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

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: [1]. 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 [2] 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 [3], 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 [4], 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)
• Support I have also previously had issues with this user's articles and have even used AWB to correct basic but widepread grammatical problems. The sentence structure in them is often so poor it is simply too much work to rewrite. Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 15 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)

Honestly, state senators probably pass GNG if you actually check the right newspaper archives and publications of the state bodies. But they probably aren't worth much more than a stub in most cases. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 17:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Adam Cuerden: there are WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline, shortcut WP:RUD) problems here. A possible fix is to restore the deleted revisions (which includes usernames) and revision delete (RD1 criterion) their text. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to throw in my two cents. I have stubbed about 50 previously deleted Billy Hathorn articles, generally retrieving from the deleted edit history infobox content, templates and categories, and some text and citations, particulary where such content was entirely added by later editors. I have done this particularly with respect to articles that I felt needed to be restored to fill real coverage gaps. I see no problem whatsoever with creating these articles, as the rationale for their deletion was never about the subjects being unsuitable for coverage, and only ever about copyvio matters. BD2412 T 13:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! As an admin, you can see the deleted edits; MATF hasn't had that option so presumably (usually) works from single versions preserved off-wiki. I had the impression, though, that there were other concerns, too, including notability (and I wonder whether that's the source of the less than impressive sourcing). Who would we ask who's still active and familiar with the Billy Hathorn case? The community ban case was mostly about his socking. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, I am (or was) moderately familiar with Hathorn and his MO. Participants in this discussion in 2015, which it seems I started, include most of the "copyright admins" active at that time, most of whom are still around, and most or all of whom know more about him than I do. As I recall, the concerns were indeed not only about the copyvios and how the socking made them harder to trace, but also about notability; I also recall sourcing problems such as extensive use of those pay-to-publish 'obituaries' written by family or friends. Note to Adam Cuerden: the articles aren't exactly a bunch of articles he ruined – the pages that are being laboriously worked through at WP:CP a handful at a time are pages that he created. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There may be some notability issues, but the ones I have restored have specifically been to fill redlinked gaps—one was a federal judge, another an attorney general of the state, some others were state supreme court justices. BD2412 T 22:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That sounds great, and you've clearly been carefully choosing which ones to recreate. You've even been prioritizing material other editors added. But MATF can't see who added what for the articles that have already been deleted, and doesn't appear to be so discerning. It's possible that I'm misremembering the discussions about Billy Hathorn, or that consensus has shifted, since Premeditated Chaos says that state legislators pass notability. But if I'm not, indiscriminate recreation of Billy Hathorn articles is a problem beyond the copyvio problems and the problems of English and accuracy highlighted above, and an additional reason to set these articles aside for specific scrutiny. (A couple of us just worked on Kenneth Nix. Even though this is another Republican, he was chief justice of the state superior court as well as having served in the state senate for 10 years. Undoubtedly notable, and I found no evidence of a deleted article. However, despite MATF having access to newspapers.com, I found the article similarly shallowly referenced, with no news coverage of any of the elections and missing not only all obituaries other than legacy.com (there are at least 2), but quite a big story of how his career ended. Which unfortunately was the only stage of that career that newspaper archives I was able to see have preserved. Anyone who's going to work on these state pols, especially if Billy Hathorn originally cranked out an article, which will be heavily dependent on a couple of sources, really needs to be able to beat the bushes and willing to take the time to do so.) Yngvadottir (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, thanks for weighing in on the history. That's the one discussion I turned up. I've seen the reliance on family-provided obituaries at Legacy.com plus state database entries in MusicandTelevisionFan's articles, and at both Kenneth Osterberger (resuscitated article) and Kenneth Nix (no evidence I can find of a previous Wikipedia article), the same newspaper had an obituary of its own. That's part of what I mean about MATF working too fast (as Billy Hathorn did, IIRC) or not being very skilled at digging out and using newspaper archive sources for marginally notable figures where there is not likely to be another extended biography sitting there at the top of the internet search results. Even if consensus has changed about state politicians, it looks as if MATF is just following Hathorn's shallow process. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what the final outcome of this discussion will be, but one thing I'm sure of: MATF should not work on copyvio matters, much less CCI rewrites, without showing a much better understanding of the problem of close paraphrasing. The active partial block from mainspace doesn't prevent this, as rewrites are (curiously) done in talk-space. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not super familiar with the Hathorn back story, but while writing Rubel Phillips I get the impression that his first write of that article was essentially a copyvio of himself from an article he (probably) wrote in a history journal I consulted. Hathorn now apparently edits on Conservapedia. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I spent a fair amount of time in 2016 tracking and blocking new Billy Hathorn socks. As others have noted, sourcing was frequently deceptive (i.e., sources only backed a small portion of the material added) and the bar for notability was quite low (mayors of very small towns in Louisiana, unelected candidates in the southern United States, ranchers, etc). I'd strongly support imposing a wider prohibition of the systematic recreation of those articles. I see no issues with BD2412's judicious recreations based on redlinks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

In view of more recent articles like Kenneth Nix, with no discernible Billy Hathorn antecedents but very similar at creation to those MusicandTelevisionFan has recreated from Hathorn's work, I think MATF needs to stop creating biographies. Whether they're getting the article topics from a list somewhere or are just using Hathorn articles as a model, they evidently aren't capable of writing good enough prose without either over-close paraphrasing or inaccuracies, and are replicating Hathorn's shallow research and to some extent his skewed view of notability. Whereas the non-biography articles they previously wrote, while stubs, were of acceptable quality; remember, experienced editors recommended them for autopatrol based on that earlier work. They haven't edited since their response to my saying that on their talk page on the 14th. But I want to emphasize on their behalf that it's the biographies that have raised questions and require examination and clean-up work. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:47, 18 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.

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 ([5], [6], [7]), 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 [8]. 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)

I have repeatedly addressed your concerns on WP:Talk regarding WP:Melbourne. Posted NPOV, NOR, sourced sentences with the addition that anyone should feel free to alter the wording if it was not to their liking (=consensus by default, unless LonelyPlanet/TourismAustralia are censored sources). Simulaun (talk) 02:51, 17 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)

I asked you for input regarding contributions to WP in July of 2022. Still no reply. Simulaun (talk) 02:45, 17 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)

How is adding information from LonelyPlanet/TourismAustralia 'deletionist'? Also, you appear to be saying that adding quotes from Aboriginal Elders is 'entirely negative' and/or 'bad faith vandalism'? When you say 'a nuissance' do you perhaps mean 'inconvenient truth'? Simulaun (talk) 02:43, 17 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)

I was asked to add a legal reference, which I did. Simulaun (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding in the claim that “Such unoccupied land meets the definition of Terra Nullius (as defined by Emerich de Vattel)" is not providing a reference for the claim - it is the perfect example of 'original research' as you are applying that label to Rottnest without any reliable source backing it up. You would need a source that actually says that Rottnest specifically was classified as Terra Nullius - particularly considering the High Court overturned that concept applying in Australia. The Logical Positivist (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that the sentence in question can be construed as OR. I thought it might be acceptable, however, as it is used in a similar manner on another WP page. Simulaun (talk) 03:24, 19 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)

How is deletion of an apparent error SYNTH or unsourced? Also, as you pointed out, multiple editors have sought to correct this apparent nipaluna error, so why are you deleting willy-nilly without discussion or consent? Simulaun (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There has been discussion. Extensively. See the discussion on WikiProject Australia. JTdale 🗩 10:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I have followed some of the discussion. It is not clear to me what the outcome was, but I had the impression that the consensus was dual-naming OK for New Zealand, not OK for Australia. Please let me know if that is incorrect. Simulaun (talk) 03:34, 19 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)

