wrote, and not for the first time... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Then why do you say, he correct way to refer to a man who is not trans is "man" as though the two were synonyms, and trans men were not also "men"? Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You really and truly are misinterpreting everything: my comment was a direct reply to what DanielRigal wrote above, nothing else, i.e. you can not expect people in general to start referring to the >99.9% of all men who were born male as "cisgender", so if there's a need to point out that someone is trans, and not cisgender, you'll have to say "trans man". And everything beyond that is your own (mis)interpretion of ~what I wrote. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

But that wasn't the issue. The issue was to determine the correct way to refer to a man who is not trans, when it is necessary to make it clear that he is not trans. If you were saying that the way to make it clear that he is not trans is to refer to him as a "man", then I'm afraid I've been understanding you correctly along. The term "man" can include both trans and non-trans men - at least where I live - but you seem to be arguing that only the latter are strictly included. Newimpartial (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious that I'm seeing things, and interpreting things, through the eyes of the >99.9%, and you're seeing things, and interpreting things, through the eyes of the <0.1%, which means that you're constantly seeing things and meanings that aren't there in what other people write. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: That sounds very dangerously close to "You're wrong because you're trans." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

C'mon, no reasonable person could interpret it that way. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Your demographic percentages are not correct for the context where I live and work, first of all.

Also, and more importantly, you are refusing to answer Daniel's question by essentially saying that the speech community does not need a term for cis men because almost nobody is trans. This seems to me like a very silly non-answer to the question, though you are clearly very sincere in your position. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

My percentages are a rough estimate for humankind as a whole. I interpreted what Daniel wrote as that in their opinion everyone should use "cisgender male/man" when referring to a non-trans male/man, which IMO is unreasonable, and also unneeded, because people in general, that is the vast masses, don't care if someone is cisgender or transgender, if someone looks, walks, talks and behaves like a man they assume it is a man, and treat that person like a man, and if someone looks, walks, talks and behaves like a woman they assume it is a woman, and treat that person like a woman. The only opposition to transgender people I have seen was people, both male and female, being opposed to biological males (with the term used to denote persons who were born male and have gone through male puberty, no matter what they identify as, so don't even try to misinterpret it...) competing against women in sports, since they have an unfair physical advantage, and people, almost exclusively females, being opposed to people who were born male and then transitioned to women claiming to speak for or otherwise represent all women. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What part of Daniel's when it is necessary to make it clear that he is not trans did you not understand, then? The whole of this comment seems quite irrelevant to the original question (and your the only opposition to transgender people I have seen comment seems absurdly sheltered, given the precarious of access to trans healthcare in much of the US and the UK, but I digress). Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't even asking a question. I was trying to point out that the correct terminology is already well defined and hence that the argumentation was unnecessary. Unfortunately, what I had hoped would be a helpful comment has led to even more off-topic argumentation. If I had foreseen that I would not have made the comment. DanielRigal (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Cis and non-trans are subtly different, as are non-cis and trans. Someone you might label cis may never have heard of gender and may be best referred to as simply not-trans. And someone who does not feel that their AGAB is right for them may not identify as trans, though they would be non-cis. (NBs who don't call themselves trans, for example.)

I was trying to use the broadest term because I'm discussing all males, those who have heard of gender and those who have not, and female worries about sexual assault. InverseZebra (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

So you are including trans men's concerns as female worries about sexual assault while excluding trans women's concerns - a group that is much more likely to be sexually assaulted than non-trans women? How are things in your doublespeak Bizarro world? Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about females and males, and showing that the female need for single-sex spaces goes back as far as there have been males.

> trans women's concerns - a group that is much more likely to be sexually assaulted than non-trans women?

Even if that were true it wouldn't negate the non-trans female's worries about males.

> How are things in your doublespeak Bizarro world?

Just dropping this here as an example of your unwillingness to engage in good faith. InverseZebra (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you expect, NewImpartial is the definition of someone here to right great wrongs. 47.160.161.90 (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Does everyone see what I have to put up with? Unrelenting, evidence-free WP:ASPERSIONS just because I uphold Wikipedia's fundamental content policies in a contentious area. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think our anonymous friend is just trying to wind you up so maybe the best thing is to try not show annoyance, even though they are annoying.

IP, there is nothing for you here. The user reported has been blocked and you have missed the party. It was not a fun party and I doubt that it has left anybody in a good mood. So... maybe don't be seen gratuitously trying to wind people up in front of all the admins? DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• No comment for the moment on InverseZebra's editing history which I am still looking at. However, they are correct on one point. "TERF" is a pejorative. Its use is, at the very least, rude and arguably insulting. It should be avoided in discussions or debates and should never be used in reference to another editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  The Zebra wasn't discussing the use of the term "TERF" by editors but rather was using its use in academic article to discredit the source.

  Also, the highest quality RS do not agree that "TERF" is a slur (please see the sources cited in TERF). Why should we take your opinion of this over the WP:RS? Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I did not say that TERF is a slur. I said it's a pejorative. There is a difference in degree. That said, the Oxford English Dictionary clearly states the term is considered derogatory. A quick online search shows the term is widely regarded as offensive. Some have likened it to hate speech. And on a purely anecdotal level, I have never seen the term used in anything other than a highly negative context, usually with the intent to belittle or insult. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that you're ignoring how the term is used as a self-descriptor of groups and individuals and has been for years, but also this discussion is irrelevant. Are you here to discuss the ANI post? Silverseren^C 17:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  > you're ignoring how the term is used as a self-descriptor of groups and individuals and has been for years

  The N-word and other racial slurs have been reclaimed by some people but that doesn't mean they aren't or weren't used as slurs. If you read a source on American race politics and it unironically used race-based slurs for the groups you'd quickly determine that it wasn't a serious or reliable source. Ditto when we read an article about gender-based poliitics and it spend more time attacking its subject with slurs than examining their purported beliefs and actions.

  As for TERF being a slur, it fully became one when Twitter users and Antifa started using the term in calls for and threats of death and violence towards women. The proof is in the use, which is demonizing and threatening.

  > Are you here to discuss the ANI post?

  Discussing the misrepresentation that got us here is also on topic. InverseZebra (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for making comments that continue to showcase precisely why this ANI post was made in the first place. Ranting about Antifa now. Silverseren^C 17:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  > "Ranting about Antifa now"

  No, showing proof that TERF is used as a slur, to call for violence against a group of political enemies.

  > Thank you for making comments that continue to showcase precisely why this ANI post was made in the first place

  NI asked for details they didn't want so they could scream transphobia to avoid examining the bias of "reliable" sources. How is that not what you're doing? InverseZebra (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Fine, AdOrientem. But how much weight do you expect other editors to give to your view that Its use is, at the very least, rude and arguably insulting when it comes to the evaluation of peer-reviewed academic sources? Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  For that source it's absolutely damning. You can't scream pejoratives and be taken seriously, no matter what your academic pedigree. Reliable Sources were never meant to be guaranteed reliable in all contexts and the RS and Bias articles call out that editors need to raise and examine these issues. It's not a one-and-done election result as you seem to suggest.

