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

Did I do the right thing here?

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

I don't think I've ever directly edited someone else's userpage before but I felt like it was warranted in this context [1]. I sincerely do believe this qualifies as "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing" (which is text that can be read by following the policy shortcut I used in my edit summary). I tend to prefer not to take impulsive actions and I can doubt myself a lot, so I figured I might as well skip some potential future drama by just asking for some uninvolved input. Did I do the right thing here from a policy perspective? ANI might not be the best place but the only other one I can think of would be WP:XRV and what I did doesn't really have anything to do with the usage of advanced permissions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: I think what they meant by right after was the next edit in the page history. I was hoping you could clarify what exactly you regret about all this? It seems like the CT warning didn't change your behaviour in regards to the topic area. I will say I agree with you about your lack of interaction with WanderingWanda, though. [2] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

These comments [3] [4] give Squared.Circle.Boxing explanation at the time for their comments that lead to their earlier block. Nil Einne (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) @Squared.Circle.Boxing: I'm sure you're right you were never given a CTOP alert but it shouldn't matter. You were given this DS alert on gender-related disputes etc [5] in 2021 as you acknowledged. Note that it doesn't matter why the alert in 2021 was issued, technically alerts are not supposed to be given for any particular concerns other than for edits in the topic area anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squared.Circle.Boxing transphobia concerns

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

Hi there. With this being open less than 24 hours, I do not feel like Clovermoss's concerns have been properly addressed. I would like further discussion on this please. Transphobia[6][7] is a serious thing. I hear this user has received a final warning about something from Black Kite. Will look for the diff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for my actions being a "harmless error", I really do think that if advice in a guideline page can be considered erroneous, that advice should be changed to reflect that. I appreciate that you say my intentions there were made in good faith, even if you consider it to also be disingenuous. Maybe I am fishing... I guess I just expected more from the enwiki community. I really didn't think my perspective was at all that odds with community norms since I see people blocked all the time for saying that "transwomen are men" or other commentary along those lines. The only reason I even am aware this editor exists is because he edited Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator) recently. [8] I tend to look at people's userpages out of curiousity. And when I saw that userbox, I thought about how a transgender editor might feel about the invalidation of their entire identity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC), edited 01:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

@Capeo: this is old but since this thread is still somewhat active I felt it okay to reply. I hate to dig at old wound, but I think we need to be clear about the history. About the desysop and cban, I'm assuming you're referring to [9]/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1111#Site ban for Athaenara.

If so, I have to disagree with your characterisation of that case. It involved the editor interjecting their belief while opposing an RfA. This is not an "abstract belief" but instead is a targeted WP:PA since the editor was specifically saying the victim of their attack is not a woman. Note SCB's interjections in this case are on area of concern although even they acknowledged that what was done was wrong. (As an aside, per the consensus it wasn't quite a cban but instead one of those weird cases where it's not a cban but also not a case where an admin can unilaterally unblock.)

Express an abstract belief would be e.g. an editor adding a user box without mentioning anyone and not in the midst of some conflict with others. I'm sure some people have been blocked or banned solely for the abstract belief but I think it's actually a lot less common than you suggest. I don't think this is a bad thing, I've said before I'm very uncomfortable with site banning someone solely for being a Nazi as well so this isn't me tolerating transphobia as simply a political belief or more minor than other forms of bigotry.

However I think it's entirely reasonable to have a very low tolerance for misbehaviour from such editors, especially misbehaviour related to their horrific beliefs. Even more so if the editor comes anywhere close to targeting some specific editor. Likewise for anything which touches on harming living persons.

Also I disagree with SnowRise that expressing that belief on en.wikipedia is fine. IMO even if it's simply an abstract belief, it's still generally too disruptive and harmful to the community, although I wouldn't necessarily lean to a site ban or even topic ban straight away depending on what was said (an only warning with very low tolerance for anything further, sure). OTOH, I'm uncomfortable taking action over expressing that belief off-site even when the editor has linked that offsite identity here, unless they didn't simply link to their off-site identity but are linking to their off-site comments. But again I'm fine with taking action if there's any indication that this believe is affecting their actions here, even if that comes from off-site comments.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have some specific questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TBAN proposal

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

---

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

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

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

  Do understand that your argument moves from simply protecting a minority group to trying to discriminate against what is currently a majority (and by Wikipedia standards probably a consensus) view on gender [10]. Wikipedia is not supposed to lead a social change, rather Wikipedia should be on the trailing end of a social change. I understand and support not allowing a number of the things 2OB has said. However, we should always use the shoe is on the other foot test when dealing with an issue that is so widely disputed. If your statement above was "losing them and their trans-supporting views..." it wouldn't be acceptable. Editors who don't agree on major social issues should be allowed and for neutrality reasons encouraged. Springee (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support Diffs above are pretty egregious. Loki (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, or even siteban. The wall of diffs the IP provided really makes me believe experienced editors get free passes. Why should they? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The long term pattern of behaviour exhibited is clearly incompatible with productive editing in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support – long-term pattern of disruption in a CT. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The IP editor did present diffs that I think are not acceptable, however, they all date to before the editor was warned. If those edits were sufficient to justify the tban then it should have been implemented at that time. Since the warning only two things are presented as evidence of continued disruption. The first is the removal of a talk page comment that was already viewed as unacceptable. As Dronebogus noted below, the removal itself wasn't unreasonable. The other issue was a user box that supports What is a Woman on the editor's home page. If this were presented on any talk page again, I wouldn't view it the same way. However, I think this crosses over into thought crime. The only people who are going to see that are really looking for it. While the view is not aligned with Wiki editor consensus, Pew's data says it's (presumably) aligned with the majority view in the USA. At this point I'm afraid it gets back into the issues of what user boxes are OK or not OK. How should people who's families were victims of communism or the activities of Che Guevara supposed to feel when users have supportive user boxes? Basically I don't see this as a significant continuation of the previous problematic behavior. If a user box that expresses the view that trans-woman != women isn't OK (I assume that is what the video tries to say) then we should state and offer a grace period to remove all such user boxes. I do appreciate that some of the supporters above are careful to note the difference between thoughts and actions. I agree with that position and in this case I don't think the actions post warning rise to a tban level. Springee (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Springee and Homeostasis. IP has demonstrated a clear pattern of concerning behaviour, but based on the dates, I don't think that there has been any disruptive editing in the mainspace recently to warrant a tban. Maybe if there was disruptive behaviour in the past few weeks and this clearly demonstrated and ignorance of warnings, then there should be a tban. There's no issue over the use of the userbox. It's common practice for editors to express political views on their userpage and I don't see how this is any different. Willbb234 19:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support: I have recently interacted with the user on the Mike Tyson article due to a WP:3O request regarding their reverts. While I respect that the user does appear receptive to dispute resolutions not in their favor, there are two particular edits that have me supporting the TBAN. The user in 2021 said "Fuck NOTFORUM", yet when a WP:NOTFORUM concern was raised about an IP user's statement, the user in question removed the IP user's entry entirely. If there is one thing I don't like, it is a double standard, so I support this TBAN not only for the benefit of the community, but for the user themself so they may have some time for reflection.--WMrapids (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Snow Rise, Cullen328, and WMrapids. There is a history of SCB unable to maintain their best behavior around GENSEX topics, as shown with the diffs above. I have not seen "multiple apologies" being made, and the disruptive KSI edit was dismissed as already-dealt-with above even though the user talk page warning was simply acknowledged by reverting said warning. SCB had many opportunities to express some self-introspection, but they did not do so. Not when a concern was raised over the KSI edit, and not in this thread. They even thought this kind of thing was "pointless" half an hour after they have written genuine thoughts about their personal attack block. In the case of the removal of comments at Matt Walsh's talk page, I remain unconvinced that SCB's actions were entirely appropriate. Contentious topics require editors to err on the side of caution, and collapsing or leaving the comments as-is clearly would have been more appropriate in this case. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support I earlier asked why they hadn't received such a tban, hoping some admin would see enough to impose one under contentious topics restrictions. I can understand why no one was willing though given the circumstances, I mean I myself took 2 days or something to clearly support. So now it's come to us including me. The behaviour is concerning, although in terms of the user page think frankly I have more concerns about the cock and balls thing than what started this thread. More significantly, the responses from SCB here don't give me confidence that they he has any hope of understanding the behaviour we require from editors when editing in this area and we've already given them that chance. While their recent problematic edits in main space in the area appear to be minimal, that isn't much of a positive. I mean yes it's better they aren't already causing significant problems but OTOH that the editor still couldn't resist their transphobic edits here and there on Wikipedia despite being repeatedly asked to stop isn't a good thing. Better we just get them to stay out completely if that's the case. The one positive thing about SCB's behaviours has been that they've avoided targetting in particular editor, hence why we're only discussing a topic ban and not a site ban. Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Apparently SCB has already been sanctioned for the most serious misbehaviour he's had in the past and I'd invoke double jeopardy in that regard. I've never watched What Is a Woman?, so I don't really know what it is about, but I find it questionable that someone would be held responsible for a userbox on a lawfully released film; the same applies to quoting with appreciation a controversial but legit public figure like J. K. Rowling. Sorry, this whole thread raises concerns about the strictness of the ideological scrutiny Wikipedia editors have to undergo. There may be something offensive about SCB's approach to transgender rights, but I feel that this community discussion full of trifles such as What Is a Woman? and J. K. Rowling has failed to clarify the point in a convincing way. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not double jeopardy, it's a lack of leniency due to his past record. SCB has made a number of poor choices since that block. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Poor choice(s) with respect to deleting the userbox when reminded? Poor choice with respect to any other diffs? I don't see that. Reading the above, it seems to be boiling down to the perception that the editor's acquiescing apologies are not enough and we need to see complete remorse about their four-month-old actions. But I guess both of you are right. Is it okay for us to re-sanction any editor after four months of their last infraction, after four months of their last warning by an administrator, and after four months of their showing no further infraction, because what the editor is saying after these four months sounds half-hearted? Well, yes, we have that right. We also have the right to haul up this editor again after four months of today and ask the editor to apologise properly again (even if the editor has not committed any further infraction); and if the editor fails to show a proper apology again, we have the right to indefinitely ban the editor. Is it double jeopardy? Seems to be. But it's fair game; ANI is not a court. Lourdes 06:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agree and this is why I oppose a Tban at this time. I think a Tban when they were previously warned would have been reasonable but that time has past and I don't see the new evidence as evidence that they didn't take the previous warning to heart. Springee (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm involved (!voted support above) but this has been open coming up a week and I'm not seeing a clear consensus for or against imposing a topic ban at the moment. However it looks like at least most of those in opposition would be support if there was any more disruption in the topic area going forwards? If so, that sounds like final warning territory. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm uninvolved, and I see a clear (though obviously not unanimous) consensus for a topic ban (raw votecount is 15-5 if I counted correctly, and I see no good reason to discount any votes on either side or to give policy precedence to one side or the other). Fram (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I am involved (voted oppose) and I see a clear consensus for a topic ban. We should close this section as consensus is clear. Lourdes 02:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like a no brainer to at least topic ban them. Let's not wait until further disruption to then take action against them. UnironicEditor (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support – based on the long and rather frequent history of the problematic behaviour shown here, I don't really have much faith/confidence that this will actually come to a stop. They were notified about the CTOPS and warned about their behaviour before (such as here). Let's not waste free time waiting and seeing how things are in the next few months or whatever, I support a topic ban straight away. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Apologies for what I expect is going to be a rather lengthy comment - anyone who's good with templates should feel free to collapse the wordy bits and reduce it to the !vote at the end. I'm British, from a fairly middle-class, left-leaning background. Almost all of the people in my circle of real-life friends are degree-educated professionals, and about half have PhDs in the humanities (history, English lit, philosophy, that sort of thing). Most of them are straight, some of them are gay, but all of them are cis - I don't know any trans people IRL. My friends are almost universally left-leaning pinkos and wooly liberals like myself, who would never dream of watching GB News, picking up the Telegraph or voting Torie. They are mostly around my own age (I can remember Thatcher, and got into Billy Bragg in the 80s). I've had quite a few discussions about trans rights with people I know, including one with a gay man who used to do DJ sets in drag in the late 80s London scene. I have yet to talk to anyone who actually believes that trans people are, in any meaningful sense, actually the gender that they present as. I'm not saying this to shock or upset anyone (and I hope that neither happens); it's just an honest view of what in my world feels like the 'middle-ground of opinion'. Since I think that most of the people in my circle of friends would make excellent Wikipedia editors (many of them are published authors in their fields of expertise), it follows that I do not think that we should be policing people's thoughts and opinions on that particular matter - there are some views that, for better or worse, are so commonplace that it would be nonsensical to blanket ban anyone who holds them from editing. What I think is vital however (and I am certain that the friends I'm talking would agree with me on this) is that we treat everybody with respect. Someone wants to be called by a particular name, and for you to use certain pronouns when referring to them? Of course, that is the respectful and polite thing to do, regardless of your opinion on their gender identity. And if you want to get involved in discussions about gender identity, whether that be on Wikipedia, or on online forums, or down the pub with some friends, you should do it in a manner that takes account for the potential for your words to offend, and that demonstrates respect and tolerance towards difference on your part. We don't need to TBan SCB because they hold particular views; we should TBan them because they have repeatedly, and after being warned, made inflammatory comments as documented above, in a manner that is teetering on the edge of trolling. So, with all that said: support TBan from GENSEX. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd like to interrogate some of the assumptions you're making here, but I fear if I do so we'd get far into the weeds of WP:NOTFORUM. Therefore, all I have to say is that I don't think the story about your friends' beliefs is relevant here.