  Noted (response has been shortened and use of 'username:simulaun' (meant for clarity) is no longer used). Simulaun (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Racism against Indigenous Australians, IDHT, and deficient responses at ANI; sounds familiar. Support TBAN from anything related to Australia and indigenous people. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

  I wanna point out that Simulaun has attempted to remove the Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung text from mellohi!'s signature just now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that Simulaun has escalated to vandalising my signature due to it having non-English text is 100% unacceptable. Thanks for whoever reverted that. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies. I assumed it was a (additional) criticism or insult aimed at me in a foreign language. On a side note, if mellohi! is your signature, what are the text before and the symbol(s) after your signature? Simulaun (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  投稿 means contributions, and links to their contributions page. It is very clearly part of their signature. Also editing other people's comments is only allowed in extreme circumstances, see WP:TPO. Further more, I'd probably you know, check instead of just assume all words in languages other than english are insults. This may be English wikipedia but many users here are multilingual and use the same signatures across multiple projects. JTdale 🗩 10:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Frankly this sort of behavior just gives more credence to support a TBAN or even a CBAN from the project, as this user appears to have no tolerance towards non-English languages and attempts to remove them whenever possible, which paints an extremely problematic picture and makes me question their intentions on the Wiki beyond pushing their agenda. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  It was more the exclamation mark at the end that appeared to indicate it was a statement of sorts (as in 'Fxck!)

  In regard to non-English, Wikipedia's Manual of Style states that Wikipedia articles ought to be written in plain English. My misunderstanding regarding 'Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung etc.' underscores the relevance of this WP rule.

  You appear to be saying that there is a hidden agenda in a near cut-and-paste of LonelyPlanet/TourismAustralia. Please explain.

  Lastly, you appear to be against links to a map of Eora, statements by an Aboriginal Elder, and dual-naming of Australian cities. Are you perhaps pushing some sort agenda?

  Simulaun (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

As outlined below, edits were consistently and/or extensively adjusted to take into account WP:talk feedback to reach consensus: 1) Referring to Rottnest Island and no inhabitation for 7000 years, added: “By the time of European exploration in the 1600s the island is thought to have been unoccupied for thousands of years, thus constituting a bona fide Terra Nullius by being uninhabited (terra nullius = unoccupied or uninhabited)”

This resulted in Undid revision 1082603292 “Terra Nullius was a legal principle and not purely a descriptor. A citation that says Rottnest is recognised as being such under law would be necessary to justify its inclusion in this article.”

To address the above objection, reposted: “Such unoccupied land meets the definition of Terra Nullius (as defined by Emerich de Vattel)”.

This resulted in Undid revision 1116596894 “This edit contravenes the WP:NOR policy.”

2) In regard to the word ‘Nipaluna’ for Hobart: Deleted its use as an alternative name for Hobart as “Not supported by official government dual-name records.”

This was reverted because “Persistent vandalism of this page to remove nipaluna by multiple editors. If you have any further debate about this, go to the talk page. It will not be removed without a consensus of editors.”

In light of this objection, started WP:Talk on 28 September: “It has come to my attention that the word 'nipaluna' refers to a location/region that differs greatly from the location of present-day Hobart. These two names (nipaluna and Hobart) should, therefore, not be used interchangeably. This error warrants being corrected. The WP:Hobart page states that "The city lies on country which (sic) was known by (sic) the local Mouheneener people as nipaluna, a name which (sic) includes surrounding features such as kunanyi/Mt. Wellington and timtumili minanya (River Derwent)". Nuennonne/Palawa kani: nipaluna is, therefore, not the same as the city Hobart and should hence not be presented as such (as is presently the case in the first sentence of the WP:Hobart page).

3) Referring to the etymology of the word ‘Narrm’ for Melbourne: (letters/words identical between the WP entry and the source have been capitalized. “Melbourne is sometimes called ‘NAaRM’ (or similar), which is a Boonwurrung word for an area comprising part of the GEOGRAPHICAL FOOTPRINT of present-day Melbourne. The process of introducing an indigenous NAMe for a CITy or urban area that DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO BRITISH COLONIZATION MEANS that An indigenous NAME HAs TO BE CHOSEN. TOURISM AUSTRALIA has selected the Boonwurrung name NARRM”. Source (LonelyPlanet, referring to Tourism Australia): “NAMing entire CITies, such as Sydney, which (sic) DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO BRITISH COLONIZATION as a single entity prior to BRITISH COLONIZATION, MEANS THAT A NAME HAd TO BE CHOSEN that doesn’t always represent the whole GEOGRAPHICAL FOOTPRINT.” (accompanied by a map generated by TOURISM AUSTRALIA and reproduced by the LonelyPlanet source indicating the dual name chosen is ‘Melbourne/NARRM’)

This does not appear to be WP:Synthesis (“combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source”).

and “The assignment of Aboriginal names to cities such as Melbourne has been questioned, however. For example, Wurundjeri elder Ian Hunter, who has been involved with Indigenous culture for 30 years, says he’s “never heard of it. It’s something some young people have come up with, I think. How do you have a name for something that doesn’t exist?” Source (3AW693Newstalk): “Under the plan, Melbourne would be given the dual name Naarm. But Wurundjeri elder Ian Hunter, who has been involved with Indigenous culture for 30 years, says he’s “never heard of it”. “It’s something some young people have come up with, I think. How do you have a name for something that doesn’t exist?”

This nearly copy and paste entry led to the following WP:TALK: @Simulaun: is adding content that has been disputed in this talk page, skipping the part about gaining consensus. I've undone their edits and returned the article to its status-quo. Feel free to explain your edits here. Also, a side note, your content made use of content from here -- almost word for word. —MelbourneStar☆talk 09:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The content in question has been discussed and there appears to be ample support (consensus?) on WP:Talk for its inclusion in the article. Furthermore, before reposting, I addressed the concerns raised by providing a broader perspective (from 'Lonelyplanet.com') and additional documentation of Ian Hunter's track record of involvement in Aboriginal culture (see below for more detail). So I am not sure why this information is being censored. Please specify/clarify what concerns remain unaddressed. Previous concerns aired on WP:Talk: Concern 1: The initial edit was considered on WP:Talk to 'probably be a good addition to the article, but it needs a source'. As stated in WP:Talk, the source is 3AW. Additional sources pertaining to the issue more generally, and the quoted individual, have now also been provided. Concern 2: By quoting someone, it was alleged on WP:Talk that the initial entry amounted to a single point of view. As pointed out on WP:Talk, this is not a particularly valid criticism. Moreover, this has now been addressed by presenting the topic more broadly ("The introduction of indigenous names...", as stated in reference by lonelyplanet.com) Concern 3; It was claimed that the quoted individual (Ian Hunter) is non-notable. Although this does not appear to be a valid or relevant criticism (e.g., not all quotes on WP need to be from well-known individuals), this concern has now been addressed by the addition of four additional references documenting significant exposure of this individual's views and activities on public news outlets. Concern 4: It was claimed that the quoted individual cannot have been an 'elder' for 30 years. Although this criticism also appears to lack validity or relevance (e.g., there can be a degree of variation in how one interprets 'being an elder for 30 years'), this concern has also been addressed as the four additional references attest to broad-based recognition of the quoted individual's involvement in Aboriginal culture and their apparent credentials as an Aboriginal 'elder' Simulaun (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Concern 1: an editor made that observation, we're all editors of equal standing. I'm just one editor who disagrees. (Problem with this criticism: disagrees about what?) Concern 2: it's still quoting one person's view (3AW article), you've just conflated it (see original research) to be about every city, even though this Wikipedia article is about one city - Melbourne. The lonelyplanet source is discussing Sydney -- not Melbourne. In fact, the source even clarifies that a name change "doesn’t always represent the whole geographical footprint". "Doesn't always" = suggests that not all cities encounter this issue, and Melbourne could be one of them, but we don't know that seeing as the source does not reference Melbourne. Also, your copy-and-paste of content from the loneyplanet source, without proper attribution, is a copyright violation. (Problems with this criticism: 1) most sources/citation are from a single person, 2) the source does reference Melbourne/Narrm) Concern 3: "Although this does not appear to be a valid or relevant criticism (e.g., not all quotes on WP need to be from well-known individuals)" - your opinion is not policy. Wikipedia policy can speak for itself, see WP:NOTWHOSWHO. I've brought up weight issues (specifically giving a false balance) that still stand (ie. if this person is so notable, why doesn't he have an article on Wikipedia?). Moreover, Wikipedia doesn't give undue weight to insignificant views; perhaps in passing, but a viewpoint and a quote? I don't think so. (Problem with this criticism: the source is an Aboriginal Elder who has been featured in numerous news productions) Concern 4: I don't disagree nor agree. I would reiterate that if this person's decades of knowledge are notable, then perhaps it's time he had an article on Wikipedia. —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC) (Problem with this criticism: Ian Stuart’s decades of knowledge are notable, as evidenced by the additional sources provided)

