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

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" [1] [2] [3]
• At Hasanwayhids, they replaced sourced mention of "Iran" with "Kurdistan" [4]. I wonder if they are even aware that the latter is first attested around 100 years after the dynasty ended [5]

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 [6]. --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)

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.[7][8]

- 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) [9][10][11]
- 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)[12] and an edit summary that uses the word "spin" that implies BBC News coverage was untrustworthy.[13]

- 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). [14]

- 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 [15], Synth despite it being in the source[16], 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[17]
-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"[18], suggesting that they'll find any reason to claim it's not acceptable[19], and claims of "cherry-picking" of sources and breaches of NPOV despite being unable to show themselves any differing RS narrative[20].
-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[21] but also removing relevant context in main body as "political posturing"[22]

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[23]. 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: [24]

  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)

In case another example of this kind of behaviour is needed: DeFacto is engaging in the behaviour described above again here. Cortador (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose this proposal. I don't think these examples really enter into the realms of Wikilawyering, but if they do it's just barely and no where near enough to warrant a topic ban. I do my best to AGF but seeing interactions between these two across several articles this feels like an attempt to remove a potential ideological opponent from the topic space. — Czello ^(music) 04:58, 13 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.[25][26]

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)

@DontKnowWhyIBother and UnironicEditor:, given the evidence shown above, can y'all please elaborate on why not only should sanctions should be levied against DeFacto, but also a WP:TBAN from British Politics? — Knightoftheswords 00:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I think 41 confirmed and 28 suspected sockpuppet accounts alone are sufficient for a ban. Cortador (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

^^^^^ EEng 20:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If you have to reach back a full decade to an unrelated topic that's already been resolved, you're really just demonstrating how weak your argument is. — Knightoftheswords 22:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This thread is evidence that the issue has not in fact been resolved. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No it's not. You're scrabbling around in ancient history to try and revive a dead duck. There's no evidence of socking after 2015 per their SPI record. The previous socking was known when their indef was lifted in 2016. Dead duck. DeCausa (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

This thread isn't about sockpuppeting specifically. Cortador (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did you say I think 41 confirmed and 28 suspected sockpuppet accounts alone are sufficient for a ban. then? DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Because the unban came with the expectation of better future behaviour, which evidently has not been fulfilled. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The socks are ancient history; nearly a decade old at this point. At its core, this thread is regarding a content dispute, with no direct accusations of incivility. This should be archived. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 15:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• It looks like no one but the 2 or 3 (?) protagonists are following this thread anymore. Someone needs to put it out of its misery. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 9 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[27]. Rather unsatisfactory responses, and 3 days later a new batch of changes lit up my watchlist, all of them containing errors[28]. 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[29] and User:Butlerblog[30] 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[31], 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: [32] [33] and at AN/I: [34].

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 [35]. Instead of slowing down, he increased to speeds of 67+ edits per minute [36]. 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. [37][38][39][40][41]), 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[42], or changing the piped link but not the actual, visible text[43]. 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 [44] (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)

• Please 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)

  I meant it as a suggestion/request; have clarified the wording. As for "inevitable", I mean that everyone makes mistakes, and a large cleanup job cannot reasonably be expected to have a 0.000% error rate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:03, 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)

  The fact that my mind remains unchanged isn't somehow a failing on my part. Dicklyon gets brought to ANI with weaksauce evidence, a badgering personal-beef vibe to the accusations, and ignoring of any attempts to Dicklyon to address the concerns. I don't find this nonsense persuasive, and trying to turn this discussion to be about me isn't going to do it either. It's ad hominem hand-waving.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 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)