  You claim that Monque is well supported by the other "reliable" sources. If so, replace it with one of them which uses less invective in trying to make its point. InverseZebra (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  But we use it as an academic source showing that some academic articles describe the LGB Alliance as anti-trans. Why, in terms of Wikipedia policy, is it not a reliable source for that statement? Newimpartial (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  That's what I said about the Quillette article, that it was reasonable proof of the attitudes of Quillette editors. If you used the Monque source only to show the prevalence of academic papers slurring of GC women then it would be relevant.

  > Why, in terms of Wikipedia policy, is it not a reliable source for that statement

  Because you're trying to use it to examine and explain LGBA's opinions and its bias prevents it from even mentioning LGBA's words. InverseZebra (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  It is only used to show that some academic papers describe the Alliance as "anti-trans". The rest is your lurid inagination. Newimpartial (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Not reliable sources, only ones that rant at slurs. They didn't identify anything the LGBA said or did, so their opinion on the topic is irrelevant.

  If showing academic disapproval is important, find one that actually makes it clear which words and actions it's criticizing. InverseZebra (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that I am discussing at least one aspect of the ANI given the issue with the term was raised by the OP in their opening statement.

• A lot of terms have appeared in academic sources over the years that are no longer considered to be polite, i.e. negro, colored, homosexual, & etc. Social attitudes evolve. The article clearly states that the term was originally considered to be neutral in its nature but is now considered to be derogatory. Any source, academic or otherwise, that continues to use descriptive labels regarded as offensive by a significant number of people they are intended to describe, would raise serious questions in my mind regarding possible bias. I would hope that academics and institutions that care for their reputation, if not the feelings of other people, would exercise restraint when using terms now widely identified as objectionable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t see why the use of that term in a recent peer-reviewed source would be a reason not to use that source to back up an attributed statement in article text that does not use the term. But hey - whatevs. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  So, for what it's worth, I voted for that line saying TERF is pejorative in its article and I think you're fairly clearly wrong on this point. "TERF" is pejorative for the same reason and to the same degree that "transphobe" is pejorative. But the title of this section accuses another editor of transphobia. I agree it's generally best to avoid terms like this but, especially at ANI, sometimes you have to refer to another editor's bad behavior and there's just no non-pejorative way to do that. Loki (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Even if TERF would be a fair descriptor of certain views, the label wasn't being applied to LGAB's words or actions. In this case it was simply being used to imply that the LGBA had bad thoughts. Much as my views were labelled as demonizing trans despite explicitly not talking about trans people.

  The source wasn't wrong because it used the word TERF, that was simply the red flag that made the rest of its failures and non-reliability apparent. InverseZebra (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  You were not explicitly not talking about trans people. If you wanted to specify, you could have specified. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I had specified - "non trans-identified males". That's pretty clear. InverseZebra (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I reviewed your entire contribution to the Talk page, and you never gave any such specification there. This is something you made up here at ANI, for wherever reason. Newimpartial (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• I would disagree that TERF is a pejorative - it's descriptive of the views of that minority. Obviously, people in that group attempt to disguise their transphobia by using terms such as "gender critical" (which is a wider bloc of people), but if we blocked every "gender critical" editor here I can think of at least half a dozen regular editors that it would apply to. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  > the views of that minority

  One, you haven't shown it to be a minority, and two the source in question said "TERFs are not feminists" which is wrong - TERF stands for "radical feminist". They're using slurs and trying to widen them to apply to everyone they disagree with. InverseZebra (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Are you trying to claim that TERFs are not transphobic? Because it's literally in the "TE" part of the name. And if you believe that it's not only a vocal minority of people that fall into the TERF part of the Venn diagram, you are clearly delusional. Much as you would like it not to be the case, the vast majority of people are not bigots. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  > Are you trying to claim that TERFs are not transphobic?

  I'm claiming that the source in question did not attempt to show that LGBA's words were transphobic before throwing around the TERF slur. If you throw the label TERF at everyone then yes, at some point it loses all meaning, except as a way to to signal in-group rage. InverseZebra (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Excellent avoidance of the question. You should be a politician. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Do you really want an answer, or are you just doing what NI did - fish for something you can claim is transphobic and shout about it?

  I'm claiming the term TERF is applied to people without any concern for them being radfems or feminists at all, or even female, and without any examination of their words for trans exclusion. It's a slur and its used to avoid the truth, not examine it.

  > the vast majority of people are not bigots

  What would make them a bigot in your eyes, wanting single-sex spaces? InverseZebra (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  TERF has its place in academic discussion of the feminist movement. That's literally where it was born. People can shout anything as a slur. There was a US president who used the term "mainstream media" as a term of abuse. The article talk referred to descended into transphobic tropes about perverts in bathrooms. It doesn't appear that InverseZebra appreciates this is a problem. Though I do think some participants at that page should learn more when not to feed the trolls. -- Colin°^Talk 18:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  > The article talk referred to descended into transphobic tropes about perverts in bathrooms

  How is the discussion of males sexually abusing females transphobic? It happened for thousands of years before anyone said the word 'trans', and it still happens.

  If you call all of women's sex-based concerns transphobic then you're just proving the point that nobody is engaging with LGBA's words before criticizing them. If you don't examine the line between pro-female and anti-trans policy concerns you can't make any useful claims about which side of the line people who make those arguments are on.

  > learn more when not to feed the trolls

  Certainly, if you're going to call me a troll then don't engage. I'm looking to talk to editors who want to improve articles, not for PoV pushers who support any source that supports their views. If you know you won't argue in good faith then please don't. InverseZebra (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Everything in this thread—picking arguments, splitting hairs, and otherwise sealioning—solidifies my view that InverseZebra is not a constructive presence in the GENSEX topic area. The only real question, I think, is whether they're able to be constructive elsewhere—i.e., whether it's better to topic-ban or to block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Bullshit. I called out a source as unreliable for throwing around slurs and epithets and backed that logic up at every step of the way. Picking arguments is and splitting hairs is simply being specific about an issue. Sealioning doesn't apply at all because NI is harassing me about my claim, not the other way around. They're asking for details and then pretending to be upset at the volume of replies.

  If anyone needs to be banned explain how it's not you, being called in to brigade a topic you're obviously personally invested in. You're jumping on the bad-mouthing bandwagon specifically because you can't refute anything I say. InverseZebra (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Re: harassing (you) about your claim - do you have a diff for that? Objecting to your unsupported IDONTLIKEIT WP:OR objections to a peer-reviewed source is not generally understood as harassment, btw. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  @InverseZebra Tread carefully. I realize this discussion involves hot button subjects, but AGF and CIVIL still apply. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  No, they only apply to me in this case. NI and others have been impugning my motives since the beginning and when they don't get the answers they like they immediately start a show trial. Like me or not, my points about sources are reasonable and I have been attacked as transphobic because of them. InverseZebra (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have never attacked you as transphobic. More unsubstantiated chaff and nonsense. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  You and TheTranarchist said raising female's sex-based concerns was transphobic.