After about a month of no further comments/input for this discussion, reposted the above NPOV, NOR, and properly sourced from the LonelyPlanet source while fully omitting any reference to the contested quote(s) from Aboriginal Elder Ian Stuart. Also specified that other editors should feel free to change any words they objected to (=seeking consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simulaun (talk • contribs) 01:22, 17 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: [9]. 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)

I've blocked indefinitely for copyvio. Several of FF toho's comments made have been copy-paste of reddit comments; Samwalton9 caught one of them at RSN. No comment on the validity of applying GS/Uyghur here. --Izno (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that the user has been indeffed for an unrelated reason, might it be wise to close this discussion? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Ali banu sistani

Ali banu sistani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For too long have I hestitated to report this disruptive user. The last straw came today when I discovered they been bad-mouthing me a few days ago, when I haven't even been in contact with him since June 2022 (!). You'll see the diff for it down below. Back in 7 February 2021, an admin warned him to refrain from harrassing me [10]. I have also warned them on multiple occasions (eg [11] [12]). Looks like they haven't learned.

18 January 2021 why don't the Iranians call the legal right? This was the first time they communicated with me, referring to me as an "Iranian" rather by my username.

7 February 2021 [13] Created a section at WP:AN titled "Iranian provocateur on wikipedia", with the following message; " I don't understand why Iranian contributors roll back legal edits concerning Balochi? Chasing Balochi Articles and rolling back legal edits while making fake edits is complete vandalism by the Iranians!"

7 February 2021 why don't the Parrsi call the legal right? This time referring to me as "Parsi" (Persian).

7 February 2021 "There are alternative explanations for this: you get paid and you just do your job, guarding articles day and night that are in the interests of Persian nationalists. Do what you want, but do not break the rules of Wikipedia, do not spread such false information. your actions suggest that you just want to destroy Baloch history! don't do it please..."

7 February 2021 "pay attention to my answer Historyofiran I just ask them not to spread false information, please do not pass by."

2 April 2021 [14] Randomly reverted me in an area they never edit. In other words; more harrassment.

9 November 2022 "but basically it is the history of the Baloch people, who are not very respectful of the right on Wikipedia from Iran, sort of like a member of Historyofiran."

I think it's high time they learn the consequences of such bad behaviour. Don't even let me get started on their pov-pushing, such as recently here [15], when they tried to make the ludicrous claim that the "Baloch are the heirs of the Parthians." using a unverifiable obscure source (which is their usual go to). Or here, where they removed sourced info with no edit summary [16].

This user has (surprisingly) been here for four years, yet still don't know how to act even half decently. If I may so boldly say the only reason they haven't indeffed yet is because they edit in very obscure articles which are barely seen (let alone edited) by others. Anyhow, if they keep bothering me I will also include a list of their pov edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing so it doesn't archived. Imo, this is a pretty obvious case of WP:HARASSMENT, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Djbolkas

This user seems to have nothing constructive to offer, judging by their edits at 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup, 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup knockout stage and 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup Final. I have tried to improve those articles by bringing them more in line with the Manual of Style, as well as better reflecting the sources used in the articles. However, this user simply reverts with barely an edit summary (and when they do use edit summaries, they either mischaracterise my edits as vandalism or they use an incredibly unwarranted patronising tone). In six years editing Wikipedia, they have never contributed to an article talk page. Unless they start doing so, is it not fair to say they deserve a block for being unwilling to work collaboratively? – PeeJay 12:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

They also seem to be using an anonymous account (User:175.39.211.71) to avoid their reverts being picked up by 3RR. – PeeJay 12:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Note:PeeJay has not notified both editors of this discussion. It has been done. Sarrail (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I lost my internet connection where I was editing from, so I wasn’t able to do it immediately. – PeeJay 14:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the shoutout PeeJay, love your work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbolkas (talk • contribs) 03:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Edit summaries like this are obviously indicative of a very adversarial attitude when it comes to editing here. Users like this are clearly not welcome. – PeeJay 12:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The user in question has now set up another account just to leave antagonistic messages on my talk page (see here). Although the diff has been hidden by User:C.Fred, I’m sure they could corroborate what was said, and I have a copy of the email notification if necessary. Furthermore, the user seems to be revelling in the inaction of the admins in this situation, as exemplified by a message they left on their own talk page last night (see here). – PeeJay 05:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • At the moment I see a slow-motion edit war and neither side is clearly "right". You both need to take it to the talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

    If the other user had ever contributed to an article talk page in any meaningful way, I would agree. This is beyond ridiculous. – PeeJay 09:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Administrator's comment. There are two separate issues here. On the content side, there is the slow-motion edit war that Stifle mentioned. I don't immediately see anything bad faith in the content of the edits, and nothing is glaring in the edit summaries that I see on the first page of their edit history.

Then there is the conduct side. I don't see where Djbolkas has left a comment on an article talk page, ever. All their edits involving talk pages have been while making article moves. Their messages on their on talk page (e.g., [17] [18] [19] aren't quite uncivil, but they're just short of nonsensical. Clearly there is a refusal to collaborate by Djbolkas. I suggest that the next time Djbolkas makes an edit to one of the pages in question, they are given an unequivocal message at their talk page that they must discuss the edit, rather than continue to force it in. I'm willing to revert to the status quo ante version of the article and protect the article or partial block Djbolkas if necessary.

There is a further conduct issue with the allegation of sock puppetry. I did block Sheernests (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) yesterday. My assumption, based on a message of "lol [personal attack]. How’s it going trying to get me blocked?" is that this was block evasion: that's the hallmark of a blocked user back for more. However, in context, I can see that it's likely that Sheernests was a sockpuppet of Djbolkas. I'm debating whether a checkuser is in order here, but I'm leaning not yet.

In a rugby analogy, I'm calling Djbolkas over, reminding them to focus on proper editing and using the talk page to discuss and not getting involved in "action after the whistle" like personal attacks. I'm also telling them the Sheernests incident is "on report", and if there's further misconduct, they're "going to the sin bin". —C.Fred (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

diff of message at User talk:Djbolkas —C.Fred (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Unrepentent vandal

Dear sirs,

204.100.235.136 has been vandalizing the Scary Movie page and responded very rudely to my request for them to cease and desist their vandalism on User talk:204.100.235.136 by saying "did I ask". This is an official report to the Wikipedia moderators, as the vandal is clearly here in bad faith.

Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:AIV in future please - and we have an ANI notification template to use... GiantSnowman 22:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you good sir. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In the future, please do not assume everyone here is a "sir", okay? Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC) (Miss)

What? GiantSnowman says on-wiki that he's male. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I assumed that was in reference to the opening "Dear sirs." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

facepalm. it makes sense now. I didn't even see that. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:WARRING, WP:CONSENSUS, misinformation in Edit Summaries

• Imam Shamil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Reiner Gavriel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HamzatCan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1112#User:Reiner Gavriel

User:Reiner Gavriel tries to remove sources from the article Imam_Shamil, in the edits: edit, edit, edit. In the description of edits editor refers to a consensus reached more than 1.5 years ago, but when scrutinized, it turned out the editor breaks this consensus himself (edit), by wiping out the sources entirely. Also, instead of providing proofs the editor just throws bold claims and untrue statements in edit summaries. After detailed analysis of his claims and checking sources, I gave the editor arguments on discussion page, this edit and the two following, including quotes of his own words contradicting his current behavior. The editor ignored questions, continued WP:WAR, breaking consensus version again [20], and throwing misinformation in edit summaries about some other non-existing "consensus". And only after breaking consensus once more in this edit, the editor answerd on discussion page, again not addressing the questions raised, but just throwing accusations at me this time, the edit. Also, looking at the history of the editor, it seems he only appear on Wikipedia for Edit wars in topics related to the North Caucasus, for the last few years at least, always throwing accusations of nationalism to any opponent. Kindly asking to analyze the matter and address the strange behavior of the party.--HamzatCan (talk) 09:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Update: Also, just noticed, there is a suspicios IP editor, vandalising the article in the exact same way and days, and leaving summary with the same accussations, edit.--HamzatCan (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• So, basically, on 25 October the article was semi-protected because a number of IPs were edit-warring. Now the article is protected, a number of confirmed accounts are edit-warring. Guess what? I've fully protected the article. Get thee to the talk page, everyone. Black Kite (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• The prior ANI link may be consulted to view the relevant SPIs. Nationalist disputes in the Caucasus often lead to sockpuppetry. Imam Shamil was a famous man who was 'leader of Caucasian resistance to Imperial Russia in the 1800s'. Various national groups such as the Kumyks like to claim him as one of their own, and the evidence for him being Kumyk is often hard to understand or in non-English sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

EdJohnston So the facts are.

• In the sources it is claimed that Shamil's ancestor was a Kumyk, not himself.
• Sources are valid, I gave them here in the edit with pages and translations and links. they are also valid in Russian wiki, it seems even protected against vandalism.
• The editor claimed at the time that he " have proposed adding a new section about theories of his ancestry, including the Kumyk one" (edit).
• In the article the consensus text was: "there are also sources who say that he has a paternal Kumyk lineage". Not that he was a Kumyk, again. The line was added by my fellow Turkish Adigha, not a Kumyk, who was a part of that discussion long ago.
• The consensus existed for more than a year and reflected the opinion of those who somehow reached it.
• In addition to the 3 sources I gave in the edit above, in the article there were 4 more sources (with excessive citation template btw), Russian and Turkish.
• None of the sources come from "Kumyk nationalists". Yet the editor claims in every edit now they are. You also see it and repeat the same. Look at the quotes of the editor: "Widely accepted by Kumyk nationalists" (previos edit), "removed weak.. and nationalist narrative" (edit) (edit). Which narrative is Kumy? What are the weaknesses of those sources? Is Russian wiki controlled by "Kumyk nationalists"? Also, is claiming in every edit "nationalists, nationalists" a way to present the argument? Why the discussions ended in accusations and aggression by the editor?

It seems even like a definition of smth very close to vandalism. And it is accompanied by misrepresentation of the Edit summaries every single time, WP:WARRING, absolute absence of counteragruments and unethical behavior. Please now tell me where I'm wrong in my claims, and why?--HamzatCan (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Update. One more wiped out source found while going even a bit deeper. The sources and translation are in edit.--HamzatCan (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

COI editor on Dani Matos

It's a bit messy. Frogging101 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to place the ANI notice because there are multiple IPs involved. Frogging101 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Who? What? When? Where? Your report is missing a few things. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

In a number[21][22][23] of recent edits to Dani Matos and on the talk page[24], an IP editor identifies himself as the child of the article's subject. Jahaza (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Edits are on at least two IPs:

• User:85.94.241.239
• User:2a02:678:54a:1b00:54a7:1a74:44f9:d50a

Jahaza (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I have templated those IPs. (OK, I'll stop responding to myself now.) Jahaza (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I will be more specific next time. Frogging101 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

IP user making legal threats based on content disputes, as well as repeated disruptive editing and edit warring.

Please see revision summary here [[25]] " the removal of an entry from one country compared to another displace arbitrary and capricious (bordering on racist) editorialising which - if removed again will result in a referral to the EHRC UK and a dirct approach to jwales@wikia-inc.com. I am appalled at this behaviour", other edits on that article by the same IP user here [[26]] and (very likely) similar edits from the same user here on a very similar IP [[27]] JeffUK (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

/64 blocked and edit summary revdeled. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• In the OP's defense, I do understand that the European Human Rights Commission has historically taken a special interest in making sure that lists of successful English Channel swimmers are fair and balanced. EEng 19:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The persistent unjustified rumour that Captain Webb was a woman needs to be squashed whenever seen. Narky Blert (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Aquabestuae

Promotion only/vandalism only account. See this edit. BilledMammal (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, but for reports like these, WP:AIV is your best bet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll remember that. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations at Jeena Shin

Going back to early October, accusations of abuse and fraud, presumably by disgruntled students. Requesting rev/deletion of defamatory edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Revdeld and page protected. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Acroterion. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Slow-burning edit warring IP range

(Note: I did raise this at ANI here two weeks ago, but nothing came of it and the editor seemed to stop so I left it alone until their edits resumed today)

The IP range Special:Contributions/2402:D000:811C:0:0:0:0:0/48 has been edit warring for their preferred versions of a number of articles as well as making unconstructive edits to BLPs without sources (the overt vandalism has mostly stopped, now they are mostly edit warring to refer to currently active cricket players as "former" cricketers or similar). Examples include:

• Mitchell Marsh: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]
• Ambati Rayudu: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]
• Vandalism at Vinodh Perera: [47] [48] including the edit summary "Those who want to change this, check real life of this mother fucker......"

An attempt to engage with the editor was made at Talk:Mitchell Marsh#"has represented" vs. "represents" to discuss their edits, but the editor did not engage and continued to edit war for their preferred version across a number of articles (multiple other editors have been involved in reverting their edits). OliveYouBean (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone else might like to block the /48 for a week to encourage them to communicate but I would want to see a little more effort in trying to get their attention without eye-glazing templates. Is there an IP talk page where they have been asked why they want "former" with an explanation of why it is not appropriate? If needed, try to engage the IP and if that fails, contact me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Be gentle.

They are "former" players, 'coz they're retired. Not dead, but former cricketers.

ie This might be a misunderstanding.

Or, it might be a troll, but AGF, etc. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, these are currently active players, not retired players. I actually pointed out in one case that "former" was being used even though their last match had been just a few days earlier.

@Johnuniq: I did attempt to engage with them a few weeks back. I notified them at this user talk page to try to direct them to the talk page I linked above, then in subsequent edits I tried to direct them there using edit summaries since they seemed to be (somewhat) communicating in their edit summaries. They haven't responded on any user talk pages or at the talk page I tried to use.