Let me explain my editing practices, which I have a fair handle on already. For 15 years or so, I averaged about 30 edits per day. Since getting onto JWB, more like 500 per day. My error rate per article, and rate of ANI complaints, per article edit, is down by way more than an order of magnitude, because with JWB I have to be way more careful; I do less that's controversial, and more simple grunt work. And when I make a mistake, JWB helps me find and correct similar mistakes across multiple articles quickly. I've made huge progress on over-capitaliztion, most recently in sports, such as fixing things like "Men's Singles", "Assistant Coach", and "Giant Slalom" in tens of thousands of articles. In late August I had a couple of bad days, and made mistakes that I didn't quickly notice and fix in about 15 articles, possibly more, out of a thousand or so article edits with many case fixes in each. I'm not arguing that that's OK, just that it's not cause for an ANI discussion or admin intervention. Stepping away from JWB would not address the issue, which is that I did get sloppy for a bit and rushed things with barely a glance. I'll be more careful, and give everything a better look in the future, which will take a lot more of my time, but will avoid these embarrassing situations where I have occasionally made enough mistakes for an editor to get annoyed at me instead of just saying what he noticed. And coming to ANI is always a pain, as it's watched by vultures who are always willing to attack me based on memories of long-ago slights. This is not a sensible venue to discuss these issues. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I had considered asking you the question on your talk page. But I thought that that could just merely split the discussion.

I thought that perhaps if you took a break from AWB for now, that might resolve any short-term concerns. But I can see how that could also be problematic for you in the future. Hence my asking what you thought.

Thank you again for your assessment. - jc37 04:35, 7 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)

?????? Please read the discussion I linked above. This editor repeatedly wrote some variant of "Please do let me know (or just revert) if you see any other errors or non-useful edits that I've made. I fixed a bunch of stuff with a few redirects, but I'm sure more will turn up." This is NOT the same as inspecting every edit carefully to look for errors and then fixing them. The behavior continued over a period of more than a month. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 7 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)

  Why on earth would someone be topic-banned from an entire swath of guidelines and processes just because (should consensus come to such an assement) some of their bot-like edits of a particular kind of had too high an error rate? That's now how we do things. You have a long history of criticism against various MoS regulars, agitation against MoS being applicable to topics you care about, and vociferous disagreement with various things that MoS says (without gaining a consensus to change them), so this appears to be a personal "help me get rid of an enemy" witch-hunt.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  ... and you have a demonstrated history of defending the same, along with vociferous agreement with the stances. Should we therefore similarly accuse you of knee-jerk reactions in defense of a faction? Ravenswing 23:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish it's true you have repeatedly accused me of that, but the accusations are a mix of partially true, misleading and false. I have long been critical of the behaviour of you and Dicklyon (both MOS regulars with a very long history of vociferously disagreeing with opinions that differ from your own) but only because of your behaviour. I have never agitated against MoS being applicable either to topics I care about or otherwise, what I have done is disagreed with your interpretation of some MoS guidelines and disagreed with your interpretation of/characterisation of evidence in some specific cases. Finally I don't regard Dicklyon (or you) as enemies.

  Now I've dealt with the entirely uncalled-for ad homimens... when someone has an error rate and volume as high as Dicklyon's, for as long as Dicklyon's, without evidence of understanding why editors are upset about those errors or demonstrating an ability to edit without making so many errors, taking steps to protect the encyclopaedia is what we do things.