  It's obviously not relevant to your eventual !vote, and I don't think it even works as an argument for the position you're offering it for: your particular set of UK friends is not evidence that a belief is widespread in the UK, a belief being widespread in the UK is not evidence that it's widespread globally, and a belief being widespread globally doesn't mean that it's in keeping with Wikipedia policy. A belief in creationism is also widespread globally, but we ban pushers of fringe views here all the time. Loki (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  We ban people for pushing that view in article space; we don't ban people for thinking it. Young Earth Creationists are, as far as I'm aware, welcome to edit here, provided they don't try to push that POV in related articles. If someone is a flat-earther, there's no reason why they couldn't bash out a few FAs about the new-age music scene of the 1970s, provided they don't intersperse that with trolling about globism. Any sanctions we impose here should be based on someone's actions, not on what we think they might believe - hence why I support this proposal. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  The only views we ban people for having are pro-paedophile advocacy (and related beliefs regarding sex(uality) and people below the legal age of consent) and, inconsistently, beliefs similar to Nazism - if you advocate off-site for legalising child pornography you get banned by the WMF even if all you edit about is pure mathematics. For pretty much any other type of view, as long as you don't go near that topic area on Wikipedia and don't bring it up in discussions then it's regarded as irrelevant. (Note: this is just an observation and is explicitly not expressing an opinion about it, nor is this the place to discuss the rights and/or wrongs of this). Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not saying someone should be banned for privately believing transphobic things, but I do think that you're closing the book too early on the possibility of banning people for saying transphobic things "politely". Loki (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  That’s a pretty lame argument. At best you’re only arguing for the stereotype that British people are transphobic, not that transphobia/the view that trans people aren’t “real” is normal, socially acceptable and inoffensive. Dronebogus (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Girth Summit did not say that (according to their group of friends and acquaintances, which they see as the middle-ground of opinion in UK) trans people are not "real", but rather that they are not, in any meaningful sense, actually the gender that they present as. I understand that this viewpoint may be offensive to many trans people, but also in my experience it is absolutely prevalent: with few exceptions, everyone I know would say that a trans woman is a woman only out of politeness/sense of respect/common decency, and on most occasions they would use the words "man" and "woman" with exclusive reference to (biological) sex ("assigned at birth") rather than gender. But since I don't believe that holding that viewpoint is in itself transphobic, I don't understand why Garth thinks that that viewpoint is legitimate only in the internal forum and that we should sanction it once it is expressed publicly, for example by editing the mainspace citing reliable sources that support it. I feel that trying to enforce the notion that that viewpoint and language use are inherently transphobic by sanctioning editors who adopt them in their capacity as editors (i.e., while they are editing, and not just in their intimate beliefs) would not be helpful in creating a good editorial environment - it could be a battleground approach to GENSEX. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have not said that I think people should be sanctioned for expressing such a viewpoint (although one would have to be careful not to fall foul of WP:CPUSH while doing so). I have said that SCB should be sanctioned because his comments were obviously intended to be inflammatory, and were tantamount to trolling. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I would say that the view that “trans women are men” is pretty garden-variety transphobia and equivalent to “trans people aren’t real” since it states that a trans person isn’t a “real” woman or man and/or that non-binary genders don’t exist. Dronebogus (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand why you're accusing Girth of making a transphobic remark. Can you explain why their remark was transphobic, if at all, in the first place? I wouldn't equate Girth's statement to saying trans people aren't real because there is a clear distinction between the two statements. Thank you and regards, Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Gitz6666 I have a lot respect for you and think of you as a conscientious editor, but I have no idea what you are trying to argue here. In regard to on most occasions they would use the words "man" and "woman" with exclusive reference to (biological) sex ("assigned at birth") rather than gender, what exactly are those occasions? Is there a town hall happening every time a group of friends encounters a trans person to examine their gender? Forgive my sarcasms, but I hardly ever hear people contemplating the gender identity of a cis male mostly because, well, it's none of their damn business. Ppt91^talk 14:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support Since some editors are sharing, I will do the same. As a cis gay male, I am often genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of my trans friends, even within the broadly construed queer community. I am also sick of seeing transphobia being legitimized under the guise of "civil", "scientific", or any other *insert excuse* form of seemingly innocuous discussion. I cannot comprehend, truly, how any person can obsess over another person's gender identity or expression, let alone be so extraordinarily entitled and self-centered to assume it's their place to make any comments about it whatsoever. So yeah, I find these diffs reprehensible. And rather than actual remorse, I see a cavalier attitude and flippant remarks of an experienced editor who appears more concerned with pointing out an alleged "witch hunt" than with recognizing how damaging their rhetoric can be. Ppt91^talk 00:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Girth Summit's argument. Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support There's rarely a valid excuse for this kind of behaviour. Willbb234 19:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Examining the edit in question, I believe SCB was correct to remove that message. The IP was arguing that the edits and talk page contributions of multiple users should be disregarded because "... I myself am transgender. Many of the people in this thread have openly expressed their distaste for my existence. ..." There was nothing of the sort in that entire discussion. That sort of loaded language is not conducive to a collaborative atmosphere in a controversial topic area, and another user – @Pufferfishe: – responded to that IP saying "this is not the place for this type of discussion, per WP:NOTFORUM." SCB was correct to remove such an inflammatory comment, IMO. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Removing that comment was wrong - collapsing it would have been OK though, since it was a case of WP:NOTFORUM - but I find Lourdes's argument convincing (no evidence of continuing abuse) and therefore a warning IMHO is not warranted. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: The statement in question legitimately raises a concern in regards to the motives of other editors being based on ideology rather than reason. To remove such a valid point ignores a considerable problem in this instance. UnironicEditor (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Komoro72

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

• Removed and altered sourced information at Shahmaran, either removing anything that doesn't have the word "Kurd(ish)/Kurdistan" in it, or replacing it with "Kurd(ish)/Kurdistan" [11] [12] [13]
• At Hasanwayhids, they replaced sourced mention of "Iran" with "Kurdistan" [14]. I wonder if they are even aware that the latter is first attested around 100 years after the dynasty ended [15]

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

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

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

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

I fail to see how they're a net worth to this site. A lot of these type of users have emerged recently, trying to replace anything with "Kurdish" and make attacks right off the bat. Might be off-Wikipedia cooperation, considering this one by the same type of users a few months ago [16]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Another user promoting Kurdish-everything and being uncivil towards you? You seem to find a lot of these... Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess my username is not doing me any favours. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hexatron93

User:Hexatron93’s talk page displays a long history of ongoing:

• copyvio ([17] + [18], [19] [20], [21])

• unsourced and incorrect additions (User talk:Hexatron93#Adding incorrect information to California Burrito Co.) that includes partially editing a sourced article to reference a similarly-named company, and calling the original sources fake

• removal of sourced information ([22], [23], [24]) with edit summaries calling them fake or false, with no background to the claims

There’s also changes of what appears to me to be notable unsourced changes to Economy of India that I have not touched: [25], [26]

Also, a final warning 10 days ago here: User talk:Hexatron93#Final warning for unsourced edits

The editor has responded to only a few talk page notices. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

He/she has made about 1,700 edits. He/she hardly ever uses talk pages to discuss edits (1.5% of their edits). He/she rarely explains his/her edits with edit summaries; he/she evidently knows about them;^[27][28][29] it appears to be a deliberate choice not to use them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a stretch to infer that. UnironicEditor (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

SM Supermalls

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

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

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

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

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

For reference. The IP is Special:Contributions/2001:4450:4939:1400:8103:B728:6CB6:F932 and the particular violations are summarized here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:4450:4939:1400:8103:B728:6CB6:F932

Borgenland (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Rhianna543 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Father of the Nation

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Of course it's not true.

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

  EEng 06:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Father of the Nation article

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

---

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

  ---

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

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

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

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

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

That was a mindless move since you already lost debate on your talk page. There was no need to forum shop here to mislead people. A honorific title does not need to be "official". You had agreed with this fact and now instead of grasping my message carefully you are trying to find ways to get around the Hindutva propaganda you are pushing. Anybody who is aware of this subject can easily observe that Hindutva extremists always come up with misleading reasons to dispute the honorific title of "father of the nation" for Mahatma Gandhi.[30][31] If you are really sincere over removing what you believe is unofficial then you would be removing bunch of names there but that isn't what you have done. Don't use Wikipedia for political soapboxing. Capitals00 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Read WP:IDHT. Since the title is honorific, you are not supposed to make any distinction between "official" and "unofficial". If you were really only concerned about defining which title is official and which one isn't then why you missed many other names like, say George Washington[32] who is also informally called 'father of his nation'? From next time, don't engage in this forum shopping and avoid editing with a POV. Capitals00 (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hindutva proponents including BJP members are known for worshipping Gandhi's murderer.[33] The dubious admiration you are citing is also recognized as dubious even by another prominent Hindutva political party Shiv Sena Uddhav Shiv Sena in the words that BJP members pretend to uphold Gandhi only when they are meeting foreigners because they are not up for buying their propaganda contrary to Hindutva audience.[34] It is easy to acknowledge that you are trying to get around Hindutva propaganda. Here is another conclusive evidence of your Hindutva POV pushing. Capitals00 (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Shiv Sena of Uddhav is also Hindutva so the point is still there that even Hindutva proponents recognize the form of Hindutva propoganda you are trying to get around. Capitals00 (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Shaan Sengupta, a timeline helps here.

• 17:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC) the discussion on this topic at WP:ANI started.
• 07:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Shaan Sengupta made an edit to Father of the Nation adding an unofficial tag with a citation.^[35]
• 15:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Shaan Sengupta made an edit to Father of the Nation changing the image in the lead from Mahatma Gandhi to José de San Martín.^[36]
• 01:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Shaan Sengupta reverted two edits by Capitals00 at Father of the Nation.^[37]
• 01:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Capitals00 made his/her first post on User talk:Shaan Sengupta.^[38]

There is and was nothing to stop Shaan Sengupta posting on Talk:Father of the Nation to explain his/her point of view. Though, he/she did provide helpful edit summaries in his/her posts.^[39] An advantage of using the article talk page is that other people who watch the page can become involved in the discussion. And you never know, maybe through discussing it, you and Capitals00 might end up agreeing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

User:Fumikas Sagisavas WP:CIR

I believe this is starting to be a CIR problem. Fumikas has been doing plenty of countervandalism work, but they have repeatedly failed to show the competence that is needed to do it. Repeatedly making incomprehensible MfD nominations about sockpuppets user pages [40] [41] [42], reporting obvious vandals and spammers to ANI where AIV would be appropriate [43][44][45], asking for a long gone LTA to be CBANned [46] and tagging socks when a SPI clerk or CheckUser should do so [47][48][49][50], requesting G3 CSD for an obvious test edit done by a newbie[51]. I'm starting to feel as if there is a WP:CIR problem here and that a pblock from projectspace may be needed. #prodraxis ^connect 15:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Prodraxis Per ROPE, I still want to give them the last chance to change, I've warned them, but I will not be surprised if a block is settled. -Lemonaka‎ 08:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I realize that there may be some problems in some of my operations, and I don't have a complete understanding of some of the policies of this site. In the future, I will improve on this aspect and operate more cautiously. But I hope that Prodraxis will not follow me in the future, thank you! Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

In the future, I will mainly put my editing in the space of the article to make useful edits. For other spaces, I will operate rarely and carefully. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka I don't think there is that much rope to be given out in this situation though. Fumikas was first warned against socktagging an entire year ago but is still continuing to do it [52]. Also they were warned against reporting obvious vandals and spammers to ANI nearly a month ago and have recieved another warning for it a few days later [53] but continued to do it after the warnings. [54] Plus the fact that they have only 7 edits to their own talk page even after editing for almost 1.5 years [55] frankly shows unwillingness to communicate with other editors. #prodraxis ^connect 23:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fumikas Sagisavas First to you, no one stalks you unless you have done something poorly, then you might be followed by some editors to stop you harming this community more deeply. Please assume good faith, otherwise it will be a booster to your block.
@Prodraxis Fumikas Sagisavas, as a user with thousands of edits, promised they would not make more disruption, stay away from anti vandalsim work, focusing on content improvement. Why not give them a last chance? -Lemonaka‎ 02:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka If they promise to stay away from countervandalism for a while and focus on content I am fine with that. #prodraxis ^connect 02:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I will mainly put my editing in the space of the article to make useful edits. For other spaces, I will operate rarely and carefully.
Please follow your promise, and I believe this case can be archived. -Lemonaka‎ 02:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Allegation of impersonation and COI

At User talk:Scott Edward Woodward, there is a user, Scottewoodward (talk · contribs), alleging that the account Scott Edward Woodward (talk · contribs) is impersonating them. This follows the deletion of Scott Woodward (marketing executive) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Woodward (marketing executive) in which the sole keep !vote was from a user now blocked for UPE. I'm guessing at least one of the aforementioned accounts is a sockpuppet of said account. Regardless, if one of these is indeed the real Scott Woodward, then there is also WP:COI/WP:AUTO/WP:NOTWEBHOST occurring here w.r.t. refunds or recreations of the mainspace page in the user space. This was brought to my attention after coming across User:Scott Edward Woodward which was an WP:EL-laden page that I am assuming was similar to the deleted mainspace page? Would appreciate an admin or possibly a CU take a look. Uhai (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

See also User talk:Scottewoodward. Uhai (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Uhai. We have two accounts, each of which claims to be the real Scott Edward Woodward, and each of which claims the other is an impersonator. Clearly one or both of them is lying. I have blocked the account Scott Edward Woodward indefinitely, as being not here to contribute constructively to the encyclopaedia; either they are lying and here to impersonate another person, or they are telling the truth and here to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, and in either case a block is justified. The account Scottewoodward has so far done very little editing, and none of what they have done warrants any administative action, as far as I can see. If the person running either of the accounts is the real Scott Edward Woodward, and is concerned about the impersonation, then I suggest they send an email to info-enwikimedia.org including their real name and their Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification. They should not send documentation without being requested to do so. JBW (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Request Ban for User:DeFacto

I would like to propose that the User:DeFacto be urgently investigated and banned from at least topics related to politics within the United Kingdom if not globally banned on this site.