If it was just about the edits, I'd just discuss with them, but I'm getting a little bit frustrated because I have tried to communicate but the IP hasn't responded and it's very difficult to keep up with them since their IP changes each time. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Editor adding hoax flags to articles and trolling attempts to delete them

User:Skivkanska has been spamming various articles on cities in western North Carolina with fake municipal flags. This seems to be their only purpose here, have a look at their contributions. They've edit-warred at Statesville, North Carolina to keep their fake material. Their talk page is filling up with complaints. All of their flag uploads on Commons have been nominated for deletion (here). And if anyone doubts whether this user is acting in good faith, it's worth noting that they reacted to a deletion nomination notice one one of their files on Commons by vandalizing the "reason=" parameter from "Uploaded without genuine source by bad faith user" to "Uploaded without genuine source by bad faith user and its fake and also its uhh gay looking also i really hate it and its racist and uhhhh everything is racist and uhhh the person who made this should commit delete". They also vandalized my Redirect for Discussion post concerning a redirect they created while I've been trying to type up this ANI complaint. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked Skivkanska as not here to build an encyclopedia. DanCherek (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I also blocked Skivkanskas pants from mongolia (talk · contribs). DanCherek (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the timely response. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

And for dealing with their dying racist cries. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

IP User continues to vandalize despite nine previous warnings; AlishaLaurie1 also continues to violate despite previous block

On User talk:47.16.173.9, one can see that this IP user has been warned for disruptive editing nine individual times. Since April 2022, they have been warned six times against vandalizing the page for actress Suzanna Son and The Idol (TV series), a show that she has been cast in. The last warning was a level 4 warning issued by User:Mike1901 on August 23. On November 17, 2022, the IP user left another non-constructive, undue edit on her page.

Other editors involved in warning this user are User:Victor Trevor, User:Tunakanski and User:Arado Ar 196.

Considering that there has already been one ANI discussion about this incident that the user chose not to respond to and they have already received a level 4 warning, I propose that the IP user in question be blocked from further editing with a WP:SITEBAN as soon as soon as possible.

Furthermore, upon review of the archived ANI discussion it has come to my attention that User:AlishaLaurie1, who was temporarily blocked from editing by User:Ohnoitsjamie for "Persistent addition of unsourced content; next block will be longer" only 12 days ago has continued to add unsourced and user generated content to The Idol (TV series) and to Poppy (singer), another actress on the show. At Ohnoitsjamie's discretion, or that of another administrator, I further propose either a WP:TBAN or even an SBAN entirely.

I have no direct evidence that User:47.16.173.9 is a sockpuppet of User:AlishaLaurie1 but it is extremely suspicious that their violations are very similar and always seem to occur around the same time. Both accounts appear to be single purpose WP:SPA accounts dedicated to nothing but editing pages related to that show. Regards, Kire1975 (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked the named user indefinitely and the IP for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

User:2402:D000:811C:0:0:0:0:0's only block warning

Please proceed: User:2402:D000:811C:0:0:0:0:0 is doing serious vandalism everywhere, and I have sent the IP address their only block warning on their talk page. If the IP address keeps vandalizing, block them from editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpyridisioAnnis (talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This can be reported to WP:AIV. BTW, the IP has made no edits, why did you warn them and report them here? Sarrail (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Because you should see Special:Contributions/2402:D000:811C:0:0:0:0:0/48. That's where vandalism starts to break in. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 16:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This can be brought up at WP:ANI#Slow-burning edit warring IP range. A section already exists on this matter. Sarrail (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

But it just responds to the IP's vandalism, I want the IP to get blocked if it keeps vandalizing, and that's why I made a separate discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpyridisioAnnis (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I want the IP to get blocked if it keeps vandalizing... you may report if the vandalism continues, as their last edit was at 2:37AM UTC. Sarrail (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Solijonovm1996

Solijonovm1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User seems to be on a nationalistic mission to Uzbekify various articles, here's why;

Kara-Khanid Khanate: Edit warring in the article [49] [50] [51], constantly attempting to add the Modern Cyrillic Uzbek transliteration. Neither Uzbek (which didnt exist back then) and especially not the Cyrillic script was used by the khanate. And obviously the article doesn't mention anything about it either.

Samarkand: Removed several non-Uzbek tranliterations [52] and sourced info about its Iranian/Persian/Tajik connection [53]. They were reverted, but then engaged in edit warring [54] [55] [56]

Their talk page is filled with a lot of recent warnings, which clearly haven't helped. They haven't even used the talk page of an article once. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Massive amounts of unsourced content at Dassel, Minnesota, et al

It started with a quick look at the history section, a large unsourced block added in one swoop. Then I noted that 47.12.60.39 (talk · contribs) had done this with multiple articles on Minnesota towns. It could take some time to go back and revert all of them, and it's likely that these texts were copied from somewhere, though I haven't located the source(s). Any assistance will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

All of the unsourced additions to Minnesota towns have already been reverted by the nominator and others, but they still need to be checked for copyright violations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I got the last one, at Mrs. Stewart's Bluing from 2018. Not having edited since 2021, this report is technically stale, but can be valid as a chronic issue. The MN towns were edited in a few days in August 2019, but there were similar unsourced edits as early as 2018 and as late as 2021. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, LaundryPizza03. At this point, I don't expect any action re: the long dormant IP. Rather, I was curious whether anyone could find source(s) for the content, and rev/delete any copyright infringement. Also I like to be utterly transparent when reverting large passages from many articles; it's not uncommon for passing editors to mistake such reversions for vandalism, especially coming from an IP. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe at least some of the material comes from a local-history book called Terry Tales, by Terry R. Shaw, which appears to be heavily excerpted—maybe serially published—on Old Litchfield Minnesota & Meeker County. I don’t have a Facebook account, so can’t browse the group myself, but I got some search results pointing in that direction.—Odysseus1479 21:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Odysseus1479, I found that too, yesterday, but didn't follow it far enough to determine what may have been copied. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hostility and threats of edit war from User:Mehediabedin