  If you'd actually read what I wrote, rather than assuming I was trying to pursue a "witch hunt" you seem to think is the only reason I might have a different opinion, you would see that I was asking questions about what the scope should be rather than arguing that he should be topic banned from "an entire swath of guidelines and processes". Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general, something even ArbCom did not try to do with WP:ARBATC, the discretionary sanctions (now CTOP) applied to WP:AT and WP:MOS (and have refused to do when asked to do it later at ARCA). "Uncalled for"? You started this by going after me by name with insinuations that sound like some kind of conspiracy theory. Your trying to play victim here after picking a fight pointedly, for no apparent reason, is pretty silly. Back to the matter at actual hand, it's clear from Dicklyon's talk page discussion that he's making efforts to slow his roll and produce fewer errors, and has been entirely open to cricism about his errors and suggestions about what he can do to reduce them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  You're asking to widen the scope to RM and to "WP:" namespace in general Nope. Try reading what I have actually written rather than what you think someone with the motivation you ascribe to me would write. Please stop attempting to paint my disagreements as some sort of witch hunt, conspiracy theory, and/or fight-picking and accept that I might actually be here in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Alright, I'll take this to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I would tend to agree with the assessment by SMcCandlish. Per WP:AWBRULES, DL does accept responsibility for their edits. They do remedy any error they have made when these are pointed out and they have acknowledged that they were proceeding too fast (initially) in this case. WP is a collaborative project based on a principle of continuous improvement. Collaborative improvement occurs through positive feedback. Even preceded by please, undo all your "slalom" related "case fixes" ...by creating a mixed case nightmare... is a demand, it does not move things forward, and it is negative feedback. There is an underlying battle ground tone. The argument is that DL's edits have a high error rate. What is too high? Arguably, he would claim to be running at about 1%. Is this too high? I see one editor posting a 206 word edit to User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes" with three very clear and unambiguous spelling errors that would have been highlighted by a spell-checker operating in the edit interface. This indicates to me that editors making claims in respect to DL's error rate would hold DL to a higher standard than that which they would hold themself to. Sounds a bit WP:POTish to me. There is an assertion that AWB type edits should be more accurate (have less errors) than edits made manually. It is a fallacious assertion that the oversight provided to an AWB edit can be more accurate than that applied to a manual edit. When one editor may not see a particular tree for the woods, another will see it as if it stood alone in a field. This occurs regardless of whether we are talking about manual or semiautomated edits. It has been my observation over time that DL uses feedback to not only correct an error in a particular article but to learn from this, correct any mis-identification of a pattern, ultimately correct similar errors that may have occurred in other article and prevent the same error occurring in further like edits. This is collaborative editing. It is certainly not leaving a mess for others to fix. It is a process of continuous improvement through successive iterations. If they were leaving a mess for others to clean up, then there would be good reason for complaint but this is not the case. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I see one editor posting a 206 word edit to User talk:Dicklyon#Slalom "fixes" with three very clear and unambiguous spelling errors that would have been highlighted by a spell-checker operating in the edit interface. This indicates to me that editors making claims in respect to DL's error rate would hold DL to a higher standard than that which they would hold themself to. Not all errors are equally problematic. Typos in wikipedia and user talk space are basically a non-issue except in very rare cases where that contributes to genuine misunderstanding; broken links in mainspace actually negatively impact on our readers. Suggesting that people shouldn't object to introducing errors in article space if they make typos in wikipedia space is absurd. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would add that an acceptable error rate also depends on the type of error and situation involved. 1% might be fine for someone making "generic" edits (for lack of a better term). But as mentioned by Folly Mox, it might not be acceptable when you're making a large number of semi-automated edits. Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  This comes back to the absolute number of errors being at least, if not more, important than the rate of errors. It takes basically the same amount of editor time and effort to fix 50 errors introduced over 100 edits as it does to fix 50 errors made over 1000 edits (actually slightly less time in the former case if you count time spent checking for errors). Failure to grasp this was a key issue with either Rich Farmbrough or Betacommand (possibly both). Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, errors in main-space are more consequential than errors on TPs. However, my point is that every body makes errors and my question was what is too high. Yes, breaking links or corrupting a reference is significant but a spelling error can also be significant if it is a miss-matched word that creates a totally different meaning. DL has acknowledges the significance of the errors. But has everyone here never made a similar mistake? Has everyone here never had a bad-hair wiki day? What quantum of errors are we actually talking about? Yes, leaving 50 errors for others to clean up would be cause for complaint but has DL done this? However, this is not the case. If someone points out one error in one article that he did not recognise, DL looks for and fixes similar errors he may have created. This is being responsible for the edits he creates. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• I would support a community activity ban on Dicklyon from using JWB/AWB and any other mass-text-editing-engine for 6 months. Lourdes 11:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Lourdes and would support banning Dicklyon from mass-editing for six months. As others have noted, this isn't the first time the community has expressed concerns about the error rate with Dicklyon's mass edits, and it wasn't that long ago. To address the question of what the "expected" error rate is with AWB/JWB, I would say that it ought to be zero. Yes, mistakes will happen, but they should be few and far between. You should be reviewing every edit for sanity, both via diff and preview. If Dicklyon isn't doing that, that's a problem. If he is doing that and not catching the errors that he's introducing, that's also a problem. The nature of the changes is beside the point. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal : Site ban