The current Issue:
The user in question in the last month or so alone has been involved in a number of disputes relating to political news stories regarding or related to the Conservative Party. While initially these could be overlooked as individual isolated incidents, mostly taking place on talk pages, there is a commonality to these incidents that features a clear pattern of "Wikilawyering" with the aim of POV pushing not by the addition of new content but the repeated blocking of new content and disruption of discussions to include it, in particular through using the BLP policy as a blank cheque justification, and the painting of users who wish to include material as engaging in NPOV violations such editorialisation, cherry-picking of sources without evidence of this.

Examples:
- A dispute regarding the description on changing the description of the political ideology of Conservative Party UK where they suggested a user may have cherry-picked sources that they themselves admitted had not read before trying to justify their unevidenced and immediate doubting of user intent under NPOV concerns.[56][57]

- A dispute on the talk page of Huw Edwards where they in the face of repeated opposition tried to suggest with no evidence that multiple RS could not used due to assertions they were biased against The Sun (which itself is a deprecated source) [58][59][60]
- On this dispute on the main article itself their edits and summaries showed their POV-pushing, including insertions to label The Guardian as a "rival" (which carries obvious connotations to suggest their reporting is biased and untrustworthy)[61] and an edit summary that uses the word "spin" that implies BBC News coverage was untrustworthy.[62]

- A dispute on Suella Braverman where they repeatedly stonewalled any inclusion of reliable sources discussing her political leanings, including rather clear selective enforcement of policies or RS disclaimers such as HuffPost (see section between DeFacto and Iskandar323). [63]

- A dispute on Nadine Dorries (which I am the other party) where they repeatedly find new reasons to remove content they don't like, which has included declaring it "unsupported" despite being supported by an entire subsection of the article [64], Synth despite it being in the source[65], and various selectively-applied interpretations of the policy on the lede such as claiming grounds on removing content only sourced in the lede but only removing that on Nadine Dorries resignation[66]
-On this dispute's relevant section of the talk page DeFacto has repeatedly shown unsurmountable opposition to inclusion, including deeming RS news reporting as "opinion"[67], suggesting that they'll find any reason to claim it's not acceptable[68], and claims of "cherry-picking" of sources and breaches of NPOV despite being unable to show themselves any differing RS narrative[69].
-On this dispute I'd also like to note that this repeated removal is continuing on intervals that seem just long enough to avoid the appearance of "edit warring" that they may be caught out on, including removing RS contributions in the lede[70] but also removing relevant context in main body as "political posturing"[71]

Relevant Background Context:
The user DeFacto has prior background of this sort of behaviour, having received multiple bans for their conduct over the years (at times seemingly attempting to systematically avoid these given the 41 confirmed sockpuppets to be them).
Their longest ban was between 2012-2016 when they were globally banned from the English Wikipedia for their conduct on multiple articles[72]. On the discussion at the time for enacting this one user left this description of their behaviour, which I believe is apt:
A huge problem with DeFacto and the articles he tries to dominate in Wikipedia is his presence. It is ubiquitous. He is always there. I don't have the time to respond to every demand he makes for more information when he claims that consensus has not been reached. (It's a tactic he uses frequently.) On the UK Metrication Talk page he must have made more edits than all other editors combined. He uses unending rivers of words to "prove" that he is simply working hard on the article. Others cannot compete. Last year, on the ASDA survey issue, he insisted that editors who had tertiary education in statistics find sources to prove their claim that his view of the survey was wrong. It really meant he could argue non-stop until the equivalent of a three year undergraduate Statistics Degree had been presented here. I gave up at the time, for several months. He presents his questions seemingly politely, while all the time building an impenetrable wall of words. This is part of an ongiong problem for Wikipedia, where those with unlimited time can dominate an article. WP:OWN partially addresses the issue, but actually points out how difficult it is to do anything about it. DeFacto uses superficial civility in humongous quantities while in reality pushing an extreme POV. I see no other solution than keeping him away for a while.

Summary:
Quite simply at this point looking at their recent behaviour it seems clear to me that whatever changes they claimed to have made to remove the ban and associated restrictions to it has since disappeared and are instead back to their old habits and therefore deserving of intervention at this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apache287 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• I was involved in the discussion at Huw Edwards where I wasn't so much concerned with POV issues but was completely bemused by their idea that because the story concerned one newspaper, other newspapers couldn't be used as sources because they were "rivals". I'm still bemused by it, to be honest. I'm also slightly confused by edits like this, when the rest of article clearly cites that this thing happened in detail. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I was involved too, and agree with Black Kite's comment. And I've come across DeFacto at various UK-related articles in recent years. I wasn't aware of their background - they certainly haven't kept to their original claim in the unban request to edit motor vehicle articles. Their main interest seems to be modern UK politics articles. I've found them to be slightly difficult/stubborn/unwilling to look for consensus and, as Black Kite points out, slightly nonsensical at times. There's an obvious conservative/right wing POV. But I haven't really seen anything sanctionable. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @DeCausa, the problems I had 11+ years ago are well behind me and I have no restrictions on my activity. As for my 'main interest' at this moment, I'd characterise it as WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. You'll see in my editing history that I've tried to improve one or more of those in articles about politicians from the Tory, Labour, and SNP parties; articles about civil servants, various convicted criminals, people accused of crimes, articles about police investigations, articles about car designers, and many others. I also dabble in a myriad of other automotive, engineering, geographical, and measurement articles, and any article I come across a clear non-NPOV bias in (whether it's political, or something else). I'm disappointed you think there's any political bias in any of these - I have no political affiliation, or political agenda in my editing. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't referring to a specific party political bias - just a general left/right/centre bias. It's not a big deal - it's apparent for many editors. But I'm confused by your reference to editing "measurement articles". Isn't a condition of your indef unblock that you are TBAN'd from those? DeCausa (talk)

  @DeFacto: could you clarify the position on your editing of measurement articles. DeCausa (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @DeCausa, any restrictions I had have been lifted years ago. I currently have no restriction on the editing of measurement articles. The log of current restrictions is here - and I'm not in it. Can we let historical troubles rest now please. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  The reason I'm bringing it up here is that it's not simply "they have a bias" but what frankly comes across as being in a very short period of time (5 weeks or so) the using of Wikipedia policies as a blunt instrument to pursue that bias. What was notable with the cases I've exampled is that they state as though they're acting out of concerns over neutrality but never present this other "narrative" (for lack of a better word) that is reliably sourced that they suggest is being suppressed by myself or others by cherry-picking.

  Even if I assumed honourable intentions in the two instances I've had direct or adjacent involvement with (Huw Edwards and Nadine Dorries) it seems to be their insistence that NPOV means that if there's only one notable, reliably-sourced "narrative" and no contrasting one then we don't note anything when that's not the policy. Apache287 (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite,

  1. Re the Edwards talkpage COI discussion. We had a bizarre situation there where The Sun broke a story about Huw Edwards, but as The Sun is a deprecated source, it couldn't be cited. So other sources were used to support what The Sun said. That sounds fine, except the other sources gave different interpretations of what The Sun did say. So I raised this issue, and suggested that one of the sources being used, BBC News, with Edwards being a BBC employee, might, although generally being an RS, have a COI per WP:COISOURCE, and that The Guardian, which was also used to source what The Sun said, and which is an arch-rival of The Sun in political alignment terms, and although generally reliable, might in this story about a rival, be biased per WP:BIASED. As the article is a BLP, and as the linked policy sections acknowledge that RSes can be biased or have a COI, I thought it prudent to ensure our opinion attributions (two different interpretations of the same 'fact' can only be opinions) were robust and correctly verifiable.
  2. Re your slight confusion. The article did not support the assertion that there was "mounting public pressure", let alone that it led to the resignation. Another editor reverted Apache's addition as OR. Apache restored it. I reverted and warned that as it was a BLP issue so needed consensus per WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLPCT. Apache disregarded that warning and reverted again. As I assumed the BLP situation was serious, I reverted back, exactly as WP:BLPREMOVE commands: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research); ..., and repeating the warning. What was wrong with doing that?

  -- DeFacto (talk). 20:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  You wouldn't call the demands of the councils of two of the largest towns in her constituency to resign, plus multiple members of her own party "mounting public pressure"? I would. I mean, the sentence is not massively important, because the paragraph makes it absolutely clear that such pressure existed, but it just seems a bit odd to remove it. It's clearly not a BLP issue, either. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, no, I'd expect 'public pressure' for a national government politician to be national pressure, not just a few parochial instances. I'd call it's use here gross exaggeration. And it was the juxtapositioning to imply it was the reason for the resignation too that seemed to be SYNTH to me. But I can't speak for the editor who first reverted it as OR. And I was worried about my responsibility wrt WP:BLPREMOVE, and the restoring in defiance of WP:BLPRESTORE. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite, no, I'd expect 'public pressure' for a national government politician to be national pressure, not just a few parochial instances.

  My literal first addition into the lead came at a time when this was already in the main body of the article:

  "Numerous prominent political figures, including Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, Ed Davey and several senior Tory MPs, have all stepped forward in August 2023, calling for her resignation following her earlier commitment to step down. Their criticism stems from Dorries' limited presence in parliamentary sessions, her voting record, and the absence of constituency surgeries in the town since 2020."

  So clearly there was national pressure from all three major UK-wide parties including the Prime Minister himself. Can't exactly get more "national" than that. Apache287 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's a few political figures and MPs calling for her resignation, and not "mounting public pressure". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Those "few figures" happen to be the heads of three out of four of the UK's largest political parties, and, as @Apache287 already noted, the Prime Minister himself who is also a fellow party member of Dorries. Cortador (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Cortador, yes, three politicians. So 'mounting political criticism', perhaps, noting that two of the three are opposition party leaders, specifically tasked to criticise anything and everything related to the Tories and undoubtedly with their own agendas too? But that was certainly not "mounting public pressure".

  And how does that excuse the repeated defying of WP:BLPRESTORE, which says, If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, rather than taking it to the talkpage where an attempt to achieve consensus could have spared us all this drama. It looks like battle field, rather than collegiate, behaviour to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  You can't genuinely be throwing stones at me when you've just tried to argue that a week of reverting by yourself for several claimed policy infractions (which a number of editors here have now questioned as a rationale) is all because I used "public pressure" rather than "political criticism" and you could've just... changed that at the time.

  Even the most "benefit of the doubt" interpretation of that would still be that it's your behaviour that's causing the problem, if only due to stubbornness/laziness rather than POV-pushing. Apache287 (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, yes, your position gradually moved from this original addition to the latest incarnation. But BLP doesn't say that infringements can be tolerated if they're not as bad as they originally were. If BLP content is disputed, it should not be restored, it should be taken to talk, and the onus to do that is on the editor who wants it added. Upholding BLP is very clear about this: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Your refusal to accept that policy requirement, and battle field mentality, and dirty tactics, used in trying to force your will on the article were mendacious and extremely disruptive, and you still don't seem to get it. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't an infringement against policy, you just keep declaring it so and wikilawyering as literally everyone else tells you it's fine.

  You also keep deliberately misrepresenting someone else as "supporting the view it was OR" when they removed it due to changes that had been made by a third party. Apache287 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, the stuff you added to the BLP was contentious, so it was removed. WP:BLPRESTORE says If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. You did not attempt to achieve a consensus, you simply forced your content into the article - that was a contravention of the BLP policy. Had you taken your argument to the talkpage, rather than treating the policy with contempt, you might have convinced us that you were right, who knows, but you were wrong not to try that first, before re-adding content. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Contentious means something that is controversial, which if that was the case you could actually back up with RS.

  It doesn't mean "@DeFacto doesn't like it and because they alone don't like it then there's no consensus and it's contentious."

  This is precisely why I brought up your prior bans, because even a decade ago people could note that you love to claim "lack of consensus" as a reason to single-handedly stonewall other users. Apache287 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Another editor reverted Apache's addition as OR.

  Actually no they didn't. What they removed was a line that by then had seen the cited source changed by an intermediate edit: [73]

  So my initial edit with the source I used to justify it was never deemed OR by anyone but yourself. Apache287 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, they made this edit, changing "After mounting public pressure, she formally vacated her seat on 29 August." to "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August.". and then, after someone else made two unrelated edits, you made this edit, changing "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August." to "Following mounting public pressure she formally vacated her seat on 29 August.". That is a revert, back to what had been removed for avalid, good-faith, reason. And it is the result of that edit of yours that we are concerned with here. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just continue to ignore the fact that, as I said and showed with the diff above, by then an intermediate editor had replaced the source I'd used to justify the wording with a completely different source. Look at citation 3 following the line in question on first the diff I made, and then the diff immediately prior to them removing the sentence for OR.

  As can clearly be seen, the source used as a citation for that sentence had been changed by someone else, not me. Apache287 (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not what happened before though, it's the restoration of what had just been removed as OR that's the problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  And the opinion of one, or even a few, sources, no matter how reliable they are, cannot be asserted in Wiki's voice, as if if it were an incontovertible fact. Opinions, such as the interpreting of a few politicians calls as "mounting public pressure", need to be properly attributed, especially in a BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not what happened before though, it's the restoration of what had just been removed as OR that's the problem.

  Because someone had removed the source, so it was unintentionally left unsourced so I replaced it with the source re-applied.

  Massive difference to what you're misrepresenting it as.

  And the opinion of one, or even a few, sources, no matter how reliable they are, cannot be asserted in Wiki's voice, as if if it were an incontovertible fact. Opinions, such as the interpreting of a few politicians calls as "mounting public pressure", need to be properly attributed, especially in a BLP.