I received this talk page message from User:Mehediabedin in which he admits that my drafting of the lede in Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is "better" but he still wants to revert because he fears future edit wars. In Talk:Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, he attempted to gain consensus for his changes but no consensus has emerged. While I assume WP:good faith on his part, I am afraid he is pushing WP:BIAS, WP:Fringe theories and inaccurate edits. His reluctance to understand disproven, discredited and refuted claims on Mujib frankly merits a restriction. Is a topic ban possible for one article? Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I also received a barnstar from this user for working on Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. I've tried to explain to him about historical inaccuracies but he is not listening. His proposed lede will end up as a Bengali version of WP:PUFF, with elements of WP:Fringe theories and WP:BIAS.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Solomon The Magnifico, read the instructions at the top of this page. You are required to notify Mehediabedin of this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I have notified Mehediabedin. Schazjmd (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, I cannot find any edits by Mehediabedin that I would consider "hostile". The discussion at Talk:Sheikh_Mujibur_Rahman#About_the_lead_section appears to be active and civil. This appears to be a content dispute that should be worked out on the article's talk page; if that fails, as Mehediabedin has suggested, you can try WP:DRN. I don't see any behavioral issues that require administrator intervention. Schazjmd (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Schazjmd: Thank you for notifying me. Honestly, I want to say is I was never hostile towards any user in Wikipedia. The thing started with a dispute in Talk:Economy_of_Bangladesh#Gulshan_skyline, when he (who accusing me) and another user User:AMomen88 got into edit war for the photo of the infobox. Solomon mentioned me to solved the dispute and I gave my opinion that his photo was unsuitable. But he didn’t want to accept that. In the talk page you will see that he was trying accusing us and badmouthing us (especially when he said Momen a "Monster" and accused me of being politically motivated in Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, although he couldn’t point how my edits were politically motivated. Then I submitted the issue in here and another volunteer chose better photo for the article, thanks to him. In another article (see here). He and several got into edit war for the lead section. I went there to resolve and proposed new lead section which was opened for discussion. Some users liked the idea lead section and a user liked my lead section. Then again Solomon came to showed faults in the article and I fixed them. He then doubt that Mujib wasn’t' in Kolkata before partition and he told me indirectly that I am lacking in history knowledge and I should not edit the page. But in replay I showed sources that Mujib was in Kolkata even after partition. In reply he didn’t said anything. So I thought that he has no objection and changed the articles' lead section. But he reverted my action showing some strange reasons. He wrote that "he left ML to form AML. you are promoting a revisionist version of history with little credibility." But it is not correct historically because he was first dismissed from ML, I wrote "Mujib joined the newly created Awami League" that wasn’t mean that he didn’t create AL (but even instead of reverting he could edit this to remove the issue). so I am not promoting revisionist version of history here. He said that "the previous one was better." If is this the case then why didn’t he said that earlier in the talk page? And instead of reverting my action he could propose edits to make the lead section better but he didn’t. He also said that "there is no consensus in favor of your edits". For Bangladesh related edits we can't get consensus easily because the Bangladeshi Wikipedians aren't so interested in to give consensus or discussion. But they didn’t give consensus that doesn’t mean that they aren't agree with my edit. After his revert I asked him in the article's talk page but didn’t answer. Also he can't revert my action saying there are no consensus (see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"). He already created unhealthy environment in Wikipedia and said people hurtful things and accusing without proof. After all that happened I understood that he intentionally ignoring me (no that he felt insecure or felt harmed, he had no interest to cooperate, but when I will edit the article to change the lead article, he will revert again). That's why I request help of a user. Today I thought I would submit the issue in WP:DRN but I didn’t think that he would submit this here instead of discuss with me. If you investigate then you will understand that his is being personal. I sent a message his talk page (here) and he didn’t replied even. I gave him wiki award but he removed it. It is clear that what he did from start was because he sees his relationship with me as a enemy. And that's why I suspect the whole process can be his part of game because he is taking it personally. Not cooperating, going edit war and accusing others all are his deed. I request admins to take necessary steps. Its not that you have to ban him. I just to want to edit the article to replace with new lead section (and it is clear that my proposed lead section has not historical error) because if I don't do that edit war will happen again. But he is not let me do that. Mehedi Abedin 08:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Also notice that he didn’t notified about this complaint to me. So it is possible that he doesn’t like me personally, it can be equally true for this complaint. Mehedi Abedin 08:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I would assume a longstanding editor like Mehediabedin should be an expert in dealing with disputes. Instead, I had to tell him to take our earlier dispute to DRN where it was resolved. On this article, it's like I'm talking to a wall. He wants me to compromise but he won't budge for even an inch. Its not about me compromising. It's about whether he wants to compromise on simple, well-regarded facts of history. To give one example, his proposed edits will give the impression that the Dominion of Pakistan existed between 1947 and 1971. The truth is that the dominion with Queen Elizabeth II existed till 1956, following which Pakistan became a republic. Bangladesh separated from Pakistan during the republican period and after two constitutions and two periods of martial law. These things are quite normal to understand from a Bangladeshi vantage point. I'm amazed that a longstanding editor like Mehediabedin cannot even grasp these basic facts. Wikipedia needs professors, academics and experts to improve some Bangladesh content; not people who are gaming the system to promote their partisan agendas. This has been going on for so long on Wikipedia concerning Bangladesh that it's depressing. It is detrimental to everyone's interests.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

What you said is strange, because you said "Dominion of Pakistan existed between 1947 and 1971. The truth is that the dominion with Queen Elizabeth II existed till 1956, following which Pakistan became a republic". I told earlier that if you had objection then you could tell me then I would fix that. In the talk page I created the edited proposed lead section for that so that anyone can edit. "Wikipedia needs professors, academics and experts to improve some Bangladesh content; not people who are gaming the system to promote their partisan agendas" - first prove that I have any political agenda instead of giving baseless accusations. "Wikipedia needs professors, academics and experts to improve some Bangladesh content" - yes of course, but also we need users who doesn’t accuse users unnecessarily and we need users who doesn’t ignore message of others. Also you didn’t pointed the dominion issue in talk page, but when I gave proof that he came to East Bengal after partition you didn’t answer. So what does mean "it's like I'm talking to a wall" here? If you gave your concern I fixed them, I gave proof that you were wrong and you ignored my messages. And about the Dominion of Pakistan issue, anyone can go into the article of Dominion of Pakistan and get to know that it became Islamic Republic of Pakistan later. Or even you could inform (which you didn’t) and I could write that "Dominion of Pakistan, which became Islamic Republic of Pakistan later". Who is being political here? No one. Writing Dominion of Pakistan is political agenda? I don't think so. Anyway, you didn’t cleared the things I described about your behavior in the talk pages. You just telling what you want to say. But you didn’t answered my point and softly ignored them. Giving me TBAN or BAN on specific article would not be a right choice. Because - I didn’t revert or removed his edit for the article and mentioned him in talk page to resolve, I always create articles on Bangladesh and Bangladeshi culture and revert unconstructive edits or spam, I am always civil and respectful to other editors, I never get in any edit war, and there are more. So I request admins to understand the situation carefully. Mehedi Abedin 11:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Cang1988 creating obviously inflammatory userboxes

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

---

Cang1988 (talk · contribs)

This user created three inflammatory userboxes (one supporting Donald Trump, one supporting the Uyghur genocide and one supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine). Clearly, this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

As I typed this, they created two more userboxes: one supporting Holocaust denial and one supporting racial segregation. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

i was just about to say that :) – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 23:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Yae4

Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WP:NOTHERE behaviors, sadly. Edits to GrapheneOS could be seen as dishonest at worst and include original research by extrapolation of sources and presumptions. Yae4's contributions are a common source of complaints by other editors at Talk:GrapheneOS. Wikipedia:POV railroad and/or WP:FRUSTRATE.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1106#User:Yae4, brought by 84.250.14.116 (talk)
• GrapheneOS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Special:Diff/1122406256 – after being told his matter is off-topic for article talk, Yae4 then suggested eliminating other editors (whom have disagreed with Yae4) by means of requesting extended page protection for the article.
• Talk:GrapheneOS#Vice Motherboard source on ANOM involvement (since 3 November 2022)

84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. Looks like that article has attracted a good deal of unregistered and SPA attention, and I can't quite tell who's in the wrong in terms of behavior (Yae4 is edit warring, but it's hard to contend with lots of edits from newish accounts. Yae4's most recent edits removing content sourced just to Twitter and Github seem good to me, and it looks like most of the dispute is centered on this material. If you want an outside opinion, I say remove it altogether. It's a source that basically says "some people said ANOM used GrapheneOS; doesn't look like that's true". If lots of sources made the connection, then ok, but why include something that ultimately isn't about the subject, right? Just remove it altogether. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Unfair Unblock. Abiogenesis Scientifically Corrected

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

---

I was blocked by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Widr for an edit I made on the Abiogenesis page. You can check my talk page: I was asked to provide a source for my change, I did, and then Ithe change was still removed. I was correct. I supplied the source. They changed the edit, and did not supply a source, their own requirement, to make the change. They changed abiogenesis of their own want, without documentation. You can even see attitude from someone on my talk page. I left a notice on Widr's talk. I don't think I added the squiggle lines. I don't know tech that well. I have done everything asked of me to justify my change, and they do nothing but get to freely change it back to their want, backed by nothing at all. Please help. Unblock me if you could, but make the correct change on abiogenesis by adding "other" before "nonscientific worldviews see...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitchlumins (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