  "demonizing trans people as rapists" were your words, and I wasn't talking about trans people at all. InverseZebra (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, where did I "attack" you as transphobic? What you just VAGUEWAVED to doesn't even resemble your prior accusation. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  You said I was demonizing trans people as racists when I didn't even mention trans people. That's pretty damn attacky, and is the core of your calling to have me blocked. InverseZebra (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I said that you were recycling transphobic tropes and demonizing trans people as "rapists", and anyone looking at Talk:LGB Alliance can verify this. However, I never called for you to be blocked; I merely noted that you were WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  @InverseZebra: I don't know which I'm more offended by, the completely unsubstantiated accusation of brigading (I was handling the request below before I commented here, if you didn't notice), or the shocking insinuation that being trans somehow disqualifies me from commenting on your suitability to edit in the gender topic area. I have, literally, received death threats on Wikipedia that were more respectful of my trans-ness than that comment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  You're using your trans status as a reason why you and your opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic. You joined the topic not because of my arguments on the talk page, but because of what was said about my arguments here, that's brigading. InverseZebra (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  TIL that you don't know what brigading is. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's going a little too far (if IZ hadn't already). I'm now also coming round to the view that a GENSEX topic ban is probably needed here. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  My motives are open for examination, people are going through old threads of mine to prove over-interest in a topic, how is it not equivalent to me calling out Tamzin for the same? They aren't engaging with my comments on sources - they're simply doing that NI did - labelling all discussion in the area as unreasonable. InverseZebra (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, you're asserting without evidence that I did something (which I never did). Pure, disruptive WP:ASPERSIONS. Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  You didn't say my point bordered on transphobia, you said I was demonizing trans people. Assuming my motives and using personal attacks. The WP rules you quote apply to you as much or more than anyone else in the thread. InverseZebra (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I said you were recycling transphobic tropes and were demonizing trans people as rapists - which any reader of Talk:LGB Alliance can see foe themselves. I did not speculate about your motives or offer personal attacks. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  InverseZebra is trying to make this about Tamzin and yourself as a way to deflect attention from the issue at hand, which is their behaviour. I suggest trying not to take the bait any more than you have to in order to defend yourself from any substantive allegations. DanielRigal (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Liliana and Tamzin have said here with regards to InverseZebra.

In just the past week alone InverseZebra has described a peer reviewed journal article as clearly an opinion piece, not factual ([134]), then later described it as a source that goes into lala land ([135]), a sign of tendentious editing per WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH. Despite these arguments failing to achieve traction in the room, InverzeZebra continued to press the point that we should discount the source because it was unreliable ([136], [137], [138], [139]), a sign of tendentious editing per WP:REHASH. They have tried to discourage an editor from being active in the topic stating You're getting way too involved in sensitive topics and should probably step back for a bit. after claiming the editor was lying ([140]), a sign of tendentious editing per accusing another of malice and disruptive editing per WP:DAPE. And that's just the editor civility issues.

With regards to other problematic GENSEX contributions, they have called trans women not the traditional kind of woman. You know, who birthed you and me. You can see how they, females, being smaller and weaker and at risk of sexual attack would feel strongly about this. They might feel that feminism implies female-ism, for, by, and about females. ([141]). They have claimed the masked mob which assaulted the women protesting at the Wi Spa and later at the Port Townsend YMCA were largely antifa despite reliable reporting (detailed at Wi Spa controversy#July 3) stating that this assault was carried out by the anti-trans protestors and not antifa. Used a variation of the transphobic dogwhistle non-trans identifying male ([142], [143]) (see DAME Magazine and an article by Gemma Stone for definition and origins of the term TIF/TIM). They have claimed that an admin who was not involved in the underlying dispute was called in to brigade a topic you're obviously personally invested in ([144]) at ANI. And then claimed that same admin was using [their] trans status as a reason why [they] and [their] opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic ([145]).

As there's now specific specific remedies below, I'll comment on those separately there, referring back to this reply as appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is also not a new thing for InverseZebra. In their fourth edit, they accused RandomCanadian of perpetrating a cover-up of the COVID-19 lab leak theory and that they were hurting Wikipedia by pushing partisan politics as if its scientific consensus. ([146]) In November 2021, after having a problematic edit ([147]) reverted by an uninvolved administrator on a BLP article talk page, InverseZebra then accused that administrator of lying because it offends [them]. and that they were committed to promoting bad sources as reliable. ([148]). They also accused another editor, who issued a warning for the same edit, of arguing in bad faith and abusing wiki processes ([149]) before adding an accusation that the same editor was part of a cadre of false accusers that were making Wikipedia a dangerous place, where I don't feel safe. ([150]) Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Direct personal attacks in this thread on the basis of transgender status

I'm going to highlight these comments from above:

• If anyone needs to be banned explain how it's not you, being called in to brigade a topic you're obviously personally invested in. You're jumping on the bad-mouthing bandwagon specifically because you can't refute anything I say. InverseZebra (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• You're using your trans status as a reason why you and your opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic. You joined the topic not because of my arguments on the talk page, but because of what was said about my arguments here, that's brigading. InverseZebra (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Admin hat off, everything hat off, just speaking as an editor who feels she is entitled to be addressed civilly in this collaborative project: This is not okay. A colleague is saying to me that because I am trans, I am not entitled to comment on their behavior. And when asked to justify that position, they say that it is because a) I was somehow canvassed here (using a definition of "brigading" that would apply to everyone in this thread but for some reason they've only seen fit to apply to me) and b) because I am trying to use my trans-ness to my advantage somehow. That is a lie. It is a fabrication. I have not said one word about myself as a person in this thread.