  Except it is an incontrovertible fact that there was mounting pressure. The leaders of the three main UK-wide parties put public pressure on her calling for her to resign, a number of MPs in her own party publicly called on her to resign, notable public bodies in her constituency publicly called on her to resign.

  You alone, a week later, are alone in claiming that isn't public pressure.

  Good grief, I really think this alone happily shows to everyone just why I believe this can't be genuine good-faith opposition at this point, because you're still to this day essentially arguing that unless you agree with what Reliable Sources say then it can't be added. Apache287 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Needless to say, I refute all of these bad faith, and malicious, and unsubstantiated allegations. They are mostly misrepresentations and false representations of my actions. Then there's the use of muckraking in an attempt to discredit me. I could go through each of the allegations one-by-one if anyone is interested. Or if there's any one of them that anyone else takes seriously, I can address that one if you like. But whatever, I'm not sure that Apache287 is here to improve Wikipedia, but more to push their POV, and clearly by force if opposed. They first tried to hijack my thread above asking about talkpage sub-thread blanking, adding a similar screed of unsubstantiated allegations, in an attempt to intimidate me, and now this. I see a very good case here for WP:BOOMERANG. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  "They first tried to hijack my thread above asking about talkpage sub-thread blanking, adding a similar screed of unsubstantiated allegations, in an attempt to intimidate me, and now this."

  Actually if you look at the time stamps on that discussion I didn't hijack anything. By the time I made my comment there had already been discussion regarding your decision to suggest cherrypicking on the part of @Cortador and I, as I believe I am allowed to do so, make a statement why I believed it was your conduct that was out of line based on my interactions with you, where I provided a number of diffs to support my belief that you showed a pattern of behaviour amounting to Civil POV pushing and that therefore I believed at the time (and still do) that your reporting of them was motivated by that POV pushing and as said towards the end of that submission I was in half a mind to submit my own complaint about your behaviour which then continued.

  You on the other hand put multiple (and frankly unsubstantiated) warnings on my talk page, such as claiming I was making unsourced additions to the Nadine Dorries article and that I was making "personal attacks" for using this forum to report my genuine concerns about your behaviour. Apache287 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't understand the whole OR/SYNTH conversation above. We're talking about this diff, yes? Apache added the content sourced to this which says: Tory MP Nadine Dorries has resigned her Commons seat more than two months after promising to step down ... It follows mounting pressure on the Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire and PM Rishi Sunak after Dorries pledged to step down some 78 days ago. So how is this OR/SYNTH? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader, for my take on this, please see my response to Black Kite above, made at 21:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC). -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, you're arguing that reliable sources do not support the idea that there was mounting pressure for Dorries to resign? Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen, no, that's not what was being disputed. What I'm saying is that, with editors (me, and another calling it OR) having questioned and reverted Apache287's addition, and with this being a BLP, that we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. And rather than doing that, Apache287 simply kept pushing their personal choice of wording, without following the policy and taking it to the talkpage first, to attempt to reach a consensus of how best to word it.

  My personal argument is that the reliable sources do not support the assertion in Wiki's voice that "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August following a period of mounting public pressure". The sources don't support that it was "public pressure", they say that criticism came from councillors in her locality, the leaders of two opposition political parties (no surprise there then), and the leader of her own party who wants to move on from this controversy. I'd say that a more neutral way of summarising that would be that there was "mounting political criticism". I'm also troubled by the juxtapositioning of that with the timing of her decision to quit, tending to imply it was mainly because of public pressure, which we have no reason to believe that it was.

  I was also bearing in mind the stipulations in WP:BLPREMOVE, which says, Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research)..., and WP:BLPCT, which says, "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated as a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee. In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Mackensen Just want to say what DeFacto is claiming here about a second editor deeming my edits to be OR is in fact completely false. As I've already demonstrated with multiple diffs is that an intermediate editor replaced the RS justifying my edit with a different one, so was technically changed to OR by someone else before being removed at a later point for that reason. Apache287 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, that's something we could have thrashed out, and included them in, on the talkpage, if you'd have followed the requirements of WP:BLPRESTORE, rather than just totally rejecting it. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  No it clearly wasn't, because even from the getgo you would just come up with another reason to completely reject even when, as many others have pointed out here, your supposed "it's BLP vio" complaint doesn't hold any water. Now you're at the point of rather badly trying to argue "my problem is that it was political criticism, not public pressure" which would've required all of two words being edited rather than the effort to endlessly revert and throw up walls of authoratative-sounding text on talk pages.

  So maybe instead of hiding behind whatever ALL CAPITAL WORDS POLICY SHORTCUT you like to use maybe actually look at the fact people keep telling you that you're using it wrong. Apache287 (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, you talking drivel now. Do you understand WP:CONSENSUS? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Literally in the opening paragraph.

  "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity"

  You, alone, are still the only person who has claimed it wasn't supported by the sources I provided to support it. Apache287 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• I was involved at Suella Braverman (though I have largely stepped back while on holiday), and my memory of DeFacto is positive. The big issue there was extreme POV problems from an editor who has now been permanently blocked for edit warring, civility, and sock puppetry, and DeFacto was part of the solution, not part of the problem. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, looking through that as someone who wasn't involved the editor who was blocked by the end (Aimilios92) was definitely intent on POV-pushing and incapable of showing any level of good faith given the interactions they had (and how every other editor called out their behaviour as inappropriate).

  However, specifically in the section I exampled but also on the wider talk page, it was their interaction with another editor (Iskandar323) that was of relevancy here, in particular:

  - Their use of RS disclaimers for HuffPost (the caution warning on politics only applies to US politics) and The Guardian (despite referencing that "some" users accused it of bias it's still marked as a consensus-agreed RS) and stating that they should "perhaps find some undisputedly reliable sources that name more than one critic, and use those" which reads, in conjunction with the other examples used as part of this submission, as a further example of their habit of establishing arguably unachievable levels of evidential burden, given every source will be disputed by one group or another.

  - The use of "BLP" as a blunt instrument where they'll remove entire RS-backed sections. Even when quite reasonably asked why they don't just remove specific words/phrases or the excess sources they claim is a sign of "overciting" they object to if that's the claimed issue it's dismissed with "I could do a lot of things if I had more hours in a day, though I'm not sure that any of them would be the things you suggest", which is a rather odd justification given the purpose of the site. Apache287 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, and like you, Aimilios92 trawled through my Wiki history and dug out some nuggets that they also used against me, thinking it might, somehow, discredit me. And that was part of the reason they were blocked. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  As a minor detail on a wide-ranging ban a user used a prior block as an argument during a content dispute.

  I've supplied a number of diffs to show what I believe is a serious pattern of behaviour on the appropriate forum to discuss whether that pattern merits sanction, and as part of that used prior history (namely a four year block for tendentious editing) as relevant background.

  Those are blindingly different contexts and if you think that's going to work as some form of "watch yourself" comeback then you need to think harder on your rebuttals, which so far seem to be little more than listing policy as though that's an explanation of your questionable application of them. Apache287 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287. Your diffs are accompanied with false commentaries though, including misrepresentation and putting words in my mouth that were not said. Anyone looking at them will see that. If they can't, as I said in my first statement, I can happily provide more details. The 'background' is mud slinging. The BLP policy applies to us all, and your constant defiance of WP:BLPRESTORE needed attention. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  And again, you can't help but claim everything is "false" about your actions and yet you take no notice of the fact several people in talk pages and this submission have all made the same comments in that you are blatantly not following the policy you're claiming to be enforcing.

  Frankly this continued "you're lying about me, it's all lies" defensiveness just goes to show why I thought it appropriate to bring it here, because you don't seem capable of listening to anyone but your own pre-built assumptions. Apache287 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Apache287, okay, I said I would elaborate if challenged, so have started a new section below to do so. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be careful with pointing fingers at users that got banned for the same behaviour that your are displaying. Cortador (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Taking action against BLP violations is a duty, not a behaviour issue. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Not relevant as that's not what that person was banned for. Cortador (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested rebuttal details

This sub-section is in response to Apache287's comments made above at at 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC).

Apache287, I'll go one-by-one though each of your 'examples', giving my reasons for rejecting them as baseless:

• Your example 1

A dispute regarding the description on changing the description of the political ideology of Conservative Party UK where they suggested a user may have cherry-picked sources that they themselves admitted had not read before trying to justify their unevidenced and immediate doubting of user intent under NPOV concerns.

• My rejection

Your premise that I "suggested a user may have cherry-picked sources" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Here's what I asked in the talkpage discussion:

After the other editor added a selection of six sources, and a commentary on them, I posted this question, asking them how they had arrived at that selection, an important consideration when evaluating the weight of what they were saying. I never suggested that they were cherry-picked. The other editor then introduced the term 'cherry-picked' in their response. Which I answered, again without any such suggestion.

Follow the thread and you'll see I never suggested cherry-picking, I tried to get a question about their selection answered, but with no joy, and they then capped my requests as off-topic! This gave rise to me posting this ANI request.

• Your example 2

A dispute on the talk page of Huw Edwards where they in the face of repeated opposition tried to suggest with no evidence that multiple RS could not used due to assertions they were biased against The Sun (which itself is a deprecated source).

On this dispute on the main article itself their edits and summaries showed their POV-pushing, including insertions to label The Guardian as a "rival" (which carries obvious connotations to suggest their reporting is biased and untrustworthy)[81] and an edit summary that uses the word "spin" that implies BBC News coverage was untrustworthy.

• My rejection

Your premise that I "tried to suggest with no evidence that multiple RS could not used" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

I added COI tags to BBC News cites to start a talkpage discussion. In that article we had a bizarre situation where The Sun broke a story about Huw Edwards, but as The Sun is a deprecated source, it couldn't be cited. So other sources were used to support what The Sun said. That sounds fine, except the other sources gave different interpretations of what The Sun did say. So I raised this issue, and suggested that one of the sources being used, BBC News, with Edwards being a BBC employee, might, although generally being an RS, have a COI per WP:COISOURCE, and that The Guardian, which was also used to source what The Sun said, and which is an arch-rival of The Sun in political alignment terms, and although generally reliable, might in this story about a rival, be biased per WP:BIASED. As the article is a BLP, and as the linked policy sections acknowledge that RSes can be biased or have a COI, I thought it prudent to ensure our opinion attributions (two different interpretations of the same 'fact' can only be opinions) were robust and correctly verifiable.

• Your example 3

A dispute on Suella Braverman where they repeatedly stonewalled any inclusion of reliable sources discussing her political leanings, including rather clear selective enforcement of policies or RS disclaimers such as HuffPost (see section between DeFacto and Iskandar323).

• My rejection

Your premise that I "repeatedly stonewalled any inclusion of reliable sources discussing her political leanings" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Your accusation that I performed "selective enforcement of policies or RS disclaimers such as HuffPost" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

I correctly commented that "Per WP:RSP, HuffPost is not considered to be generally reliable for politics". Read the "HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post)" section, just under WP:HUFFPOST, it says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors." It supports exactly what I said.

• Your example 4

A dispute on Nadine Dorries (which I am the other party) where they repeatedly find new reasons to remove content they don't like, which has included declaring it "unsupported" despite being supported by an entire subsection of the article, Synth despite it being in the source, and various selectively-applied interpretations of the policy on the lede such as claiming grounds on removing content only sourced in the lede but only removing that on Nadine Dorries resignation.

On this dispute's relevant section of the talk page DeFacto has repeatedly shown unsurmountable opposition to inclusion, including deeming RS news reporting as "opinion", suggesting that they'll find any reason to claim it's not acceptable[88], and claims of "cherry-picking" of sources and breaches of NPOV despite being unable to show themselves any differing RS narrative.

On this dispute I'd also like to note that this repeated removal is continuing on intervals that seem just long enough to avoid the appearance of "edit warring" that they may be caught out on, including removing RS contributions in the lede but also removing relevant context in main body as "political posturing".

• My rejection

Your premise that I "repeatedly find new reasons to remove content they don't like" is totally false, a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

What I'm saying is that, with editors (me, and another calling it OR) having questioned and reverted your addition, and with this being a BLP, that we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. And rather than doing that, Apache287 simply kept pushing their personal choice of wording, without following the policy and taking it to the talkpage first, to attempt to reach a consensus of how best to word it.

My personal argument is that the reliable sources do not support the assertion in Wiki's voice that "She formally vacated her seat on 29 August following a period of mounting public pressure". The sources don't support that it was "public pressure", they say that criticism came from councillors in her locality, the leaders of two opposition political parties (no surprise there then), and the leader of her own party who wants to move on from this controversy. I'd say that a more neutral way of summarising that would be that there was "mounting political criticism". I'm also troubled by the juxtapositioning of that with the timing of her decision to quit, tending to imply it was mainly because of public pressure, which we have no reason to believe that it was.

I was also bearing in mind the stipulations in WP:BLPREMOVE, which says, Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research)..., and WP:BLPCT, which says, "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated as a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee. In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project".

-- DeFacto (talk). 19:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Point 1:

Your initial response was: "@Cortador, I haven't read them yet, but I just wondered how you came across them. Did you search specifically for those views, or what?"

That is literally raising the possibility of them having cherry-picked them when you hadn't even read the sources. The fact you hadn't used the explicit phrase "cherry-picked" doesn't hide the obvious inference you were making.

Point 2:

Your claim "I added COI tags to BBC News cites to start a talkpage discussion" is straight up false. Your diff shows you tagged the main article on 20:00 UTC on 19 July, and then continued editing other pages as shown by your contribution log. The discussion on your COI tags, which can be entirely summed up as many other users expressing complete surprise and disbelief at what you were claiming, was started by a different user the next day.