You were blocked from that article for determined edit-warring. You don't get to do that. I endorse Widr's action. Get consensus on the talkpage instead of edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Pitchlumins. You readily admit above that I don't know tech that well. You are correct on that single point. You created an incorrectly formatted "reference" lacking the basic bibliographic details and inserted it into the wrong place in the article. Despite this being explained to you by several other editors, you persisted. Making a big mistake once or even twice can be forgiven but you made these incompetent edits nine times and would not stop even after being told repeatedly that your edits were bad. That is indisputably edit warring and I certainly oppose unblocking you from that article, at least until you acknowledge that what you did was both wrong and disruptive. I have no comment at this time about the underlying content dispute, because this noticeboard is not the right place for that discussion. But I can assure you that if you continue with the same behavior, an indefinite block from the entire encyclopedia is a real possibility. Please rethink your approach. Cullen328 (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Beyond the other advice above, there's a useful bit of Wiki etiquette/procedure you could learn, which is this: even if you're totally, utterly, absolutely convinced that you're Right and everyone else is Wrong? The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes consensus goes against you, in which case your only option is to lose gracefully and move on. The world will not collapse into ignorant ruin if the thirteen words you yearn to push into this single one of the 6.5 million articles on the English Wikipedia fails to make it in. Really it won't; trust me on this one. Ravenswing 04:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Igaming 13

Igaming 13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Igaming 13 joined on 19 October 2022. Since then, they have created, moved, and redirected a slew of radio-related articles. Also been blocked once before. As of this edit, RT Broadcast Specialists, DYLG-FM, DYCE-FM, ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, DWRJ, and Rajah Brodcasting Network were all created by them.

ATM, they are not responding to talk page, which I suspect is due to WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. I suspect a misguided effort (WP:NOTDATABASE) or WP:NOTHERE. Sungodtemple (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked for two weeks by Quarl. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The user is notorious for adding irrelevant formats and hoax info to various radio station articles, such as DXYP and DXJL. He even ignored the hidden messages in those articles. Prior to having his own account, he edited such articles under these IP addresses:

• Special:Contributions/136.158.65.144
• Special:Contributions/136.158.65.204

He was blocked twice: the first being 31 hours, and the second being 2 weeks. It'd make more sense if his recent block would last for a month or two. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 07:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, BLPPRIMARY violations

• 67.84.178.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• This IP editor has been making edits with such summaries as "added actual middle name and DOB from public records". I don't know the truth of this summary, and they don't seem to bother actually inserting the public records they claim to have found, but beyond inserting unsourced contentious information in numerous BLPs, if their edit summary is accurate then WP:BLPPRIMARY also applies and there's gonna be a lot of cleanup in order for us after they're blocked. IP has been adequately warned so I'm coming straight here to ANI for action.

Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for pretty much the same duration as they've spent adding unsourced bio statistics to articles with a note that they can be unblocked when they demonstrate an understanding of reliable sources and WP:BLP.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Refusal to get the point

There has been an ongoing discussion for the better part of 5 months where Master Editor 10 (talk · contribs · email) and 68.14.208.126 (talk · contribs · email) WP:refuses or fails to "get the point". The editors have been made aware of multiple guidelines and essasy, multiple times. Yet they continue to make the same points 5 months apart and either can't or won't listen to editors telling them to WP:let it go, wasting everyone's time. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Tedickey by User:Alexander Davronov

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

---

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

Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

I made a change to {{Unix commands}} template and noted that User:Tedickey has made a lot of reverts (my last edit as well) over the last 4 years so I tried to discuss it on [Nov 10, 2022, 10:25] suggesting to rename the template in order to stop confusing people and all of sudden they went on my contribs ridiculously tagging (see links above) recently added content. In one reply at that discussion they suggested I rework my reply so that they are not a personal attack ([Nov 14, 2022, 09:19]). They also left a warning [Nov 18, 2022, 20:33] on my TP without any context pazzling me even more. I strongly suspect that behavior is close to WP:HOUND so I request to warn editor for the god sake.

ANI NOTICE

[Nov 19, 2022, 12:53]

Previous attempts to discuss behavior

My attempt was reverted (WP:SOMTP?):
Nov 17, 2022, 20:00 - «revert - use topic discussion page for discussing improvements»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I became aware of this discussion from following a 3O request, which I have commented on here. Commenting on Ncurses specifically I don't think this is an example of them following you to another page through your contribs, because they have edited that page previously and your edit changed the developer parameter from listing only Thomas E. Dickey to Thomas E. Dickey plus several others, which User:Tedickey then tagged. Given the name of the developer and the name of the editor there's something there, but I don't think that specific page is evidence of WP:HOUND. The editor also has edits to Konsole going back to 2008 and to xterm from 2006, so given how related all those topic are to one another I think this may just be an example of noticing edits on the watchlist and addressing them as they pop up, because while Portable Compiled Format wasn't an article they had previously edited, the interaction timeline doesn't suggest WP:HOUND but rather two editors editing a series of related articles and disagreeing with each other. The potential COI is worth noting, but that's a different issue altogether. - Aoidh (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aoidh: I wouldn't care if they didn't tag exactly the sentences I've added. I still doubt that they came over from a watchlist. Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Beauty pageant editor (November)

• JusTaufan96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, we have a pageant SPA on mobile who doesn’t seem to be noticing they are repeatedly being reverted and warned for adding unreferenced content. Some help getting their attention? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I've partially blocked them from Miss World 2022 for 48 hours. If that doesn't get their attention, or if they move on to something else, I'll widen it. Acroterion (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thesussyboy500

Threatening post made in reply to Cluebot [57]. Could also be considered an attempt to scam. Perhaps he is unaware it is a bot. Styx & Stones (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Lemchastain: Continued ignorance of talk page conventions

Lemchastain (talk | contribs) continually violates talk page conventions by making sloppy posts to Talk:Pythagorean triple, and now to the Pythagorean triple article, mostly his personal comments about unpublished papers. For example, [58], [59], [60]. He has been advised several times about talk page guidelines, but has been ignoring those suggestions. His posts do not appear to be deliberate vandalism, but perhaps some administrators should try to get his attention.—Anita5192 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

IP editor with penchant for California politics?

I've been reverting some edits by an IP editor(s?) engaged in disrupting articles on California politics. But I gave up because I don't know if more IPs are involved, and also I wasn't sure if some of the edits were legit or not (incl. some I already reverted), so I thought I'd better ask someone who knows better to look into this.

The IPs involved are:
2603:8001:2902:64F4:D5B8:60F2:A7A2:433E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2603:8001:2902:64F4:F4A0:8701:6427:CFA7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2603:8001:2902:64F4:184A:B865:6DCE:1133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed this as well on many Los Angeles elections. They've removed all instanced of the word "nonpartisan" in election infoboxes and election boxes and say that it's because California elections are nonpartisan (even though most nonpartisan elections have "nonpartisan" in them) and when I reverted them, they just reverted right back and gave the exact same reasoning. I'm pretty sure that the IP addresses beginning in 2603:8001:2902:64F4 are the same person based on what they edit and their behavior. Possible that a school IP address (74.62.14.52) is also the same person or was used by the same person. reppop^talk 16:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

216.x editor 'translating' from Serbian wiki now also making copyright violations

So apparently the situation originally described at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#persistently tendentious new articles and edits by anonymous 216.x has not improved substantially, in fact it deteriorated into copyright violations as described at User talk:216.174.95.81#Wikipedia and copyright. The previous 6 month ban from article space on that ISP has not apparently helped - the drafts haven't gotten much better, nor has there been any communication with the user (let alone actual collaboration). Does anyone mind escalating this into a ban on all namespaces? ObPing @DanCherek @Diannaa @S0091 --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think a sitewide block is a good idea given the continued copyright issues, but I'm not very good at figuring out the best IP range(s) for situations like these. DanCherek (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The range that was previously blocked was 216.174.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (Blocked for 6 months from April to October 2022.) I don't think anyone else is using this range right now. — Diannaa (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

GalantFan POV pushing and retaliatory reverts

On November 7th, I made modifications to recent edits on Battle of the Alamo and Texas Declaration of Independence by this user because there were POV issues and issues with the content being undue for the lede. The editors recent edits are mainly focused on increasing the mention of slavery regarding Texas independence. Yesterday, they proceeded to revert my edits on multiple pages including ones that were completely irrelevant to Texas independence. They reverted some of my edits on Mexican–American War, James K. Polk, where they have already been reverted twice for POV edits, Michael Hayden (general), and the Second Battle of Fallujah, where they restored content from a non-RS. Their edits on the last two pages are clearly retaliatory as those pages are completely unrelated. There are clearly POV issues with their recent reverting of my edits, some seemingly for the sake of it which comes across like WP:Hounding. GreenCows (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Look in the mirror. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GreenCows

You have a persistent history of altering the POV of articles to make USA look better. Then in your China alterations for example, you change the wording to make them look worse.