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

---

I've just read through the discussion. A few points I've noticed - firstly, I agree with Sideswipe9th that fixing egregious BLP violations, factual inaccuracies or bias in articles is much more important than fixing capitalisations. I also agree that not breaking URLs in articles is more important than minor capitalisation issues. Looking at this, I just get the impression that Dicklyon does not recognise how much of a problem he is, and how much he needs to slow down and take more care editing. So I'm going to propose that For continued bot-like editing, despite previous warnings and resolve to improve, Dicklyon is site banned. Your thoughts, please. (I'm not going to !vote one way or the other as I have a known bias against the perceived value of these sort of edits.) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Any thoughts on why a site ban is needed here rather than a topic ban? User has a long block log, but only 2 blocks in the last 5 years. Normally problems with AWB/JWB/semi-automated editing would not get a user a site ban so I am curious if I am missing something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nah. Usual story: long-time editor inevitably makes enemies—such as me—through having been here a long time, doesn't realise, notice or care that he's slowly putting an awful lot of noses of joint until a critical mass is reached and site bans can be suggested in faux-but-I'm-only-thinking-of-the-project-handwringing impartiality. Step back and await pile-on of aforementioned enemies and the subsequent leverframe bloc vote. Arrivederci, Roma. SN54129 12:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not going to oppose at this point, although trying a topic ban from automated edits and from the manual of style (but better defined than that) is I think my first preference. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about your earlier response to my post about an MOS TBAN, I'm just wondering whether it's possible to clearly define what MOS edits are. The issue isn't just automated edits, it's also other disruptive MOS editing as can be seen in previous ANIs. If someone can define MOS edits then TBANs would be preferable. If they can't then maybe it has to be a site ban. DeCausa (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes definitions are tricky. My first thoughts (which probably need to be refined) would be stopping

• Edits that only change capitalisation
• Piping, unpiping or changing the displayed text of piped links

For both only in the article (and draft?) namespaces I think, with an exception for their own contributions when they are the most recent edit (no benefit in preventing them from fixing a typo they made). I would allow them to request such changes on article talk pages, as long as this is kept to a reasonable number but I don't know how to define "reasonable number". Additional points may be required but I think these are the basic two.

Given past issues that brought them to ANI it needs to be explicitly stated whether commenting on and/or initiating requested moves, RfCs, and similar regarding MoS issues should be included in the topic ban, and I'm not going to express an opinion either way beyond saying it needs to be actively considered.

Any MoS-related topic ban should be separate from any automation-related topic ban both for clarity now and to allow them to be appealed separately. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, a piping restriction should not apply to links they add to articles while they are the most recent person to edit a page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban - too much too quick. This isn't a decade ago. We have more options available before jumping to full siteban. - jc37 12:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Prefer the below suggestion. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose See support proposal below. Nemov (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - When the objective is to remove a bent nail from the wall, one does not use a sledgehammer to tear the wall down when the claw end of a hammer will suffice. Our objective when working with editors that are causing disruption is to close off those specific vectors in which they are disruptive, in the hopes that they can continue to be effective in other areas of Wikipedia. I think SN54129 is echoing (rather glibly) my perceptions here that Dicklyon has made some very high-profile enemies here through his apparent failure to understand the depth of his disruption, and perhaps in some way that informs the siteban. But to me, reading this as an outside observer, it still seems too excessive a response. For now. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The semi-automated ban suggestion below is a better first step, and echo what WaltClipper said above. It could be argued that it's warranted given his sanction history, but I would suggest that those issues were several years ago and this isn't exactly the same thing. However, in order to warrant a site ban we need to know that the issues extend beyond those of just issues around the operation of a semi-automated editing tool. At this point, I don't think that has been established. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Overkill and I've seen their work and valuable expertise in other areas.North8000 (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Proposal : Banned from all automated or semi-automated editing