Also throughout your entire justification is "may be biased", "might have a conflict of interest". You, alone, deciding there is a problem with their coverage is not evidence there actually is a problem with their coverage. And it's notable how you never presented any other RS to show that their coverage was out of step with wider coverage.

Point 3:

"I correctly commented that "Per WP:RSP, HuffPost is not considered to be generally reliable for politics". Read the "HuffPost (politics) (The Huffington Post)" section, just under WP:HUFFPOST, it says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors." It supports exactly what I said."

No consensus on reliability for international coverage is not the same as "not considered to be generally reliable for politics", quite simply because the latter is a statement that is suggesting there is consensus that it isn't reliable.

Point 4:

As I have stated and evidenced (numerous times at this point), no other editor deemed my changes to be OR. They deemed that subsequent alterations that removed the source to leave it as OR and then (quite understandably) removed it because as a result of that source removal the statement was unsupported. Your continued attempts to claim it was deemed OR by this third party are at this point frankly a lie.

hat we should be fully adhering to WP:BLPRESTORE, which says When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.

But that's the point, I don't regard you as acting in good faith. Your opposition to the changes I made have, over the past week, been whittled down from it being "editorialisation" to "well they used the phrase "public pressure" when I thought it should be "political criticism" and I've still yet to see you explain why you... didn't just make that change.

Every other editor, when examining my actual additions (and not when they've been further changed and had sources removed by someone else) have all expressed the same viewpoint which is why are you continuing to claim they're policy violations when they're clearly not.[74][75]

Your entire claimed reasoning behind the repeated reverting is textbook Wikilawyering, in fact I'd almost say you seem almost proud of that description given you're talking about your actions in terms such as "taking action against BLP violations is a duty", as though this was some kind of legal drama.

Despite the fact you keep calling my reasons for this report as "baseless" the fact is it's clearly anything but. So far the only real debate has been whether what you've done is enough to be formally sanctioned, not that your behaviour hasn't been a problem in general. It's not surprising to me that one of the first replies to this was someone describing you as "slightly difficult/stubborn/unwilling to look for consensus and, as Black Kite points out, slightly nonsensical at times." Apache287 (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Apache287, none of yours points hold water...

Point 1: mine was a straightforward question, yours was a disingenuous and inflammatory interpretation of it.

Point 2: 'false'? No, I added the tags at 2023-07-19T20:59:21, a discussion started at 2023-07-20T07:35:04 - it worked as I anticipated.

Point 3: the first sentence of the entry I cited, and as you quoted it, says, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics". Which is exactly what I said. If it was considered to be generally reliable it would have a green background and a green tick in a circle.

Point 4: they reverted the content you added as OR, and as we never got to discuss it, you do not know what their rationale for that was.

It seems you are blind to the facts of the situation, and are grasping at straws. I suggest you stop digging. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Point 1: No, disingenuous is even raising the possibility someone "searched specifically" for sources that you haven't read.

Point 2: "it worked as I anticipated." No, if your intention was to start a talk page discussion then you'd have started the talk page discussion.

Point 3: Again "no consensus" is not the same as "not considered reliable", no consensus means it's reliability hasn't actually been properly ascertained so can't be immediately written off one way or the other.

Point 4: Seriously, stop lying. You know you're lying and everyone else can see it. They clearly as per the diffs presented removed an ALTERED statement someone had removed the source from. Apache287 (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

OMG can the three of you stop sniping at each other? (Don't respond to this, just stop.) --JBL (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if an admin would step in and start proposing sanctions, they'd stop. I'd propose banning all 3 of them from the page and giving DeFacto a topic ban from British politics. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this being the most appropriate resolution. UnironicEditor (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

S201050066, yet again

Previous discussion : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130#Return of S201050066: Electric Boogaloo

S201050066 (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

2001:56B:3FE8:3399:0:4F:5C7B:5601 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2001:56B:3FEC:FE7C:0:4F:5DD5:E301 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2001:56B:3FE2:8102:0:4E:D50C:7601 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2001:56B:3FEA:10B7:0:4E:CEAC:BF01 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

2001:56B:3FE3:AD26:0:4E:CEDE:8101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can we get yet another IP range block? S201050066 is back again, this time spamming nonsensical comments on Andykatib's user talk page, among some of which are incredulous threats like Tenryuu S201050066 number 41.2 is a sockpuppet of S201050066 and S201050066 now has 200 sockpuppet accounts and they will attacking every single wiki across the foundation (Diff) and Andykatib and Bedivere and Tenryuu put all the edits back on the timeline of the covid-19 pandemic articles or we will file a 20 billion dollar lawsuit on wikipedia (Diff). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the range for a month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Tenryuu: and @RickinBaltimore: for your help. Much appreciated. Andykatib (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Anett971109

This user has been adding poorly unsourced content in anonymous IPs on the page Fousheé, destroying birth date section. The page had been protected for 3 days ago but even that didn't work and now the reported user is committing vandals again. 2803:9800:9012:B93B:D190:287C:EAD9:6157 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding unsourced content isn't the right thing to do, but it isn't vandalism. Nor has the editor ever been notified of what they're doing wrong. I left them a template welcome that focuses on sourcing, and I'll watch the article for a week. Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

"Spanish Catalan" versus "Catalan"

Hello. I recently started the article Carme Junyent. I described her as "Catalan" (as all the reliable sources do), but an IP changed it to roughly "Spanish". Then I undid that change and justify both in the edit summary and the talk page why it was a wrong "correction": you can see it at Talk:Carme Junyent. For your information, I carefully read WP:ETHNICITY, researched what the reliable sources in English, Catalan, and Spanish referred to her as, and found examples of other Wikipedia articles where only "Catalan" is used to describe somebody in the leading section. Then, the user Alsoriano97 made the article better, but they also corrected "Catalan" to "Spanish Catalan". As of now, no reliable source calls Carme Junyent "Spanish", and I can assure you not one calls her "Spanish Catalan". All the main digital newspapers in Catalonia and even Spain call her "a Catalan linguist", which was the original text I wrote. For this reason, I would like for the article to say simply that she is a Catalan linguist, both in the leading section and the short description. Thank you beforehand. --Brunnaiz (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I see a new entry at LAME. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What is nonsense is to come directly here and not resolve this discussion in the most amicable way possible with the people involved. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This issue could easily become an edit war because it's controversial. Not just with you or the previous IP, but with anyone. I dearly apologize if this feels non-amicable to you. --Brunnaiz (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Brunnaiz: What was her nationality? M.Bitton (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Her nationality was Spanish. But the 2018 consensus on Spanish regional identities that I referenced and that remains looks deeper into the topic than the nationality all alone. --Brunnaiz (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, this is not a question of "Spanish Catalan" versus "Catalan". "Spanish" here refers to her nationality, while "Catalan linguist" refers to her profession. M.Bitton (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It's no different to British v English. Go with the sources - it's going to be one or the other. Having both "Spanish" amd "Catalan" (particularly as Catalan is wikilinked) is otiose. DeCausa (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly: there are Catalans who are not Spanish. M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean in Andorra and handful over the French border? It's still down to the sources: "Spanish Catalan" is still an unlikely sourced designation. DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Andorrans as a community don't identify as Catalan. Those living in North Catalonia/Pays Catalan (Northern France) may, but, like you, I think it is still unlikely to word it like that in English. --Brunnaiz (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

"Catalan linguist" doesn't refer to her profession, only "linguist" does. Linguists, at least in Catalonia and Spain, study language as a whole, not just a particular language (they may specialize in it, but they have prior general knowledge on language). However, I see how it may sound like "Catalan teacher" (=teacher of Catalan) or "Catalan translator" (=translator of/from Catalan), so it's understandable. --Brunnaiz (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Since Francesc de Borja Moll i Casasnovas is described as a Catalan linguist, I guess "Catalan linguist" is a profession in Spain, though it doesn't look like it applies in this case. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What already has become a discussion on content will soon disappear in one of the (currently 1138) archive pages of this noticeboard. It should be available at Talk:Carme Junyent and further discussion should be held there too. I don't think your intentions were inamicable, but User:Alsoriano97 is correct that you should discuss it there (of course as amicably as possible, but that goes without saying :-). If an edit war does ensue (which it shouldn't, if the wording is discussed at the article's talk page) it can be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but no administrative remedy is needed prophylactically in this case here. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Catalan isn't Spanish and thus shouldn't be interchangeable. I agree with the claiming they were "Spanish Catalan" is false since no sources state they were both Spanish and Catalan. UnironicEditor (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

User:DeCausa

DeCausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user told me on the talk page of the article Muhammad that [1]

Numerous editors, from different perspectives, have now expressed concern with your approach. You need to properly address those concerns and certainly cease making further edits to the article until there's a consensus on this page for you to continue.

Is this binding? Can a non-admin make a unilateral statement like this prohibiting another user from editing an article? To the best of my knowledge, the ones disputing my edits are the aforementioned editor; then @Jopharocen who doesn't seem to understand the function of citations and based his arguments on original research [2]. In one of his comments he particularly said [3]:

I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit

@Chxeese who reverted all my edits on some articles, just because according to him I'm Islamophobic [4][5]
@Iskandar323 whose one of his objections is about me using this source . I believe I have refuted his accusations against the author [6], but he went to another section and started making the same allegations [7]. I have been trying to invite him and @DeCausa to start an RfC to resolve the matter [8]. My most recent invitation has not been answered by him [9].
And @Admiral90, when I asked him if the works that cite the source in question say or at least suggest that the source is fringe [10], he answered it with [11]

I see you're again trying to ignore a point by attempting to frame it as original research.

Kaalakaa (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Any editor is free to ask you to refrain from editing while disputes over your edits are resolved on the talk page. Being from an admin or not is mostly irrelevant. The only thing unique to admins is that if they are not involved they could say they will block you if you continue and directly follow up on that threat. However a non-admin or an involved admin could easily warn you that you may be blocked and report you somewhere appropriate if you continue. And if an uninvolved admin agrees your behaviour was disruptive enough to warrant blocking then they may block you. You do not need to and should not expect to be warned by an uninvolved admin to stop before you can be blocked. That said, this will only apply to further disruptive edits, so if do happen to make an edit which no one disputes, this is fine. (But consider if you have kept making changes which are disputed perhaps your assessment of what will be disputed is questionable.) In certain circumstances an uninvolved admin can unilaterally topic ban meaning you need to stop editing point blank and even an uncontroversial and undisputed edit is not okay, but that needs to be a lot more formal than than this. Note that WP:EW is definitely something which can earn a block, so if you keep making changes which are disputed and reverted you shouldn't be surprised if you're blocked for it. While it takes two to edit war, no editor should want a situation where both sides a blocked so editors should try and avoid it. And perhaps more importantly if it's a WP:1AM situation, the one editor shouldn't be surprised if they're blocked whereas the many editors who revert them are not. Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Kaalaaka, I can answer your questions: no and yes (although in view of the answer to the first question "prohibiting" isn't the right word). Btw, are you complaining about the other editors mentioned in your first post? If so, you haven't notified them of this thread with {{subst:ANI-notice}} and you would need to. DeCausa (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I came here to say something similar. I went to User talk:Jopharocen to warn them against canvassing but was surprised to find there was no notification and a check of the edit history shows it wasn't deleted. I will disagree DeCausa on one point though, the fact you directly brought up their actions here means you have to notify them regardless of whether you intended your comment to be a complaint. They are entitled to know you are talking about them here. Normally when it's just one or two editors I'll just notify them for you with a stern reminder to do so yourself in the future but I can't be bothered with you mentioning so many different editors. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

you have to notify them

I just did that. Thanks for letting me know. I'm new to this. Kaalakaa (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa is correct in their suggestion that Kaalakaa would do well to pause their editing on Muhammad amid the numerous active discussions on their recent editing, which have raised significant concerns over their approach to sourcing. The scale of Kaalakaa's recent edits to this GA-class page are such that they now account for roughly 45% of all content on the page, and this as a page with 5,000 historic editors. Given that the page has remained largely the same size, that means that roughly 45% of the page has been replaced in recent months. To be clear, this was not a page littered with tags in need of correction; this was a GA-class article (about a major global religious figure) ... though what the page qualifies as now remains to be assessed and determined. And yet, despite the extraordinary nature of these changes, the queries that have naturally arisen among other editors about the edits and sourcing have been met with what appears to be both a lack of understanding and reluctance to address core elements of policy, e.g. WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia is a collegiate environment, so editors are expected to be able to answer questions regarding their edits with respect to policy, not least when the edits in question have had a significant impact on an existing high-quality article in an obviously contentious topic space. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the WP:WEIGHT issue that you (and @DeCausa) have raised in our discussion is mostly that of the following book in which you accused the author of various allegations [1] based on the following Bloomsbury link you provided, which in fact does not correspond to your claims as I explained here [2]. You gave "undue" and "dubious" tags to all the material sourced from the book [3]. When I was in the process of adding other sources to support the material [4], @DeCausa came to tell me to stop editing until there was a consensus that I could edit again [5].

At the top of the article's talk page it is clearly written:

Muhammad has been listed as a level-3 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do.