These are personal attacks, motivated by my status as a trans person. We would not stand for them about an editor's Jewishness, or their blackness, or their being a woman. We should not stand for them about an editor's transness. I am requesting an indefinite block. We don't even need to get into WP:HATEDISRUPT territory here: These are just plain old personal attacks and lies, ones that show that this editor will never be able to work collaboratively with any trans person. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears that it is time to gauge community consensus for a topic-ban from Gender & Sexuality for Mr. Zebra. Zaathras (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose to Tamzin's call for an indefinite block. We've been through this kind of situation before, with Tamzin calling for sanctions against someone whose opinions they disliked. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

"[C]alled in to brigade", "you're obviously personally invested", and "You're using your trans status as a reason why you and your opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic" are not opinions. They are an aspersion, a personal attack, and a bald-faced lie respectively, all with the intent of discrediting my opinions simply because I am trans. Don't forget the call to ban me for being trans. I'm sure you're as outraged about that? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of your ability to identify disruptive Talk page advocacy directed against trans people, to be completely honest. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The main problem I have with this and other similar cases is that everyone who is active on GENSEX pages seems to have an agenda, for or against this or that, but it's always the ones whose arguments go against the views of the current majority group (I write "current" majority group, because it could quickly change if enough people of an opposing view started to show up here...) who are sanctioned, or have sanctions against them called for, while people in the current majority group seem to get away with not even a slap on the wrist, no matter what they do or say. Wikipedia should stay neutral also when it comes to sanctions. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you show me people with a transphilic POV engaging in a similar level of personal attacks to IZ and Athaenara, or a similar level of POV FORUMposting to Wefa? That's a genuine question. If you can show me them, I'll readily !vote to sanction. Personally, the only time I've encountered someone with edits even sort of like that, I indeffed her. (June Parker, very aggressive and incivil pro–social justice edits in GENSEX and several other topic areas.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't have to rise to the level of Athaenara's comment at RFA (a case that I'm staying far away from...), but can you explain why you felt that IZ's quotes above were personal attacks at a level that merit an immediate indefinite block? I may be more thick-skinned than you, but I don't see them as meriting more than at most a stern warning, heck, I've been the subject of faaaar worse personal attacks than that here on en:WP without even blinking an eye. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever had someone say that your being part of a minority group disqualified you from commenting on your peers' conduct? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have link to a post that says exactly that, or is it just your interpretation of it? To give a couple of examples of behaviour I have a problem with, an editor on your side of the aisle wrote, addressed to me in the recent ANI-discussion about Wefa, that I ought to be completely disqualified from taking part in the discussion because of expressing opposing opinions, and another editor on your side of the aisle seriously proposed that all oppose-!votes should be disregarded, the way it is done in totalitarian countries. Comments that are both as against the "spirit of Wikipedia" as anything could be. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

My side of the aisle? What, pray tell, is my side of the aisle? What, for that matter, is your side of the aisle? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That's called "dodging" the question I asked. Your side of the aisle is pro-trans, as I'm sure you understood, while I'm standing in the middle of the aisle, observing the fight without taking sides, just like you, IMHO, ought to do a little more than you do, considering you're an admin (and yes, I do know that there's no formal requirement for that, but still; it could also give you extra credibility, if you're ever in a position here when you need that). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that I have, again, literally indeffed people on the pro-trans "side of the aisle", I'm not sure how much more I could be doing. Saying an editor's views are so wrong that they should be disregarded is permissible, if harsh. Now if someone says your views should be disregarded because you're cis, or a man, or above the median age on Wikipedia, let me know. Like actually, let me know; I have no problem blocking for that if uninvolved.

Still, I'm not sure what makes you think I'm on that side. Unless you think my gender identity dictates my ideological views... If you must know, in my private life, my views on gender align with neither side, and there's a lot of aspects of "gender-critical" ideology I tend to agree with, and a lot of pro-trans rhetoric I disagree with. None of which has any affect on how I edit. My on-wiki contributions regarding trans-ness have been confined largely to successive versions of the same three points: 1) we should call people what they want to be called (which has on three occasions brought me into conflict with pro-trans editors, believe it or not), 2) we shouldn't have poorly-sourced medical information about trans-ness (where I've removed content favorable to both sides' narratives), and 3) no one should personally attack people for being trans (which is consistent with my known hard-line views on all forms of bigotry). If you're casting me as a partisan here, I'd really like to know if there's a basis for that other than that I choose to live my life as a gender different than the one I was assigned at birth. (I do not meaningfully identify as a woman, so only even meet some definitions of "trans".) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Question (note: I'm in a discussion with Thomas.W at my own talk and so I followed his editing which brings me here). Newimpartial. I hope you can appreciate that the two subsections are TLDR for any newcomer. Can I see if I have interpreted you properly. Do you submit that on en.wiki that we dispense with "male" sans qualifier, and permanently use "trans" or "cis" qualifiers? Or did I get something wrong? --Coldtrack (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No, he was referring to the wording that would be used if you're directly trying to discuss someone who isn't trans in regards to that topic. Similar to how you also wouldn't refer to a trans person as a trans man unless it was relevant to the subject being discussed about them. Similarly here, if you're wanting to refer to a cis man specifically in regard to them not being trans, then you would say cis man and not just man. Descriptive adjectives are used as relevant to the subject being discussed. Purposefully omitting such descriptors when directly relevant to a discussion, particularly in this subject area, could be seen as trying to say the person is more of, say, a "man" than someone referred to with the trans descriptor. TL:DR, if you're referring to one person as a "trans man" and specifically another as a "man" rather than "cis man" in a discussion about being trans, it could be seen as trying to imply the former isn't an actual "man". Silverseren^C 21:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Silver seren. Thanks and I see your point. I presume this stretches to woman without it being stated. I don't really buy the "attenuation of the trans person" argument, but common sense would suggest that if two persons are having to be mentioned almost so near together as to juxtapose then yes, "the man and the trans man" doesn't sound right, any more than "the club and the London club" (e.g. former being Manchester City FC and the latter being Tottenham Hotspur FC). --Coldtrack (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You can think of cis as similar to straight in terms of classifying a group that previously thought of themselves as "normal". There are some people who still think of the world as divided into normal and perverts. They don't like being told what they thought of as "normal" was just a sub-group of "normal" which is divided into as "cis" or "trans" or "straight" or "gay". The objection to the term "cis" is a shibboleth for being transphobic in the same way as thirty/forty years ago, the objection to being classified as "straight" was a shibboleth for being homophobic. -- Colin°^Talk 22:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No it's not Colin. You can make plain references to one as "male" and not be transphobic. Transphobia begins when a person deadnames a transitioned person, old name and former pronouns. In most of the world's communities, people who came into being as a "he" and have been accepted a "she" have no further quibbles. Hereinafter, you don't get to impose sweeping changes on the rest of society, nor tell them what "phobia" they have for their blameless inertia. At the moment, my home country Ukraine is all over the news and I see my national flag raised outside every town hall in this country (Britain) and our people (chiefly because the west is ignorant just how many Ukrainians are pro-Russia and anti-west, and how many more are pro-neutrality and neither pro- nor anti- anything) are praised as heroes. I question whether the people will still be as well liked when it emerges how influenced they are by Christian values, be that catholic or orthodox. Don't worry about me. My parents are retired Soviet diplomats and we are as atheist as you can get. That said, my parents find the trans- world repulsive, though I have at least two friends in this world who transitioned (male to female in both cases; I have only known them as transwomen). But the indications I am getting (not just here but elsewhere) is that once again, a group of people driven by an agenda are seeking to appropriate Wikipedia as a springboard to hopefully impose their values onto wider society. No person to have edited on this thread is transphobic. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