Sticking this in here. Its clear what the problem is, from the long history of issues Dicklyon isnt really interested in doing a better job to avoid the errors, so realistically the only option is to forbid them from doing the thing that is causing the problems. For clarity, this would also include the example above where they are copying from an output. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: These usually have a time frame for appeal. Several above have suggested 6 months. - jc37 12:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support For the record though, I think this will just end up the way all the other banned automated editors went. Constant boundary-testing incurring increasing sanctions that stop them doing what they want to do without oversight, until they reach the point after many long time-wasting discussions where they end up site-banned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  You understand everything, Godfather. SN54129 12:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support A site ban is too much. Dicklyon has a tendnecy to move too fast which is a problem for automated editing where attention to detail is a higher priority. This doesn't make Dicklyon a bad editor, just an editor not suited for this particularly task. I'm not sure I would be suited for it either. Hopefully, he recognizes his limitations so this doesn't escalate further as pointed out by Only in death. Nemov (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The combination of an automation ban and a separate MOS-related ban (per my comments above) are the best way forward at this time, and hopefully it wont escalate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support per my comments above on the siteban proposal. Minimum timeframe for appeal needs to be a year at minimum, and in addition, I think we need maybe to not be so ordinarily merciful in granting such an appeal when that timeframe does arrive. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I truly believe the present issue is due to speed. The types of errors generated are specific evidence that he hasn't been able to write regexes that completely evaluate the potential change, leading to false positives and that edits need to be more carefully reviewed prior to saving. I want to be extremely clear on this point - it's not the regex problem that is the reason for supporting this, nor is it just the number or type of errors alone. It's the fact that knowing that and acknowledging it, those issues continue without a change in approach. Had this been the first time pointing it out, my position would be to simply say, "hey, slow down and make sure to look at what you're doing". But, that is what has already been said more than once. It's not a battleground mentality or personal animus to say that if we don't take the tool away, we'll be having this same conversation time and again. It's simply saying that having been warned about it many times, there has to be a consequence when things have not changed. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Seems necessary and is proportionate.—Alalch E. 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support A good resolution and not a severe restriction. Maybe add appealable in a year and autoexpire in 2 years. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, this escalated quickly from a talk page discussion where the issue seemed to have been handled to an attempt at a site ban and then this proposal which has no set time limit. I'd support maybe a two-week ban from the tools, just to make a point, but removing their use from an editor who has probably made thousands of good tool edits for every handful of incorrect edits (which, when pointed out, he has fixed in good faith and politeness) seems like excess punishment for doing a huge amount of work with some glitches along the way. Tool use is a steep learning curve and Dicklyon has been mastering it and is learning from his mistakes. This ban stops his learning curve before he becomes perfect at the tasks, and would be an overall loss to the project's potential. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify this: ...an attempt at a site ban and then this proposal - These came essentially at the same time, and should probably be viewed as two alternative possibilities. As you can see, the other had zero support as so was closed already. This alternative probably should not be viewed through the lens of having being proposed since the other failed. It was presented at the same time. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Dicklyon was unblocked in 2015 after socking with a requirement to "avoid large scale, controversial actions". [45]. So hardly a new issue. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support as a minimum (no appeal for 12 months), but with the addition of an MOS edits TBAN per Thryduulf and as Thryduulf's defined it in the above closed siteban thread. The disruption isn't just via automated edits. This is a long-standing issue with multiple previous ANIs. Time to fix it. DeCausa (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support with minimum 6 months before being able to appeal. Dickylon needs a bit more care and attention to their work. They are very receptive to making corrections when they are pointed out, but the pointing out of errors happens to often. It's something that would likely be solved with more preparation and thought before carrying out the automated tasks. A period of manual editting and more careful attention may help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose There are perhaps three premises for this proposal. Because DL makes errors, DL makes too many errors. This is an unreasonable standard. DL makes errors and creates work for others to clean up. If DL creates errors, he creates work for himself to clean up. You are making errors, stop it and revert everything. You are not listening to me! DL takes heed, adjusts, corrects and moves forward. I think that Randy and I are of a similar position. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support (and support the topic-ban proposal below). Related thread from a year and a half ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Dicklyon_and_pointless_edits_once_again. Some1 (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose My interactions with this user have been positive. I'd need clear evidence that his errors are outweighing the good done by his many thousands of edits. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough. This conversation has happened too many times. Removal of all automated privileges seems appropriate. - Skipple ☎ 23:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support Per my comments and questions above, Dicklyon needs to slow down in their editing. A TBAN from using automated and semi-automated editing will resolve this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose—per Randy Kryn above. Let me say that Dicklyon has admirable expertise in language, style, and of course editing. We cannot afford to lose his input. What I see here is that a clique of capitalisation lovers has come out in full to thwart his good work. Tony (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support: Stipulating that (as some of the opposes state) Dicklyon does indeed have "admirable expertise in language," that some editors have had positive interactions with him, and that tools have learning curves, none of that in the least degree addresses the problem that this proposal seeks to mitigate: that Dicklyon is careless with automated tools, does not monitor them properly, has an unacceptably high error rate, and that this isn't the first time this issue has come up. Whether or not he's a hell of a swell fellow is irrelevant. The first time I used AWB I screwed up a number of articles, got a finger waggling for it, promised to do better and not screw up in the future, and did so. Paying attention just isn't that freaking hard, and for those for whom it is, those are people who shouldn't be using automated tools. Ravenswing 02:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support The errors appear to be a consistent problem with this editor. This is far from the first discussion on this topic from them and their responses in the thread above don't give me faith that they will correct anything in their editing activity, particularly since they were still doing the same kinds of edits and errors while this ANI discussion was ongoing. A ban on such semi-automated editing seems like the minimum we can do to prevent this. Silverseren^C 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is not about the merits of capitalisation or other style choices. I don't think most people have strong feelings about that and most who do would abide by whatever consensus emerges. The issue here is that Dicklyon has been making large numbers of edits that introduce problems to articles (like breaking piped links or altering proper nouns). Dicklyon has made it clear that he's not interested in fixing these mistakes and his track record suggests there's little chance of the problems going away. This is what happens when the quality of edits takes second place to volume and speed. We've seen it with Rich Farmbrough, Betacommand, Lugnuts, and others. This will hopefully be the watershed moment that gets Dicklyon to rethink his approach; if not, it's a necessary step on the road to a site ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support many of the errors stem from attempting too much speed and several prior statements that they will slow down have not stopped the problem. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my comment in the previous section. I'm not sure, pace the opposers, what capitalization, or positive interactions, have to do with automated editing. There's a long-standing principle that automated edits are held to a high standard. Editors have been sanctioned, or banned, for introducing errors and not being sufficiently mindful about addressing them. This isn't new, and this isn't the first time the issue has been raised with Dicklyon. Go slower. Be more careful. There's no time limit. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Nemov. Number 57 14:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support ~ this isn't a new issue, as is shown above; it has been bubbling under for years and the time to resolve it is now. Per HJ Mitchell. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Cinderella157 encapsulates this perfectly above. Dicklyon is not infallible, but fixes his own mistakes, and is clearly listening to and adjusting based on criticism of his error rate. At bare minimum a proposal like this should have a time limit, during which DL could re-read the related documentation, policies, etc., and work on better regexes to sharply reduce his error rate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  re At bare minimum a proposal like this should have a time limit: I think most everyone would agree with you on that. There should be a timeframe for appeal. It looks like a couple have suggested 6 months, and most who included an appeal timeframe in their comments have noted a year. North8000 suggested appealable in 1 year, autoexpire in 2. I would certainly support some level of autoexpire where he could reapply on the AWB request page. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I oppose auto-expiry for the same reason I dislike most time-limted topic bans and similar - it can encourage just waiting it out rather than addressing the issue which doesn't end well for either the project or the editor. However I do support a time after which he can appeal, and will support anything in the 6-12 months time frame. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. I hadn't really considered that. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support Removing semi-automated editing premission will likely reduce Dick's rate of editing and therefore mitigate most of the errors that had been mentioned here. The other solutions proposed here seem overly draconic, and I suspect that they are partially motivated by old grudges. Av = λv (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The most sensible approach, is relatively harmless to all parties, which still leaves DL plenty of editing in his chosen area, just without a particular tool to do so. (Per time-limit, I think the default is indefinite with first appeal to the community after six months and biannually thereafter.) SN54129 14:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This seems narrowly tailored towards mitigating the disruption and seems preventative in nature. I do hope that slowing down the editing rate will help to ensure that the rate of false positives/breakages created will substantially decreases. Dicklyon has performed tremendously helpful gnomish work on Wikipedia over the years, for which he deserves thanks and gratitude, but I echo HJ Mitchell's concerns about what happens when the quality of edits takes second place to volume and speed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support for 2 reasons; A) This isn't the first time Dicklyon has been at ANI over their semi-automated edits and B) The carelessness of their edits is concerning.