I saw many problems with this article when I first came there such as WP:SYNTH [6]; WP:OR [7] [8]; Source misrepresentation [9] [10], etc. Not to mention that most of the material in the article at that time was only based on one source, Watt. That was why I decided to improve the article with other and more recent sources, according to WP:AGEMATTERS, and include a number of important details about the subject that in the previous version seemed to have been deliberately left out in order to protect his image, which is contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED. Other editors who took issue with my edits such as @Jopharocen, who particularly said [11]:

"I'm going to request a dispute and shall share this throughout social media as Wikipedia suddenly betrayed its own guidelines and is allowing an editor, who is ignorant of history and is clearly backed by motivations to defame the character of the article after opening the way for him to edit..."

generally base their arguments on their understanding of primary sources, which is not allowed for Wikipedia articles. As much as I'd like to refute their arguments it would only turn the talk page into a primary source debate forum, which is against WP:NOTFORUM. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

They didn't make any allegation against the author (describing the author's claims as Fringe is perfectly acceptable). Some of the hundreds of edits that you made to a GA article, that is probably no longer so because of the justified tags that ensued, are disputed, so now is the perfect time for you to take a break from editing and start addressing the issues that have been raised. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I need to make a clarification here. @Iskandar323, claimed that based on this link, the author of this book "falls well short of subject-matter expert" [1], and started to put "undue" and "dubious" tags to every material sourced from the book [2]. However, when I informed him that the content of the link says otherwise [3]

Rodgers is considered a subject matter expert on insurgency movements and early Islamic warfare. ... He is a sought after speaker and has lectured in such diverse venues as the Worldwide Anti-Terrorism Conference, the NATO School in Germany, and to military personnel in the United States as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. ... In addition to his major professional publications, Rodgers has written or edited over a dozen major historical reports for the U.S. Army

He dismissed it and then tried to divert attention to the author's expertise in "insurgency movements" instead, ignoring the "early Islamic warfare" part [4]. After I told him that early Islamic warfare refers to the battles during Muhammad's era [5], he said "the link is worthless" and he "only held it up to point out Rodgers has little to no academic background" [6]. When I asked where in the link it implies that, he avoided the questions and went to another section, repeating the similar accusations [7].

The book in question is a publication from the University Press of Florida. Our WP:RS says that

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
...
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

The book was peer reviewed and assessed by academics from 11 universities within the State University System of Florida, so it is very reliable. WP:RSUW states that:

The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion

But apparently we couldn't agree, so I invited him to start an RfC on the matter a few times. My latest invitation hasn't been responded to by him yet [76]. I was also in the process of finding and adding other reliable sources that support the material sourced from it [8], but @DeCausa came and told me to cease from editing the article until there is a consensus that I can continue [9]. Kaalakaa (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kaalakaa Until this moment you're only claiming that my discussions were based on my understanding of primary sources to avoid the discussion, and I've refuted that unfounded accusation many times and even asked you multiple times to point where exactly I put my own understanding of the sources when I even showed sources that explain parts you - either intentionally or ignorantly - didn't include for the sake of defamation.

The assassination of Ka'b is a clear example, as despite proving a source for you, you helplessly insisted to deny that his tribe had a pact with Muhammad which he violated it and sided with the enemy which was the main reason for his assassination, a punishment for treason not a murder for a personal matter as you claimed by using your own interpretation of primary sources. It wasn't a personal matter when it involves a threat to the entire community when Ka'b - using your own words in the article, aroused them to retaliate, that is, the Meccan enemies. So I'm not only providing a reference to refute your interpretation, but even used your own words which contradict your interpretation, yet you claim that I'm the one using personal interpretation.

You have ignored to discuss that for sure and simply replied by:

we don't give a damn about your theories

Which is of course a subjective attitude which I don't think the gentlemen here would approve.

You will happily accept the Satanic verses despite never being narrated with a sound chain of transmission simply because its recorded in the earliest surviving biography, and because some Western scholars also quoted it providing various interpretations. But you will struggle to deny Muhammad's miracles throughout the article, despite them being recorded as well in the very same earliest surviving biography as well as in almost all canonical books of hadith because they don't suit you and are making you losing your defamation campaign.

And before you come up with the argument that miracles are myths from a secular perspective, don't forget that Satan is also a myth from a secular perspective. Therefore the Satanic verses cannot take place from a secular perspective.

Also, I'm not opening a new discussion here, but merely pointing out topics that were already discussed in Muhammad:Talk page and clarifying that you didn't respond and either aggressively rebuked me or ignored to respond, so that your accusations be clear that they are unfounded. Jopharocen (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds to me like neither of you are capable of editing neutrally on the article. Your classification of someone trying to elevate the perspectives of actual historians over your own religious dogma as "defamation" tells me that you need to be banned from the article as well, as you are quite obviously incapable of putting aside your religious sensibilities to collaborate. 2603:7000:C00:B4E8:904F:E2AC:3406:AEDC (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

References

It seems like both disputing parties should refrain from inserting their personal commentary in regards to the creditability of a source especially if it's misrepresentation which skips building consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnironicEditor (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Kaalakaa

This user is making Wikipedia a troll site adding this blunder 1 2 and several other false, dubious information while disregarding due weight. Note this blunder has stand removed now by another person 1. See the editor's edits on the article Muhammad. See also the talk page on article Muhammad where the editor's addition is opposed on several grounds by several editors. Moreover the quality of the article has downgraded to a troll site to an extent. The editor has disregard for truth as evidenced by addition of this blunder. The editor disregard the fact that self contradiction or other blunder or false information contained even in the reliable or so-called reliable sources has to be avoided. Moreover the disputed content in any source whether reliable or the other cannot be taken because of which independent sources are relied on. I wonder whether the editor forgot the password of their earlier account [77] for escaping from the possible ban of this account. So it would be great if the editor is compelled to reveal their earlier account and verify it: anyway chances are that it could be found by a sockpuppetry investigation. This would be helpful to know whether the similar fasion of disruptive edit has been done by that account also. I consider this user's edits unhelpful and useless while also severing less for educative purpose. Hence unencyclopedic. I see discussion with this editor on the talk page is useless since this person has disregard for truth. I believe a debate on blunder is blunder. Gaming of the system or misusing Wikipedia is to be suspected if the editor gets favourable response about the editor's additions or anything conducive for it. I see no option left to solve the problems except a ban on this editor. A ban on this editor is necessary to avoid general sanctions on the topic which is especially true because of misuse by one or few editors.

Because of all of these things I say the edits the editor makes are in the nature of bad faith edits. Also see the recent edits by this editor. With this editor's edits the quality, usefulness, trustworthiness, educative purpose and neutrality of the article has degraded. Having disregard for truth while also making bad faith edits, the editor deserves indefinite block which is especially true since the editor behaves as if not a new commer as evidenced by the editor's citations of Wikipedia, while also admitting to had an account earlier whose password the editor says to have forgot. [78]. An outright block is needed since the user is likely to justify their edits.

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DeCausa where the editor is apparently trying to find all the possibilities to add such bad faith edits. Neutralhappy (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The name of the old account is on the new account's user page.

Old account: Kaalaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New account: Kaalakaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This should be closed before a WP:BOOMERANG finds its way over here.2603:7000:C00:B4E8:904F:E2AC:3406:AEDC (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I have made this discussion a subthread of the other one which is basically on the same issue started by the editor who was named in this thread. We deal with all editors involved in a dispute so there's no reason to have separate threads on the same issue. And frankly neither discussion should have a headline with either editor's name. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

2600:4040:aa53:f500:7819:2513:e4cd:bba0

2600:4040:aa53:f500:7819:2513:e4cd:bba0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - this is the latest address of a LTA, this IP address blocked twice before, any chance somebody can introduce a longer block please? GiantSnowman 17:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Which LTA is this? (if there isn't an LTA infopage for the user here, then mention the name of the original account or a previously blocked account) — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the 64 for 3. Lourdes 09:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Lourdes!

AP - they've never had a named account as far as I recall, always edited from that range on national soccer team related articles. GiantSnowman 18:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Iterresise

This user is showing very inappropriate behaviour. They are doing constant BLUDGEONing and are attacking other editors who disagree with them, as shown here regarding a Template for Discussion request. They are also indirectly attacking other users via their talk page, and putting inappropriate content in said talk page as well. They are not showing the best behaviour. They have previously been blocked, and reported, numerous times in the past. They appear to be a repeat offender of Wikipedia policies, and I suggest an indefinite block due to their actions / behaviour. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 19:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Evelyn Harthbrooke, don’t forget to leave a msg on Iterresise’s talk page using the template and instructions at the top of this page. It’s required.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@A. B. Sorry! Done. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Definitely bludgeoning at that TfD as Evelyn reported.

This response to previous talk page warnings is not collegial:Special:MobileDiff/1098453210

–A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Link to previous ANI discussion (also July 2022). Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Which was removed nor did it target anyone. Iterresise (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Iterresise was blocked once in July 2022 for 24 hours for edit warring, and there have been no warnings about editing conduct since then on their talk page. However, their behavior in the TfD does appear to be uncivil and bludgeoning. Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

They made 22 edits between August 2022 and August 2023, so the absence of warnings during that period indicates little. Folly Mox (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

They spent hours preparing this TfD in their sandbox. They may have been surprised and dismayed by the opposition at the TfD after all that work. I’m not advocating for deletion, just pointing to a possible factor in their behaviour today. (I !voted delete). A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's not site ban....a block ok....much easier to follow this account then to find the sock they will make. Moxy- 23:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Astounding. User:Moxy says "Chalk this up to new editor (585 edits)" and this isn't a personal attack yet I am accused of a personal attack by WP:BULLYING and WP:TAGTEAMing? He was warned here. I'm shocked Evelyn Harthbrooke didn't get the message. It's rather diseingeionous. And her behavior wasn't WP:CIVIL. This is shocking. And by the way: "astounding" is her word. I'm not sure what bludgeoning even means. Was I not patient? Did I carefully explain the situation? The discussion revealed some new aspects to the issue. How did I bludgeoning anything? "this TFD request is honestly astoundingly ridiculous": that's bludgeoning. "reported, numerous times in the past": completely false. Iterresise (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to suggest that inexperience may play a role in a TfD nomination meeting with unanimous disagreement. For bludgeoning, see WP: BLUDGEON. Folly Mox (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright: I get it. My intent wasn't to bludgeon: The fact was that I had removed the templates which was met with resistance and in previous discussions of the series of templates, some of the solutions weren't presented. It's as simple as that. Iterresise (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You voted delete? You voted keep actually. Iterresise (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You're right. I !voted keep. Typo --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments like [79] I find to be a waste of my time: "too many templates in the TfD bundle" I already commented on this. "deleting so many would disrupt so many articles": not a valid reason for keeping templates if others get deleted so you need to present a unique reason for keeping the templates: otherwise I find your comment to be disingenuous. Iterresise (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Iterresise, you said you had already commented on "too many templates in the TfD bundle" so you're objecting here^{(see above)} to my !vote where I made that comment. The TfD is not a discussion just with you; it's a community discussion. We share our opinions (!votes) on what should be done. We're expected to give a reasoning for our !vote but it's not required to be unique. The comment I made that you objected to was not a response to you, it was my legitimate !vote in the community discussion that you started.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What I said was "And how would you propose to bundle the templates?". That's what I meant when I said "I already commented on this.". Iterresise (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

None of the votes addressed any of the new issues I presented. The behavior of the participants is disingenuous. Ironic. Iterresise (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Iterresise. I am listing down a few of your contributions over the past few days:

1. "I am a virgin"
2. "do you think hypocrites and liars are selfish and hateful people?"
3. "how ridiculous" (edit summary)
4. "hypocrites and liars"
5. "hypocrite" (edit summary)
6. "You are being ridiculous"
7. "Another ridiculous keep vote."
8. "Please stop lying."
9. "How annoying and childish"
10. "Stop being ridiculous"

This is quite tendentious. Might I advise you to introspect and stop such aggressive attacks on other editors? You may have a reason to get disappointed on your TfD issue, but that has no leeway to address fellow editors as liars, childish, ridiculous... If you don't acknowledge this issue, it will not lead to anywhere good. Thank you, Lourdes 08:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes They're just going to enter defensive mode. They've done that with the entire TfD discusion and they're even doing it here. As you saw they even attacked me by removing the notice I posted and calling me a hypocrite. This is overall just very disappointing behaviour from them. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 11:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Evelyn Harthbrooke: I reverted myself with a blank edit summary. Iterresise (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iterresise Reverting doesn't mean anything. You still made the comments in the edit summary and still called me a hypocrite. That is still really disrespectful. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 08:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

More specifically, it will almost certainly lead to an indef block for WP:NOTHERE if your edits continue in this slant and if it cannot be proven that your edits/contributions are a net positive to Wikipedia. As Lourdes suggested, you need to step back and ask yourself if this is how you want your time and tenure (however long that may be) at Wikipedia to be reflected. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

A holiday is in order Iterresise - Revision as of 00:41, September 5, 2023 Moxy- 20:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It is worth observing that they self-reverted 2 minutes after leaving those comments. --JBL (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

They still called other editors liars, but the self reversion does say something. Whether it's "oh this is wrong" or "oh this might get me blocked" I don't know. Canterbury Tail talk 21:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

If you're following this, @Iterresise, just walk away for a few days for your own sake. Let go for now - go have some fun. This is really just a huge website -- it's not worth all this aggravation for any of us.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There's been a miscommunication. The selfreverts were because that was wrong. I would recommend closing this thread. Iterresise (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Why was it wrong? Genuinely wanting to know your stance on this. After that, we can consider closing this thread - with a warning at minimum, of course. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It was wrong to make those edits in the first place. It is considerably better simply to not act out in the first place than to think twice about having done so while you're under ANI scrutiny. Ravenswing 18:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I would agree. The sheer irony of "Liar! You should WP:AGF" is headshaking. I give zero props to a self-revert here when calling other editors "liars" seems SOP with Iterresise. Ravenswing 22:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

96.227.141.216

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

Over the course of the past few years, I have seen this IP going into concert tour articles, as well as other articles and gone to adding hidden notes on the cities where it is not necessary like these edits here: [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85].

In addition, the IP has also done the following as noted.