? -- Colin°^Talk 23:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh and to be clear, that was a rhetorical "?" -- Colin°^Talk 23:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Support per everyone here. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support Claiming an administrator, at the administrator noticeboard, who has never edited the article or talk page that this dispute has spilled over from as being called in to brigade a topic you're obviously personally invested in is a personal attack. To then say You're using your trans status as a reason why you and your opinions should be given extra weight in a non-trans related topic. is an egregious personal attack targeted against the characteristic of an editor. Add this to the accusations of lying against Newimpartial and the blatant attempt to discourage Newimpartial from contributing to the underlying article and its talk page (see my diffs above), this is very much a civility problem on-top of otherwise problematic contributions to a discretionary sanctions topic area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: indefinite block

• In the end, InverseZebra has made 97 edits here, with a total of zero edits to mainspace. Therefore, they have made zero contribution to the encyclopedia, whilst their talkpage and Wikipedia edits have simply been arguing (and therefore, wasting the time of those who are required to answer and refute their arguments). What is indisputable, therefore, is that they are a net negative to Wikipedia, and I suggest an indef block is the only way forward here. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree 100%. I respect those proposing a topic ban for holding out an olive branch but I can't see any chance of that going well given that InverseZebra has also edited on other contentious topics in a non-constructive manner. If they are forced to drop this stick then they are very likely to just pick up another one and start annoying some other people. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree. InverseZebra's behavior in this thread seems to spring from a type of heated defensiveness that would perhaps merit a short block but ultimately be forgivable for an editor who regularly contributes quality content. However, just editing talk pages on hot button topics without even intending to contribute disinterested content is almost always going to end up being disruptive. It's a type of WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW, even if InverseZebra's doesn't realize that and is probably acting in good faith. Yes WP sometimes is biased, but this cannot be solved by 'fighting' or 'correcting' the bias, it can only be solved by attracting and keeping onboard knowledgeable disinterested editors who (re)write content from a non-ideological perspective. InverseZebra's interests are therefore the opposite of what we need around here. I support indef and would also recommend making a TBAN on gender a requirement for unblocking. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support indef block as an obvious WP:NOTHERE. They are not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to tell us all how wrong we are to call people the gender they "claim" to be. They have gone from talk page to talk page starting disputes about transgender people, mostly falling on the side of "trans men aren't men" etc. I see no way in which they contribute to the building of an encyclopedia. They have had multiple chances to change course on that, as evidenced on their very long and heavily dispute-ridden talk page. Indef as a community consensus, absolutely.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as I don't see any evidence they've ever made a genuinely good edit. Furthermore, their problematic edits go beyond just POV-pushing in a particular topic area and into personal attacks against trans users. Loki (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support this per my comment below. Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Under my own undertaking, I've blocked InverseZebra as WP:NOTHERE to edit Wikipedia. I would have done this earlier today seeing their edits, however I wasn't home to do so. They are clearly here to fight a battle, and quite bluntly, we don't need that kind of editor here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Still leaving this here even with the above action taken. The editor is just not here to actually build an encyclopedia or do anything constructive. Their every talk page edit in the past two years has showcased that. Silverseren^C 22:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Per Loki. Their problems extend further than transphobia into medical disinformation generally. -- Colin°^Talk 22:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Significant net negative to Wikipedia due to behavior: treating editing as a battleground.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support because of InverseZebra being an obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Propose Indefinite Topic Ban

• I propose that InverseZebra be indefinitely TBanned from all GENSEX related pages and discussions broadly construed. Their history strongly suggests someone with a WP:AGENDA that makes it difficult for them to contribute constructively on pages related to this issue. I would permit them to appeal the TBan after one year with the understanding that they will be expected to demonstrate a record of constructive contributions to the project and a grasp of our policies and guidelines relating to controversial subjects. I Oppose a block as being unnecessary based on their history at the present time. Where sanctions are concerned, we typically start with the least restrictive action required to prevent further disruption. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I would add to my above, that some of IZ's commentary and behavior in this discussion has influenced me in favor of this. There is no rule that says sources can't be questioned and terms of reference challenged. But the tone and tenor of their commentary here coupled with the dearth of any activity outside of this subject area combines to make me think the community would be better served by their concentrating their efforts in some other area of the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  IZ has been blocked indefinitely, rendering this discussion moot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis that a topic ban implies someone is at least potentially capable of editing constructively. IZ has shown that they are unable to collaborate with trans editors, who are a significant portion of our editorship, and do most of our work outside the GENSEX topic area. Also, @Ad Orientem, if you do want a topic ban, why not just impose it yourself? They're DS-aware. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I am WP:INVOLVED in this discussion to a degree I don't believe I should be acting as an admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment. I'd just like to remind everybody that, in addition to the trans related stuff, IZ has edited supporting content advancing COVID conspiracy theories and racial theories of Jewish intelligence. (Diffs above, way above.) There are very good reasons to doubt that they can edit constructively on any topic. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support I explained above why I believe an indefinite block to be more appropriate. However, a TBAN on top may also be helpful, and would be a strict minimum in case there's no block. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support I have no doubt, based on their comments in this ANI thread and in their past talk page edits on non-GENSEX articles, that they will inevitably be back here at ANI anyways. However, since the user's primary disruptive focus is on GENSEX talk pages, I'm fine with this as the action taken for now. Silverseren^C 19:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but prefer indefinite block It’s clear that this person, regardless of their personal views, is, by their actions, harming Wikipedia’s mission. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support This is the absolute minimum we should be doing here, and thankfully it's an action that is not exclusive with an indefinite block. I agree with what Ad Orientem has said, that InverseZebra's contributions history strongly suggests someone who is here with an agenda strong enough that it makes constructive collaboration difficult to impossible. However I disagree that a straight topic ban from only GENSEX will prevent further disruption. As evidenced above, IZ has attacked another editor for an innate and in many jurisdictions a protected characteristic. And as DanielRigal has stated, there is also problematic contributions in two other discretionary sanctions topic areas (WP:ARBCOVID and WP:ARBR&I) that display the same pattern of accusing other editors of gaming how we define reliable sources ([151]), and attacking editors who they disagree with ([152]). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support as 2nd choice, 1st choice for indef, as users' transphobic commentary renders them unfit for contributing here in any capacity. Zaathras (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I've filed WP:AE requests against InverseZebra, as well as TheTranarchist and Newimpartial. RAN1 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Why? We're already discussing a TBAN and possible indef for InverseZebra. No editor who has contributed to this discussion thus far has pointed out any issues with either Newimpartial or TheTranarchist's contributions in response to the disruption from InverseZebra. So why have you filed three AE cases? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  That seems like a really dumb decision on multiple levels and a waste of everyone's time? Silverseren^C 22:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree, hence the filings. RAN1 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  RAN1, I don't know who you are, but I think what you did was foolish and may boomerang on you. I suggest you retract those AE cases and stop wasting everyone's time. -- Colin°^Talk 22:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Colin: "I don't know who you are". What's that supposed to mean? None of us know who anyone else is here (generally). What are you getting at? Is that WP:ASPERSION? DeCausa (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  I am declaring that I have absolutely no prejudice towards this editor and somehow you think that is casting aspersions. I don't mean "who you are" in real life. I mean "who you are" on Wikipedia. Are you a jerk? Are you a wise owl? Are you pro-trans or anti-trans? Are you obsessed with railway stations? That's what I mean. I have never, as far as I know, interacted with this editor. DeCausa, when you display such great ignorance as you just have, it is usually wise to keep it to yourself, rather than make a fuss about it. -- Colin°^Talk 23:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, right. Great "ignorance" of what? You made a rather dumb comment and you get called on it. Don't lash out with a WP:PA because of that. DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Unambiguous support - Overall support indef block, but a TBAN is a good start to prevent disruption here. This user has been nothing but trouble in this space since it started, now reading back through the interactions I have had with them (very limited, but see their talk page re: Rachel Levine), they have been WP:NOTHERE from the beginning. It seems their axe to grind is to make sure we all know that trans people aren't really the gender they say they are, and we are all wrong. This user is here to grind some axes and go on some crusades, from each and all appearances.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support as lesser alternative to siteban. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban and support indef block. Notice how all of their edits have been comments on talk pages and user talk pages? A topic ban doesn't seem enough and this appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE; we don't need users giving random analyses. (I mean yeah, if you can add the topic ban to the site ban, then I support it, but it's still a case of NOTHERE) Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to siteban: I think that they definitely are disruptive in the GENSEX topic area, but that their problematic edits extend further than that, and also that they don't seem to make clearly good edits ever. Loki (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to siteban per Loki. Their problems extend further than transphobia into medical disinformation generally. -- Colin°^Talk 22:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support - In addition to siteban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Since they're clearly speedrunning the All DS% category topic-banning is completely and utterly pointless as they'll just go to a different topic area that has a tangential connexion to their main points of interest and throw rhetorical grenades into discussions there. We emphatically do not need to be giving cranks who're only here to rile people up the benefit of the doubt. 86 the blackguard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