As someone who too makes semi-automated edits I'm baffled as to how they can make so many edits and not review any of them ?. Sure we all make mistakes and I have too made mistakes with WP:WPCleaner but I've reviewed and fixed those edits as any normal editor should?. If you can't be bothered to check your edits then shouldn't be using semi-automated tools period. –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. This has been an ongoing issue for far too long already, and this proposal is the most basic measure to start mitigating it. --Sable232 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Given the potential for widespread damage to the wiki, the standard for automated or semi-automated editing ought to be higher than this. --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support - This has been going on too long. A prohibition on automated and semi-automated editing will still allow him to contribute to the encyclopedia if he doesn't persist in thinking that he needs to do semi-automated editing. If he persists in automated or semi-automated editing, then he is a net negative, but that is up to Dicklyon. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support, those who can't get their error rate down to an acceptable level sometimes need to be separated from power tools. —Kusma (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support beyond the restriction below, for the same reasoning. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This editor has shown a reluctance to accept reponsibility for the results of their semi-automated editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support If the penitence hadn't been summarily discarded a year ago when the eye of ANI was removed, we wouldn't be here. They only have themselves to blame. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban on drive-by recapitalisation and repiping, details apply

There has been some support for this, but discussion has been fragmented so putting it as a formal proposal. This is basically what I wrote above but a bit tighter.

Dicklyon is topic banned from:

• Making edits to pages in the article and draft namespaces that only or primarily change capitalisation.
• Making edits to pages in the article and draft namespaces that change the capitalisation in any part of the page unrelated to content changes made in the same edit.
• Piping, unpiping or changing the displayed text of piped links, excluding pages in their own user and user talk space.

These restrictions do not apply to content they added since the last other person edited the page.

These restrictions do not apply to the reversion of obvious vandalism.

This restriction is separate from and additional to any ban related to automated editing. It may be appealed no sooner than 12 months after it is enacted. Making an excessive number of requests of other editors to make change that this restriction topic ban prohibits should be seen as gaming the restriction. "Excessive" is not explicitly defined and depends on the judgement of an uninvolved administrator, but frequency of requests, number of total and concurrent requests, accuracy of requests and other factors may all be considered.