• The IP has violated MOS:DTAB numerous times; with edit summaries stating that adding the "continents should be mandatory" like these edits: [86], [87], [88].
• IP has violated WP:NOTFORUM many times, as well as using their own talk page as a forum like these edits: [89], [90], [91], [92], [93].
• IP has violated WP:CRYSTAL multiple times as well, with some of their edit summaries as evident: [94], [95], [96], [97].

As evident on the edit history of their talk page, any warning or notice templates that have been sent to the IP are removed by the IP like these edits: [98] and [99], which makes it clear that the IP is not listening despite receiving many warnings about their disruptive editing. The IP had posted a message on my talk page which had absolutely nothing to do with what I had (repeatedly) told them about.

Can someone talk to this IP? It is starting to become a headache to try and get them to understand the guidelines of Wikipedia, as they continue to disrupt despite multiple warnings. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• 96.227.141.216, there seem to be a litany of warnings that you have received for issues similar to those described above... This would be a good chance to give your view. Thanks, Lourdes 09:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • (Note: @Lourdes: you cannot ping IP adresses - the only notification they get - somewhat unreliably is the "you've got new messages on your talkpage" alert, delivered via a giant orange bar below the page header. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC))
  • Thanks Victor. Matter of habit. They have the notice on their talk page. Best, Lourdes 10:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• IP has removed the ANI notice on their talk page, they are refusing to communicate. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • After restoring the ANI notice, IP reverted again with the message "I don't need an ANI notice". Pinging @Lourdes: and @Victor Schmidt:, as IP is clearly WP:NOTGETTINGIT. HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

So if someone removes a notice, it means they've read it. Do not restore someone's removal of notices from their own talk page. All that being said, it's quite clear the IP knows about their talk page, they've interacted with it a lot. They also refuse to participate as part of the community and consensual project building so a block is definitely in order. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, noted. I'll keep that in mind to not restore notices for next time. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I have left them a message blocked them for a week for refusal to listen. Canterbury Tail talk 16:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Reckless and mindless editing by User:49.145.14.39

49.145.14.39 has been making edits to pages Media circus and Cause celebre that are indiscriminate, excessive, bloated, unsubstantiated by sources cited, and irrelevant. Basically violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDB, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS.

Despite reverts with proper explanations on edit summaries and invitations for them to participate in discussions, they have continued to restore and pile up these pages with their contentious info without providing an adequate reason as to why. They have also been tampering with the dates of introductory tags. Request for immediate action on this as they are threatening to drag well-meaning editors into 3RR. Look at these examples for reference:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_circus
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_circus&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.145.14.39
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cause_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:49.145.14.39

Borgenland (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Reblocked the range, adding these articles. (Daniel Case, for your records). Thanks, Lourdes 09:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for you help! Borgenland (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Dicklyon and semi-automated edits

User:Dicklyon has been using semi-automated editing to correct capitalization issues for many years, but has run into trouble with it many times as well. I recently saw some of his edits on my watchlist, but as they contained a lot of errors, I reverted them and posted to his talk page[100]. Rather unsatisfactory responses, and 3 days later a new batch of changes lit up my watchlist, all of them containing errors[101]. Issues include turning bluelinks into redlinks, changes inside refs (e.g. de-capitalizing titles), changing official names of organisations to decapitalized versions, ... Again Dicklyon gave some feebleassurances of slowing down, taking better care, but the error rate wasn't high, and so on. User:Pelmeen10[102] and User:Butlerblog[103] agreed with my criticism and requests to slow down, check things much better, ... From their responses, it became apparent that Dicklyon still didn't recognize the extent of the issues or the high error rate of his edits, so I checked the first edit of a new batch of "fixes" he did, and reported the rather terrible results[104], which continued all the previous issues and then some (lowercasing personal names, or the first word of a section heading). The full discussion can be seen at User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes". Can something please be done to make Dicklyon stop (topic ban, block, obligation to run a bot which first gets scrutiny and approval, or whatever solution is deemed best)? Fram (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Remove from AWB checkpage - Dicklyon needs to have WP:JWB access removed by being removed from the AWB checkpage.

This is just the latest repeat of something that he has been warned about multiple times in the past (causing a high number of errors using a semi-automated editing tool), both on his talk page: [105] [106] and at AN/I: [107].

He's using the semi-automated edit tool JWB and the issue is he simply goes too fast - editing at bot-like speeds and is not carefully looking at his edits, which results in broken/red links, and other such problems, all of which have been specifically pointed out to him in previous discussions. At those speeds, WP:MEATBOT applies. In that previous ANI discussion, it was pointed out that he was editing at 30+ edits per minute. In this most recent issue that Fram pointed out above, I noted to Dicklyon that his editing rate reached speeds of 40+ edits per minute [108]. Instead of slowing down, he increased to speeds of 67+ edits per minute [109]. While I did not see errors in that last run, apparently Fram did.

He really seems to be more concerned with speed rather than accuracy. The speed vs accuracy problem has been pointed out many times, he has acknowledged it, and yet time and again he simply does not slow down. Instead, he speeds up. Per WP:AWB, AWB & JWB users are responsible for every edit made. His high error rates and unwillingness to slow down show that we cannot allow him to continue to use the tool. It's an easy solution, and if not taken, this will continue to happen in the future.

ButlerBlog (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as this has all been pointed out to AND acknowledged by Dicklyon on multiple occasions, at this point the focus should be on whether the disruptive editing warrants removal of JWB access (either permanently or for a defined period, or any other sanction) as opposed to the "I promise to be more careful" response that we've already gotten in the past. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I have removed Dicklyon's AWB access, if nothing else as a stopgap while this discussion proceeds to prevent further disruption. I will not necessarily be following this discussion, but if there ends up being a consensus to restore access I will not be objecting (though by all means ping me if my opinion on something is needed). Primefac (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Dicklyon response: On 28 August (over a week ago), Fram reverted 11 of my semi-automated edits, for a combination of errors, which I've discussed, learned from, corrected, and mostly not repeated (see User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes"); mostly, it was for not realizing that "IPC Alpine Skiing" is the name of an organization. I was editing too fast, not looking closely enough at the diffs, in a run about 1000 edits around that time, and made a few other errors, too, and I've been much more careful since. I asked him if he noticed or could find any more such problems, and he did not point out any more. Yesterday, he found some errors in an article that I had edited mostly by hand, while developing some regex patterns, over a period of many minutes. He pointed those out, and I've made another pass over that and a couple of subsequent edits. I don't see how this is a disruptive situation that requires intervention. I've done about 2000 JWB edits over the last week, and judging by what I can find and what's been reported, I think the error rate is probably around 1% (and even in those with errors, such as a case change in a reference title, there's usually a net improvement in the article). Most of these edits just clean up obvious over-capitalization (there's been no suggestion that anything I've done is controversial, just a few mistakes). As for turning blue links to red links, I don't know; I'm usually very careful about that, and none have been pointed out. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• To judge the accuracy of this reply, let's just look at the final sentence: "As for turning blue links to red links, I don't know; I'm usually very careful about that, and none have been pointed out." My very first, short enough post in the section on your talk page made the explicit claim of turnuin bluelinks into redlinks in this edit, where you changed [[Super Giant Slalom skiing|super-G]] into [[Super Giant slalom skiing|super-G]] (lower case "slalom" in the piped link). So what do you 6 minutes after you have replied to my post about this? You create Super Giant slalom skiing. Yet now you claim not to know if you created any redlinks, and claim none have been pointed out? Too long ago perhaps? In my post yesterday evening in the same section, I even put in bold, turning bluelinks into redlinks, with a clear indication where you could find it. You changed [[2014 European Women's Artistic Gymnastics Championships|2014 European WAG Championships]] into [[2014 European Women's artistic Gymnastics Championships|2014 European WAG Championships]] (downcasing "artistic" inside the piped link, the same also in the Men competition link), which turned two bluelinks into two redlinks. If you can't even see (or admit) this after it has been pointed out to you, and even explicitly claim the opposite, then your being "very careful" is of little value. Fram (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sure enough, looks like I fixed those few and forgot. Dicklyon (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I see now, that's going back to the one redlink found and fixed on August 25. And then on Sept. 4 I made two more in one huge article that I editted slowly. Got it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• As for your claims of making inbetween a few thousand edits with a very low error rate, I notice that you switched to a much simpler change (downcasing "Association Football"), but that a) most of your edits are of the type discouraged by AWB and the like (purely cosmetic changes of piped links, e.g. [110][111][112][113][114]), and b) inbetween you make halfbaked changes, turning the visible text "Association Football" into "Association football" in the middle of a sentence, which is not an improvement[115], or changing the piped link but not the actual, visible text[116]. Fram (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Note that fixing a piping through a miscapitalized redirect is not purely cosmetic. It not only avoids the redirect, by piping instead through the actual title, or by skipping the redirect, but it is also part of the maintenance process of trying to get things out of WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I'm not claiming that you should care about these small benefits, but the latter is part of an overeall work pattern to improve the encyclopedia, not done for cosmetic reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Fram They seem to somehow still be doing semi-automated edits despite having had AWB rights revoked? I highly doubt this edit [117] (which I just reverted for a multitude of reasons) was done manually. 192.76.8.65 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Fram (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, enough is enough I guess. So while this discussion is ongoing, and after their AWB access was removed, they make "case fixes" inside urls. I guess we can throw all assurances of being very careful and having a very low error rate and so on into the bin. Is there anything short of a block that will drive home the message? It took indef blocks to solve some their earlier editing issues. Fram (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I started by copying the text from an open JWB editor, and hadn't gotten around to finishing correcting it before it got reverted. It's fixed now. You can add 1 to my count of error files. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Dicklyon you really shouldn't be doing any sort of automated or semi-automated editing while this discussion is on-going, especially as the permissions to use JWB directly in the article space were revoked several hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't automated or semi-automated when I did it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You said in the comment I replied to that you had "started by copying the text from an open JWB editor". That is semi-automated editing, as you are using the output of a JWB run as the basis to start your edit.

You really should not be publishing edits that you know in advance are broken in some way. There's a reason why we have a preview button, so that you can see the results of any edit you're about to make and give you the time to fix it before you publish. As with all of the previous times your conduct has come up in relation to this type of issue, you need to slow down a lot. Focus on quality over quantity, and verify your edits are correct before pushing the publish button. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I did look carefully at the preview (see this version), and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word. Does anyone? Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way, as I don't have the patience to find and fix every over-capitalized word. That is a really shockingly bad approach to take towards editing articles. While edits don't need to be perfect, and some mistakes will happen as we're (mostly) all human, no-one should be publishing something that they believe to be broken from the outset. That is another sign that you need to slow down. Again, quality over quantity is what is important.

To answer your question, yes I always check what I'm publishing before I publish it. At minimum I check for spelling, punctuation, Engvar issues, date formatting issues, source reliability, factual accuracy, copyvios, and close paraphrasing. Those are all things you should be keeping an eye out for before you hit the publish button, as it saves others a lot of work by catching and cleaning up after you when you do make mistakes. Depending on the page and topic, as I edit a lot of contentious topic areas, I also check to make sure I'm not introducing/re-introducing text for which there is a consensus to exclude, as well as any text for which there is a consensus for a specific version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article. Going back a few days, the latest article edit I could find by you that's not a revert or undo, I see you did this edit, leaving quite a few capitalization and punctuation errors and inconsistencies in the section you edited. Maybe some of us are just more aware that we're not fixing everything at once. Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't do much in article space besides reverts, so maybe you don't know how hard it is to feel like you fixed everything that's wrong with an article. Given how the rest of this discussion is going, I would suggest that you strike and rephrase this, along with the final sentence in your reply, as casting aspersions about my editing and speculating over my own experience levels and state of mind will not be helping your situation.

However, if you check my first edit in that sequence, you'll see that I was dealing with an NPOV concern on a dual CTOP article (BLP and GENSEX). My second edit, the one that you linked to, was adjusting the text that was present prior to the NPOV issue being introduced to bring it in line with standard terminology on this topic. Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors (for the point on Davies' BBC Question Time), the title of one publisher and one book (for the point on the Dorling Kindersley book), and a possible en/em dash issue. It would also be a better investment of my editorial time to convert that list into prose, per the maintenance tag which has been on that section for a little over a year. But we're not here to discuss my edits, we're here to discuss your edits. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree that "Making sure our text is core policy compliant is of far more importance than ensuring that I correct three capitalisation errors...", and I don't mean to be criticizing you, just poking fun at your statement that I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find – nobody does that, not even you. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I shouldn't submit without correcting everything I can find That's not what I said. I said that an editor should always check what content they're changing before they publish it. As in, if you edit a sentence, or paragraph, or citation, you verify that the edit you're about to make isn't going to introduce any new errors. That applies whether you're fixing or rewriting existing content, or adding wholly new content.