CLCStudent (for the 10,000th time)

98.46.108.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Showed up shortly after 98.46.108.229 was blocked by Blablubbs. Given it is on the same /24 and the editing pattern is identical, I'm calling this a DUCK. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that whole /16 is him going back to the start of October, beginning in earnest on Oct. 25. Gave it 2 weeks for now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

They're still editing? I thought they were blocked. Does WP:3X apply to IP sockpuppetry? — Nythar (💬-🎃) 16:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

It does not, although he's CUblocked, so it's not like an individual admin can unblock regardless. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy

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

---

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy. NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Please note that, in accordance with a discussion that resulted in TCG being sanctioned, editors encountering potential TCG socks are required to log their suspicions both here and at SPI. Therefore, I am leaving this comment here to alert ANI to that discussion. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I have inquired with the sanctioning admin at SPI as to whether this was his intention. It does seem correct from a plain reading of the sanction, but also seems beyond the scope of what a sanction can impose, and thus I would tend to see it as unenforceable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I agree that any sanction saying that editors encountering an issue are required to report it is unreasonable. We can't require editors to do anything. We can forbid editors from doing things that shouldn't be done. We can request and encourage editors to report suspected sockpuppetry, or any other offense. That particular instruction is too strongly written. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

There's probably a lot of history here that I'm not up to speed on, but two things are obvious. First, I don't understand the "You are invited to join the discussion" statement. SPI is not a general discussion forum, and let's not try to turn it into one. Second, you can't require people to report suspicions. If they don't, then what? They're guilty of heresy by omission? TomStar81 I assume you had good intentions with your close, but I think you might want to publish an amendment deleting the "requirement to report" clause. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'd imagine the intention is to ask that editors report socks to the SPI page in addition to reporting them here if they so choose. i.e. A dual-listing of sorts. The grammar of the restriction isn't very clear. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Propose topic ban for User:Beyond My Ken on article Irvington, New York

Please review Talk:Irvington, New York as well as the revert history of User:Beyond My Ken on this article. This user has been creating a WP:BATTLEGROUND over this article for years. I propose this user be topic-banned from the article for a period of a year so other editors can make needed improvements. Skyerise (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• I think you are trying to win an argument over the word "affluent". Drmies (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Apparently starting an RfC over a disputed word is now a cause for being topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• You think wrong, that's somebody else's battle which I am using as an second example of unnecessarily obstructive editing. This first involves the discussion of applying MoS formatting to the unsightly list section, also thoroughly discussed on the talk page by multiple editors, all of whom were reverted by the user. I suggest responders really read through the talk page and really count the reverts by the user. The evidence in quite clear if you take the time to look at it, so I don't feel any need to further argue this case. Skyerise (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note ANI report filed by Skyerise in January 2022, closed by Black Kite with "Well, that was a waste of everyone's time." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Logical fallacy 1: smear the messenger.
• Logical fallacy 2: this case is the same as a previous case. Skyerise (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Having read the article talk page, I don't see a case either for a topic-ban or an interaction ban, but the next time the OP throws the boomerang, an I-ban might be worth considering, but not a T-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The OP is the one engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - making regular edits is no reason for a topic ban. MiasmaEternal☎ 02:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - All I see happening is an extremely low-level dispute over a single word, that is in the slow but decisive process of being settled via an RfC that BMK started. It seems disingenuous to assert that deleting sources for the word is unrelated to the RfC and uncontentious, and your doing so (prompting a revert and this report) gives the appearance of provocation or baiting. There is nothing wrong with an editor having an ongoing interest in an article they wrote, and BMK appears to be willing to engage in discussion and dispute resolution. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Can't think of a policy based reason to sanction BMK. -Roxy the dog 17:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As MiasmaEternal noted: making regular edits is no reason for a topic ban. The OP request is far to broad, expecting everyone else to do the work. If you're going to claim WP:BATTLEGROUND, then show actual examples of a pattern (in other words, a little more effort than "go look at the edit history yourself"). ButlerBlog (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The editor appears to be strongly opinionated on a particular content matter, but they're acting in good faith through ordinary dispute resolution processes. I don't see any recent evidence of edit warring presented here and I don't think a TBAN is warranted for a user who is communicating on the talk page in good faith to explain the rationales for their edits and to attempt to build consensus around it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all I'm seeing is a passionate content disagreement that does not merit sanctions of any kind. As a side note to the OP, please don't ask us to make your case for you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Lack of competence from SpyridisioAnnis

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

---

Based on User:SpyridisioAnnis's talk page and contributions, they have not understood attempts to communicate with them, not have they shown particular proficiency in English. They have repeatedly tried to respond to WP:AFCRC requests incorrectly, and I can see this has happened at WP:AFC as well. Competence is required.