You are deleting verified facts even when the references are attached just because YOU have a problem with the POV.GalantFan (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggested you open a talk page discussion on Mexican–American War. You did only after reverting me again and instead of discussing content issues about the actual article, you immediately attacked my general editing. All my edits follow Wikipedia's rules.GreenCows (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

They have reverted me again with an uncivil edit summary. GreenCows (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Maliner false info

On 19 Nov, I removed some information from the Barelvi article. I removed a lengthy paragraph which rambles on about the history of Sufism in Bangladesh, with no mention of Barelvi in either the paragraph nor the sources - a clear deviation from the article focus. Some of the section also contained false references which I removed. User:Maliner has begun edit warring and accusing me of pushing POV despite me not expressing any POV in the article. All I have done is removed irrelevant and falsely sourced information. Maliner refused to reply to my message on my talk page, and simply accuses me of being wrong without opening up discussion or addressing the issues that I have. SalamAlayka (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Kitchen Knife

Kitchen Knife made a messy copy/paste move at East West Rail. A request was made at WP:RM/TR by Mattdaviesfsic to move the page to its original location. Although there was some move history, it seemed sensible to move the page to its original location before all the move disruption, so I performed a page swap. Kitchen Knife did not like this, demanded I move the page back, and accused me of "vandleising on behalf of a clique. I explained that I made the move in response to a technical move request and suggested they open a WP:RM discussion. They responded with further demands and accusations of vandalism, after which I asked them to desist. They opened a requested move at Talk:East_West_Rail#Requested_move_20_November_2022. Here they appear to simultaneously acknowledge they made a mistake yet continue to accuse us of BSing and bullying. As this is a very serious allegation, I'm reporting here. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You clearly know that having a private chat does not constitute getting a consensus. You had also acknowledged that I'd admitted my fault but you still carried on after that asking for contrition. The first bit constitutes the BS & the second bit the bullying.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said, these are serious accusations. If you are going to continue making them then please provide evidence so the admins can take the appropriate action. Polyamorph (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, the "private chat" mentioned above is this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#East West Rail now the East West Main Line. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I explained that it was public, not private, at User talk:John Maynard Friedman#East West Rail. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

And I explained why you where wrong in that you or anyone else hadn't announced or provided a link to it the group had kept it to itself. Like having a meeting that you claim anyone can attend but only making the people you want to attend aware of the meeting. Then claiming if someone had turnrd up at the meeting they would have been allowed in, so it was public. Even though the chances of someone randomly turning up at some place to see if an unannounced meeting happening were 0.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I also requested that the established title of "East West Rail" be reinstated, but at at WP:RFHM, because repairing a cut-paste move requires a history merge rather than a simple page swap, and this case was complicated by the multiple moves. Certes (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for that info. It appears Sdrqaz performed the history merge prior to my swap. Polyamorph (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Page histories have become screwed up. I have found these:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Main_Line_Old&action=history - starts off with a negative byte count, and then has more than 70,000 removed from that
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Main_Line&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_West_Rail&action=history - contains an edit timed at 22:05, 19 November 2022 showing an increase of +73,210 bytes, yet the diff shows no change at all
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Main_Line_Old&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Main_Line&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Rail&action=history

There may be more problems with these pages, and may be more pages involved. Is somebody able to move the misplaced edits back to their proper histories? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: I usually find that the easiest way of fixing a cut-and-paste move, provided that it is caught early enough, is to simply revert both the paste and the cut. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks – that's a useful tip for the future, but I think I was too late this time. (The confused history makes it hard to tell.) Certes (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

More nonsense in draftspace too Draft:Move/East West Main Line old2, Draft:Move/East West Main Line. What were they trying to achieve? WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED Polyamorph (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That has also already been explained perhaps you could try keeping up.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Kitchen Knife, you really need to stop this conspiracy theory stuff (talk of a "clique"). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to understand what a conspiracy is, rather than just trot out random phrases.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe TBAN from rail if they can't abide by WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc. in that area. Levivich (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I want nothing to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways or any other clique.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Can someone block for now? They appear to be continuing their incivility here and completely unaware of the disruption they have / still are causing. Polyamorph (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You really are unbelievable..--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I believe a block would be prudent at this time to "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia". Polyamorph (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree you should be blocked.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I find Kitchen Knife's attitude here towards literally every user who expresses an opinion completely out of line. Seeing that the user already has several shorter blocks for harassment, a longer block might seem appropriate Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

So being critical of others is not acceptable and pointing out their errors is not acceptable?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Doing so while acting like an arse, such as you're doing here, is not. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Kitchen Knife needs to cut out the talks about cliques and the condescending tone to their posts e.g. "That has also already been explained perhaps you could try keeping up". I could hear the condescension in that post. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 22:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Can yu hear it in "More nonsense in draftspace too Draft:Move/East West Main Line old2, Draft:Move/East West Main Line. What were they trying to achieve? WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED Polyamorph"--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Anybody can make a mistake or misunderstand. I doubt that there is anyone here who has never "corrected an obvious error" only to have to come back to admit to the error of their ways. The problem with this user is that they do not appear to have this facility for self-reflection. They cannot take polite advice but rather just delete it (diff) and respond with a diatribe (diff}. They seem to leap to the conclusion that their cock-ups can only be a conspiracy so they persist in digging themselves deeper into the hole. This incident has absorbed a silly amount of time of multiple editors and administrators. We really don't need this kind of nonsense. ≥I suggest that this user be blocked until they can show that they have achieved a reasonable level of judgement and reflection. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC) extended slightly --00:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And I suggest you learn what a conspiracy is before bandying it around at random people unthinkingly doing things without fully consulting is not a conspiracy. To be a conspiracy people have to know they are doing something underhand and then agree to cooperate together to do that thing and hide it. I have not at any time suggested that they deliberately hide it, they simply talked amongst themselves as cliques do and forgot about the rest of the world. If you think people should be apologising then the people who decided to have a discussion without telling anyone outside of their little group it is going on should also be apologising but that seems to be rather absent. I have admitted it was a mistake, unlike the people who established a consensus without governing the majority of editors the chance to comment or even no the discussion was happening. It was all calming down I'd admitted my mistake but someone decided to come in and stir it up again, perhaps you should be looking at them notme.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Extreme uncivil by ItzRicoHenry

This user seems to be trying to create a new article related to Bangladesh Air Force Shaheen College, but they keep moving it and then editing instead of starting a different article. I've reverted the move twice and tried to explain on their talk page, which lead to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs) 22:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ItzRicoHenry abandoned the draft they were writing after they were repeatedly told on -en-help that their draft was pretty much never going to be accepted. My guess is that their behaviour now is an attempt to get it into mainspace somehow. I've undone their latest edits and move and edited the redirect to make it impossible for them to try and move it back. I suspect the user is a mercenary; in any event they're not interested in anything except pushing the specific college. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the accidental revert. I have no idea how that happened. The only thing I can think of is that after an edit conflict warning when I did a browser back and clicked on edit it reloaded a specific version for some reason.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)