You don't need to fix everyone else's errors in a single edit, or fix an entire section when you're fixing a single sentence, paragraph, or reference, but you do have a responsibility to make sure that your edits are as error free as humanly possible. And that is I'm afraid, based on this discussion and the previous discussions, something that you seem to struggle with, particularly with regards to automated and semi-automated mass changes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to gauge whether the changes are a net improvement because messing up even a single internal link or a reference url, or a title of a work, which can be a bit of a sneaky error, that future editors might fail to notice, is hard to appraise against having some obviously incorrectly capitalized words sorted out, which is a nice thing to do, but it's also kind of trivial, and such things do get fixed along the way as any article reaches a certain state of maturity. These fixes should follow along the trajectory of the article getting actually better while not introducing any errors that will be difficult to notice even much further down the line. —Alalch E. 23:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• At some point sanctions beyond a prohibition on automated editing are probably necessary, including a topic ban from MOS edits entirely or a block beyond that. Error rate aside, I don't think the changes Dicklyon are making are important enough they need to be automated. This is grammar pedantry of the highest order, and the only thing worse than pedantry for the sake of it is pedantry that's incorrect. Error rates of even "just" 1% when making thousands of edits is still more mistakes than is likely uninvolved editors are going to be able to spot, track, and fix. It's inherently disruptive, has no real benefit for the project, and we've been down this road before with the editor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's a purely anti-MOS stance, hardly related to the fact that I made a few errors. The fixes I'm making are not controversial, just moving toward better alignment with our consensus style guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, it's based on your refusal to see what you're doing is an issue. This thread is a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT goldmine of quotes and actions from you. No, other editors don't regularly push knowingly broken edits, especially breaking stuff over capitalization. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I do understand that editing too fast such that I make mistakes is an issue, and I did a bit of that a week ago, as I've admitted repeatedly and have done my best to fix. But Fram is now saying that since I made mistakes in another article while editing slowly and carefully I need some kind of intervention, and you're saying that what I'm doing isn't even in the good of the project (you call it "grammar pedantry of the highest order", which I find offensive, though I do practice a bit of pedantry when I think it will help). I don't understand how you think that way. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• I won't comment on the specifics of this case, but I'm familiar with this editor. Previous ANI's on this editor have had long drawn out wall of text comments that ultimately discouraged participation. Dicklyon has had an opportunity to address the issues brought up here and now let others contribute. Thanks Nemov (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you refer to past interactions, an archive link is a good idea. Of course you're a bit familiar, as you are the one who initiated the last complaint at ANI, which was pretty much baseless, and on a mild dispute that you weren't really even part of. I still think too much discussion is not an infraction. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Read this entire discussion: User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes". Fram is making overblown claims of a Dicklyon error rate, and Dicklyon is bending over backward to satisfy Fram, who appears now to have arrived at an expectation of absolute perfection on first attempt, and to have no patience for Dicklyon correcting his own few inevitable mistakes. I'm not buying it. I've been watching this dicussion unfold post-by-post since Aug. 25 (without getting involved), and at every turn Dicklyon has been entirely open to criticism and to adjusting his JWB editing to be more precise and, basically trying to make Fram (and Pelmeen10 and ButlerBlog) happy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, S. Your "Read" is a little ambiguous; did you mean it as an imperative, or as a past tense? Either way, good. But I don't agree that the mistakes Fram complained about were inevitable, nor trivial. He had a couple of valid complaints and gave me useful feedback that helped a lot. Why he decided to file an ANI complaint after that is the mystery. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  If this were the only time this has happened, the penitent response would be adequate. But this is a pattern that continues to be repeated. The first rule at WP:AWBRULES is: You are expected to review every edit, just as if you were making an edit using Wikipedia's edit form when editing by hand. Do not sacrifice quality for speed, and review all changes before saving. Can you review the edit you're making when doing 30, 40, and 60 edits per minute? The rules are clear: Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled. Personally, I think that alone is adequate. Honestly, per WP:MEATBOT, he could/should be treated as a bot, and thus per WP:BOTBLOCK, operating as an unapproved bot could result in a soft-block. I haven't asked for that, and I don't know if I would support that as necessary. But operating JWB and AWB comes with more responsibility than manual editing. If it's being abused, the only reasonable response is to remove him from the checkpage. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• At what point do we finally state that enough is enough? What matters is both the error rate and the number of errors, which combined with repeatedly IDHT and failures to improve standards while making bot-like edits is something that resulted in blocks and complete automation bans for Batacommand and Rich Farmbrough at least. I'm also utterly unsurprised at SMcCandlish bending over backwards to avoid seeing any problems with Dicklyon's edits, because it happens every time Dick gets brought to ANI. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This editor's lack of attention to detail is frustrating. I refer you to this discussion and the one below it from October 2022, in which the editor seemed to think that it was acceptable to ask other people to check their edits when it was pointed out that the editor had made hundreds of bad edits. As a hard-core gnome and someone who has made tens of thousands of minor syntax fixes that sometimes annoy other editors by filling their watchlists, I am sympathetic to Dicklyon's desire to fix minor errors. But when you are making thousands of minor edits that may already be annoying to people, it is extra important to avoid making errors along the way, and to respond fully and rapidly when a helpful editor takes the time to notify you of your errors. Dicklyon does not have a pattern of responding well when errors are pointed out, and the editor does not have a pattern of carefully checking the output of their edits. Some kind of restriction appears to be overdue, unfortunately. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Reading through the threads you linked to, suggest that this may well be a speed issue, and apparently, the editor not handling the increased speeds very well. - jc37 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I have so stipulated several times. It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast. I'm guilty of that. But the last of that was over a week before Fram's complaint here, so it's not clear why he brought this complaint. Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Dicklyon - Based upon your sentence: "It's not that I was using JWB, but that I got lazy and didn't pay enough attention to the diff, going too fast." lead me to want to ask something. This is not me asking the community to chime in on some sort of sanction, I'm just asking you, based upon your own discernment, and self-awareness.

What do you think about taking a break from AWB for a few months, to give you more of an opportunity to get a handle on your editing practices? - jc37 20:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Re-read that again after (re-)reading WP:AWB. And Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use Rule #1 comes to mind. Asking others to essentially WP:SOFIXIT (Wikipedia:Someone else fix it), when it's a mistake that you made through lack of diligence with semi-automated tools, isn't the best look. The second part of WP:BOLD is "but not WP:RECKLESS". AWB is unambiguously clear that you are responsible for your edits. And that includes cleaning up your mistakes. Others can of course help if they are willing, but there should not be a presumption that others are your clean-up crew. This dances a bit too close to WP:FAIT as well. I really want to AGF here, but the more I look, the more concerns I start to see.

Let's keep this as simple and straight-forward as possible: Dicklyon - Do you agree that, per policy and guidelines, you are responsible for all the edits on your account, regardless of whether they are done with tools or not? And do you agree that if edits that are unambiguously errors are discovered, that you are responsible for correcting them in a timely manner? - jc37 18:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I have always taken responsibility for my mistakes, and have not asked others to fix them. The discussion Jonesey95 linked shows me fixing the categories (asking for speedy moves of cats is a part of the normal process of getting category names to match article names, and I fixed to categories in the articles already so that they wouldn't be red while waiting for those speedy moves). I did ask for more detail on what someone noticed, which helps me be sure I fixed everything. When I asked Fram for more detail on his Aug. 25 complaints, after I fixed what I could find and he said I didn't, he gave me nothing more until I made more mistakes later, and then I fixed all those. In most cases, I would have found and fixed them myself within a day without his help, nevertheless I did appreciate hearing what he noticed and that helped me find more thorough fixes, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. - jc37 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I just want to surface this comment from upthread, with caveated commentary. First, I've made a lot of trivial gnoming edits in my own contributions (like ensuring bylines and publication dates are present in obituary notices for some reason), sometimes accompanied by an edit summary along the lines of "why am i fixing this?". Second, I have been too busy to do anything useful here for about two weeks now, as my contribution history should show. Third, I often knowingly introduce errors which I fix in the subsequent edit, usually a no-target error from citing a source I haven't added yet, although I also sometimes inadvertently duplicate |date= parameters because I miss their presence when fixing up all the parameters some referencing script missed or got wrong.

Having said that, the aforementioned comment: I did look carefully at the preview ... and the only thing I saw was that there was still more excess capitalization to fix. Later, studying the diffs, I saw some other details I got wrong, and I fixed it all up. Whether using JWB or not, I almost always make edits that I believe are broken in some way....

Turning a single bluelink red, or messing up a single reference url, are not really that big of a deal. But it's my position that one of those errors is more worse than maybe 150 MOSed recapitalisations – or 25 completed obituary citations – is better. The work being done here is, in the broad view, extremely trivial, so the accompanying error rate should be extremely low. This exact kind of error is why WP:CONTEXTBOT.

If a "careful look" at the preview is still resulting in multiple errors; if errors are suspected "whether or not" semi-automated tools are used, it seems to me that rate limiting is the solution here. I don't think there's any technical way to cap a human user at, say, six edits a minute, but keeping the JWB permissions revoked seems like a positive step. Folly Mox (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Thryduulf and David Fuchs. At what point do we run out of patience? If it was down to me alone, I would have run out a long time ago. Enough. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  If that's a reference to David Fuchs' comment on a "topic ban from MOS edits", I certainly agree with that. I've never understood why the community tolerates the level of collateral disruption caused by their marginal/trivial but voluminous MOS-type "corrections". DeCausa (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with a topic ban like that, but it would need tighter wording. For example would it (and should it) include requested moves related to capitalisation (the issue at hand last time I commented on an issue involving Dicklyon at ANI)? What about MOS-related discussions in Wikipedia space? Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Pure Vandal WP:NOTHERE

Bhunu Mukherjee This is just another vandal removing content from pages. See edit history of 2024 elections in India. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta Stopped for two days. -Lemonaka‎ 10:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

They haven't edited in 3 days. Let's see if they return. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

根拠原則

根拠原則 (talk · contribs) kept on disruptive editing, all their edits are reverted and @Xexerss ‎'s report on WP:AIV was redirect to here. I'm not an involved party, but look around the cross-wiki behaviour of this defendant, I believe a block may be needed. -Lemonaka‎ 10:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Deadmeat200

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

---

Deadmeat200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Deadmeat200 has been making unsourced and disruptive changes to release dates. They ignore reliable citations ([118][119][120]), notes about earlier releases ([121]), and lead sections where release info is specifically stated ([122]). Other times, they just make debatable changes to uncited dates ([123][124]). In one instance, on Like You'll Never See Me Again, it appears that they just copied the date from the parent album's infobox without even checking the article for cited material ([125]), compare with this). I have left them multiple talk page messages over the months but have received no response there, in edit summaries, or otherwise. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Indef, I guess. Not listening to warnings, disrupting the encyclopaedia. It's the unresponsiveness that's particularly bad in my view. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

They are doing all their editing with the mobile access, can they see the warnings? Mvqr (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I checked three of their changes at random, and all three were directly contradicted by the cited source. I suspect this is subtle vandalism; if it is being done in good faith, they're going to have to start communicating and citing the sources they think override the ones in the articles. Blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User:Noebse

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

---

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

Noebse is an infinit blocked user in the dewiki. After his newest sockpuppet (de:Benutzer:PM3/Noebse) got blocked cause of my report (de:Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2023/09/04#Benutzer:Yasny_Blümchenkaffee_(erl.)) he decided to steal my work de:Ann-Kathrin_Bendixen and translate this without importing the dewiki-article: Ann-Kathrin_Bendixen. this is crosswiki vandalism. ɱ 19:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Mirji, I have now fixed the attribution; cross-wiki imports for attribution are rare on enwiki and not required ("You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." / "Du stimmst einer Autorennennung mindestens durch URL oder Verweis auf den Artikel zu.")

Independently of the now-fixed copyright issue, I have blocked Noebse to prevent further cross-wiki harassment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Vandalism / malfunction affecting A&... pages

There's been some strange behavior by anon editors at the following pages over several days:

• A&A Bake & Doubles Shop
• A&A Records
• A&B Productions
• A&B Sound
• A&C Bus Corporation

Anon users, mostly in the 41.*, range keep removing the leading < from <ref> tags. In some cases, the edits seem to occur at a specific cadence (e.g. at the start of every hour), making me suspect it could be some malfunctioning script, rather than intentional vandalism. I'm leaving a notice of this discussion on the talk page of the most prolific IP, User talk:41.37.215.132. pburka (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked 41.37.212.0/22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) for a week and 197.42.80.0/20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) for 72 hours, in both cases with account creation allowed, with the note "Strange, seemingly automated edits. No objection to any admin unblocking if a good explanation is given and any technical issues are fixed". 105.195.14.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is also in play, but just one edit, so I didn't block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Can you add User:41.44.104.174 to that block? pburka (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's a malfunctioning script, as the IP addresses are going in and blanking their user pages. Canterbury Tail talk 21:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah - whatever it is it’s weird, but I’m not sure it’s inadvertent. firefly ( t · c ) 21:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Earthriver

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

---

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

This user is spamming their company with dishonest edit summaries. 46.170.227.106 (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Thank you, IP. Bishonen | tålk 07:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC).

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

2crzppul

2crzppul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be adding errors, be they careless or deliberate, to virtually every article they edit. For some useful background see the discussion on their talk page at User talk:2crzppul#Marcel Demonceau from July this year, where they were told Wikipedia isn't a source. In particular pay attention to their reply of "Read the sources, I'm not a Kindle" to the straightforward request "Which source, precisely".

On to some of their article edits.

List of convicted war criminals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At this article, an IP editor removed the entry for Alfred Taylor (British Army officer), on the grounds he was acquitted (according to his article anyway, and therefore rather obviously not convicted). This was restored without explanation by 2crzppul.

Hanno Konopath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) creates this article with sources including Wikidata, a blogspot blog, or sources that don't even source the sentences they are next to.

List of Nazi Party organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). At this article adds the claim that the "Union of Manual and Mental Workers" (Union der Hand und Kopfarbeiter) were "established by or closely associated with the Nazi Party", supposedly in 1840 before being dissolved in 1945. In reality, the Union of Manual and Intellectual Workers (same German name) were close to the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and existed from 1921 to 1925.

List of leaders of Independent State of Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) At this article adds (right at the bottom) an "Other" sub-section to the "Government" section with an entry for "Nahid Kulenović, newspaper editor". According to the linked article he was born in 1929, and while related to an official in the Independent State of Croatia", was highly unlikely to be anyone of significance during WWII, since he didn't turn 16 until the war had ended in Europe.

Those glaring errors are just from their last few days of editing, I wish I had the time to dig further but I'm hoping people will be able to see there is a problem in need of a solution. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm 2crzppul, please note that the Union of Manual and Mental Workers, is not the same organizations as the one you are comparing it to. Also, Nahid Kulenović was also present on the article prior to my edits.