I'm not familiar with this area, nor with what kind of response this warrants. I'm posting here because it seems likely this user will continue this pattern of editing. — Qwerfjkltalk 01:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a sign that I need to fix something... SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: Please post WP:DIFFs (which are required) per the edit notice. You may also wish to be more considerate of others requiring assistance with Wikipedia processes if you yourself are having trouble following the rules for ANI. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chess, sorry, I seem to have a case of banner blindness.
On reflection, I think it would be better to discuss any issues on the user's talkpage. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Defamatory content at Carla Esparza

Mostly slang, but enough to merit rev/deletion as sexual innuendo. Please block the IP, too, of course. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Done and user blocked by Kinu. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Semiprotection might be a good idea, in case the unregistered editor comes in via a different carrier. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Qasimisa222's account compromised

Discussion at User talk:Qasimisa222#November 2022 suggests that the editor's account is compromised, with "many people" having access to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Well it looks like they’re not saying their account is “compromised”, but they left it logged in on their computer that is used by other people. That’s a problem and they need to take steps to ensure it never happens again, but not a “compromised account” per se. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest that the user be blocked for allowing vandalism. When the user says, in an unblock request, that they have learned that they should logout whenever they step away from the shared computer, they can be unblocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not a compromised account, but the principle is similar and the admin action is similar. The user has negligently allowed little brothers to use their account. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, a block would be justified until the user has provided assurances that they have resolved the issue. If the user is “away”, we have no guarantee that the account will not be accessed maliciously again at any given time. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 11:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as per WP:COMPROMISED. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Yamla: I hesitate to comment on this in case I'm overlooking something, but it doesn't appear that the editor has actually been blocked? The block notice was placed but their contributions page doesn't show the blocked banner and their block log is empty. - Aoidh (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Easily done (I've done it a few times). Blocked now. Black Kite (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeesh. Thanks, Aoidh and Black Kite. :) --Yamla (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Sonny mcbullshit

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

---

Indef please: by username and by 100% of their four edits, Sonny mcbullshit (talk · contribs) is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Persistent unsourced changes by Rayane 77

Rayane 77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite the two warnings I have issued, this editor has kept changing or adding content, and never provides any sources to back up their changes. Examples: [153], [154], [155], [156], etc. All of their edits, basically. Even though this is the English-language Wikipedia, sometimes they edit in French for some reason: [157]. Since they have never communicated with other editors, nor tried to change their behaviour, I think it's time to block them in order to prevent more disruption, and maybe get them to finally communicate. BilletsMauves^€500 10:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Cumulonimbus and well beyond

Please see edit history by Unar64P (talk · contribs). Discussion and warnings have thus far been fruitless. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Add trolling of other editors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • See also El Cubano 153 (talk · contribs) for similar interwoven edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • ? See the Spanish Wikipedia, in the forms, El Cubano 153 (talk · contribs) 13. Nov 2022
    • El Cubano 153, what is your connection to Unar64P (talk · contribs), as at [158] as well as Cumulonimbus? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    • What we see on Spanish Wikipedia is that es:Cumulonimbus does not include the malformatted images which you added to the English article at Cumulonimbus#Cloud types. We also see that the users Unar64P and El Cubano 153 are both indefinitely blocked there. I'm not sure, therefore, why you wish us to look there. - David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, I'm pinging you because you gave the user a level 3 warning ten days ago, and a cascade of final warnings have gone unheeded since. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That warning was from 2022–23 European windstorm season article where both of them keeps reverting a track map that did not meet Wikipedia Standards. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 15:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• • It a large history, i'am me no blocked, all ocurred on Spanish Wikipedia El Cubano 153 (talk · contribs) 13 Nov. 2022 10:50 Ch
    • Don't know what's going on here [159]. Please block both. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• I started looking at this but have run out of time today. Looking into their edits, I think the IP is correct: these two accounts are both blocked on es.wiki, both have such bad english skills that they are mostly unintelligible in english, both have edit-warred, and I'd bet $50 they're sock or meat puppets. An admin with more time can determine whether this is already enough disruption for indef blocks, or if an SPI needs to be opened to attack it from that direction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Good idea: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/El Cubano 153.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Noting that Drmies has CU-blocked them indefinitely per the above SPI, which confirmed a connection. Thank you, Good Doctor. Heads up: this person's disruption has spread to Commons as well, uploading fictitious track maps to support the user's fictitious writings in their userpsace. I'll try to file a bulk deletion request over there, but I'm crunched for time and may not have enough to finish, so I wanted to make sure more editors here were aware of the uploads. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 22:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
      • Dylan620, I'm not well-versed in Commons lore, so good luck with it. Imaginary weather? I'm marking myself safe from Sharpiegate. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just posted: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/El Cubano 153 uploads --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 22:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by way of RfPP (permalink). Sorry, have not reviewed the above at that time, so anyone should feel free to adjust the block as they see fit. Thanks. El_C 18:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for tracking down these threads. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Attacks on my talk page.

• • (I can't notify the IP users noted below because they don't have talk pages.)

IP users 106.69.121.63 and 110.174.9.234 have posted the same snide, mean-spirited message on my talk page, 106.69.121.63 on 11-12-22 and 110.174.9.234 on 11-22-22. Their posts said: 'Hi, have you seen all the comments about everyone who misses you at ITN? Yeah, me neither." It seems obvious that some user is trying to harass me, and possibly vandalize my pages, due to the partial block imposed on me on 10-26-22, blocking me from ITN/C – which I appealed twice, to no avail.
Furthermore, on 11-13-22 I received an Alert stating: "There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password." – Sca (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• They do have talk pages, but there's no need. I've semi-protected your talk page for 2 weeks. Don't worry about the failed login attempts; as long as you have a good password, it's nothing to worry about. It's another way of pestering people that we can't really do anything about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  Also, if you do have a good passwrod, you can turn off those noticiations by going to preferences --> notifications --> failed login attempts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  Tell us your password and we'll let you know whether it's strong enough. EEng 04:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  It's "PASSWORD1". Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  I thought "PASSWORD2" is more secure? To the others that are reading this, please do not use this as your password as it'll likely be cracked within 5 mins haha. Dulcetia  ^🗩  12:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Violent user pages in violation of previous ANI

Years ago, a pro-Hezbollah userbox was repeatedly deleted as WP:POLEMIC content that endorsed violence, and admin User:Sandstein confirmed that its removal would be enforced. In the resulting ANI dispute, User:eleland created a WP:POINT variant of the userbox. It seems that this has slid under the radar after the discussion was closed as stale. There are several pages that continue to use this box or variants of it despite consensus being against it. I would nominate it for deletion as a clear violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but it seems that these users are substituting the wikitext directly onto their userpages in an attempt to evade detection. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to notify all those editors about that discussion? a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 18:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The subliminal yellow/green Hezbollah colour scheme in many of the user boxes is certainly concerning. Per WP:NONAZIS, we don't generally tolerate support for organizations that engage in Holocaust denial. Ideology of Hezbollah#Jews and Judaism shows plenty of antisemitic remarks. Even setting aside this, we're talking about an organization that's been recognized by many countries and the vast majority of academics as a terrorist group.

I've seen this userbox before and I'm disheartened to learn the organization that it really represents. A fair compromise that would reduce the drama levels significantly would be a neutral colour scheme, especially one without images labelled as "Homeland security". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

One point - the discussion linked above was in 2008, but in 2015 the page User:Nableezy (which contained the same single userbox as it does now) was nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Nableezy) and overwhelmingly kept. Unless I'm missing something, this appears to be the latest discussion on the issue. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

After reading through that, the existence of this userbox is significantly worse. It appears that the nominator in 2015, User:Sir Joseph, was unaware or did not make explicit that this userbox was part of a past issue and associated with Hezbollah specifically. It also seems that the subject of the deletion discussion, User:Nableezy, was deceptive about the nature of the userbox, denying its associations with Hezbollah and insisting innocence because it didn't explicitly say the word "Hezbollah". This is a textbook example of a dog whistle. The level of effort to insert extremist dogwhistles like this on Wikipedia is deeply concerning, and I worry it may be indicative of a larger problem on how Wikipedia addresses these issues. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a strong consensus to keep makes it significantly worse that it was kept. That makes perfect sense. The userbox is criticizing Wikipedia for allowing statements of support for one party to conflict and disallowing statements of support for another party. Your view on the validity of one of those parties is a personal problem. Your calling me being deceptive however is a straightforward violation of WP:NPA, and Id welcome an admin doing something about it. I havent exactly hidden my views, and calling me deceptive because you fail to understand the meaning of a userbox is so far the one thing worthy of ANI in this section. nableezy - 23:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The very discussion linked from 2008 found no such consensus against a box that named no parties. It did not slide under the radar, and that is a misleading statement. It is discussed at the section Note. Thanks again for proving the point of the userbox, that Wikipedia's systemic bias is alive and well. nableezy - 23:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• No beating around the bush. Just like blue is Crips, yellow and green is Hezbollah. The box is 100% obvious Hezbollah with its green and yellow. Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organization, implicit support for a terrorist organization is probably against Wikipedia's terms of use. Policy has moved on since 2008, WP:NONAZIS was written in 2018. A few months ago I was harassed (like including rape threats) by Lebanese IP addresses and accounts named after Hezbollah torture expert Aziz al-Abub and commander Khalid Bazzi. Editors shouldn't be allowed to fly banners suggesting support of Hezbollah. PrisonerB (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:The World Tomorrow (radio and television)

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

---

• DRUnfiltered (talk · contribs)
• The World Tomorrow (radio and television) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Criminal harassment and civil filings are being contemplated if your behavior continues, but we believe that is exactly what you want - attention drawn to yourself."

For anyone who wants context, the "behavior" at question is me undoing this user's (and some IPs who pass the "this user" duck test) refactoring of other people's talk page messages in order to remove internal Wikipedia links. I've even tried giving the user advice about where he can go to address problems with the content being linked to. For some reason, this user is equating these restorations to me harassing.... someone, I'm not even sure who it is I'm supposed to be harassing (he has been described variously in edit summaries as a major celebrity and a non-noteworthy individual.) But restoring refactored talk page comments is well within my long history as an editor here, and is being done for no reason beyond that that is what one is supposed to do. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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

• Related, I've reverted this edit (which reverted back to a 2017 version) done by what seems to be a connected IP (as they also harassed Nat on the talk page and @Barek: before semi-protection was added) from a month back. Nate • (chatter) 00:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• Hasn't this World of Tomorrow nonsense been a chronic problem for years -- something about copyrights on the title cards (whatever a title card is)? EEng 04:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Compromised account?

See [160]. If the password is genuine (I've not tried it, obviously), the account is irretrievably compromised, and will need blocking. I thought about asking for a rev-del, but realised that doing so would be pointless, since the password has already been disclosed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The account has been globally locked by a Steward for account compromise. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Hanfu

• 175.213.48.82 (talk · contribs)
• 175.123.117.133 (talk · contribs)

Edit warring to add copyright violation content that has little to do with the subject. Requesting user or range block, page protection and rev/deletion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:RW abuse

I discovered that a subsection of Question Hour was sourced to a blog, which by the way isn't live anymore, so it can't be seen to be written by a competent authority. WP:ELNO prohibits blogs even as external links, and they're clearly not reliable sources, so I removed the subsection with an edit summary, The whole subsection is sourced to a blog, and yet I was WP:RW reverted on the grounds of Unexplained content removal. I removed the content again, warned the editor, and was promptly reverted by a second editor. Would an administrator please remove these users' WP:RW rights and ensure that this article comply with WP:ELNO? WP:RW says But if you do not use an appropriate edit summary in your rollback reason, you risk losing your rollback permissions. Clearly these users are using this tool recklessly, because anyone who's paying attention will see that I'm explaining myself with a policy-based reason, and the rollbackers are violating policy. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute, admins do not settle content disputes. Perhaps you should wait to hear from the other users on their talk pages before hauling them here and demanding their tools be stripped for one instance. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s not a content dispute: 175 was reverted, twice, with blatantly inaccurate edit summaries. That’s extremely obnoxious. The two editors who reverted should certainly apologize, and should commit to doing a less bad job in the future. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I've already replied to you in my talk page but I also need to bring this matter up. You said and I quote, "Let's try that once more. The whole subsection is sourced to a blog, which isn't even permitted in external links, WP:ELNO. The first two rollbackers are now the subject of an ANI thread, and if you revert this edit, you will join them". Why do you feel the need to blatantly threaten to add another user to the ANI instead of just discussing it on the talk page? You're assuming that we're doing this in bad faith when it could've just been an honest mistake. Dulcetia  ^🗩  11:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Instead of defensive whining you should apologize for screwing up, and make sure to do better going forward. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I admit that I've made a mistake in reverting the edit and I'm not denying it or trying to hide it but they also could've found a better source for it instead of threatening to report anyone that disagreed with them to ANI. Wikipedia is a wiki after all, if you can improve it by adding better source instead of deleting a passage, you definitely should do the former instead of the latter. Dulcetia  ^🗩  11:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• FYI: I replaced the Question Hour content removed by the anon, replacing the blog with two mainstream sources, one being the NYT here Cheers Adakiko (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks! Dulcetia  ^🗩  11:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)