Copyedits and suggestions are more than welcome, especially to the first does not apply to line (I've rewritten that about a dozen times and I'm still not happy with it). The intent there is to allow them to make as many changes to piping and capitalisation as they want until someone else edits the page, at which point they no longer can. Given the lack of explicit response to the RM and other discussion comments I made I'm not adding that to the proposal at the current time, but I really would like to see it explicitly addressed (whether that's a "this is a problem", "this is not a problem" or something in between). Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer) per my comments in multiple other sections. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, this proposal does better expose your true anti-MOS motivations in attacking me here and elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  As I have explained repeatedly and at length my motivations are not "anti-MOS", they are pro applying the MoS with care, common sense, and due regard for behavioural policies. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Going to be helpful in tandem with the ban on automated/semi-automated editing, and will functionally form a coherent whole.—Alalch E. 17:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support as I noted in my support for the automated TBAN, this is needed as well as the history of disruption as evidenced by previous ANIs goes beyond automated editing. DeCausa (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Ridiculous over-reach. At most, Dicklyon should be removed from JWB/AWB permission for a time until those with concerns are satisfied he understands the tool use responsibliities better. The second of the bullet-points above is frankly daft; we have MOS:ARTCON for a reason, and this bullet would force Dicklyon to violate it. I warned above that Thryddulf was seeking an over-broad T-ban to "get rid of an opponent" on MoS applicability (especially in capitalization), that Thryduulf is a long-term, habitual gadfly about; Thryduulf vociferously denied this, yet here we are with a propsal that precisely fits what I predicted, and which has absolutely nothing to do with alleged miuse of JWB semi-automation, which is what this ANI is about. And obviously "this is not a problem" is the answer to Thryduulf's desire to expand this proposal even further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I wonder what is about being focused on the manual of style that makes it correlate with leaving personal attacks against me with such frequency (see also the comments on my talk page)? Needless to say they're just as wrong this time as they were every other time they've been levied. Credit where it is due though, accusing me of forcing someone to violate ARTCON is a new accusation. It doesn't make sense to me - if the article is internally consistent already then Dicklyon will just follow that consistency with any new content they add and nothing will change. If the article is internally inconsistent then it is not possible to violate a consistency that doesn't exist. Changing the article to be consistent is something Dicklyon will just have to ask others to do until such time as he is able to convince the community that he can be trusted to do it responsibly. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Being critical of an easily observable behavior pattern is not a "personal attack". And you clearly don't understand ARTCON; it is literally not possible that it means that introduction of a single inconsistency renders the guideline moot, or we could not have that guideline. What it really obviously means (as do all other consistency guidelines and policies on WP, such as WP:CITEVAR, MOS:ERA, WP:CONSISTENT, etc., etc.) is that if the material is mostly consistent toward one direction, inconsistencies that go the other direction should be reversed to conform.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  It would appear that you think because this is about the misuse of a semi-automated tool, that the resulting sanction has to be limited to removal of that tool? What part of WP:MEATBOT do you not understand? Bot-like editing can result in being treated as a bot, misuse of which can ultimately result in being indeffed. Thryduulf's proposal is significantly less impactful. You'd be better served to simply stick to addressing the proposal rather than the proposer. I'm still on the fence, but taking both of your statements at face-value, I see a higher level of personal animus in your approach to Thryduulf than they have against you your approach to Thryduulf is the one that comes accross as being loaded with personal animus. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Dickylon's changes haven't been against MOS, but rather not showing due care when making those MOS compliant changes with AWB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just to add I don't see anything added after my initial comment as reason to support this tban. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose No actual misconduct unrelated to (semi-)automated editing has been presented here. The topic ban on that is sufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per this ANI thread and the previous ones. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1129#User:_Dicklyon,_behavioral_issues_on_the_topic_of_capitalization was just three months ago; several other ones can be found in the ANI archives [46]. According to an editor from a past ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon_and_page_moves, Dicklyon was blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues. Dicklyon was also previously blocked for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dicklyon/Archive) and his sockpuppets' edits revolved around MOS-related issues such as capitalization of letters, MOS:CAPS, etc. Some1 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, again, too far for the wrong reasons. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose While automated edits were made in the context of the MOS, there was nothing inherently controversial about the nature of these edits that would warrant such action. This seems like an opportunistic gambit to settle old scores. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Some1. If this was a one time thing I'd understand, but if the issues are continually happening in one area then it's time for a break in that one area. Nemov (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - excessively draconian and seems more like WP:POINTY cruel and unusual punishment than a real sanction. The issue is over his automated edits; I don't see why we should bar him wholly from MOS edits when the issue was specifically how the automated edits had an excessively high inaccuracy rate. Butlerblog (talk · contribs) has invoked WP:MEATBOT, but that ignores the issue that the automated process were more inaccurate than they would be under a human editor. Additionally, no Some1 (talk · contribs) - nearly decade-old misconduct from at least 2015 is not a substantive argument to invoke sanctions in 2023. — Knightoftheswords 23:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  This isn't decade-old conduct, it's conduct that has been ongoing for a decade. There have been at least two maybe three ANI threads about Dicklyon and MOS-related conduct in the past ~18 months. All of which identified issues with their editing but failed to reach a consensus that the problems were bad enough or that there was no prospect of improvement going forwards. We've now moved forwards and the promised improvements haven't materialised. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Just to make the non-comprehensive timeline more clear:

  • Dicklyon was given a 6-month ban on page moves [47] after this 2015 ANI thread (capitalization related) in which another editor said Dicklyon has been on a constant "style crusade" across the encylopaedia since late last year and that he has made unilateral mass decapitalisation of various articles. [48]
  • Dicklyon was blocked for sockpuppetry in May 2015; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon/Archive. His socks' edits were MOS related (mainly capitalization).
  • An editor from a previous ANI thread said Dicklyon was blocked eight previous times from 2007 to 2015 for edit warring, largely over page titles and other style issues. That was from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Dicklyon and page moves which, again, is capitalization-related (May 2020).
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1094#Disruptive editing by User:Dicklyon was in March 2022 (mass edits related to capitalization).
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Dicklyon and pointless edits once again was in April 2022 (decapitalization edits, semi-automated edits).
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1129#User: Dicklyon, behavioral issues on the topic of capitalization was three months ago in May 2023.

  This isn't a one time issue that occurred in 2015 and suddenly reoccurred again September 2023. It's a long-term pattern of disruption...with the same user (Dicklyon) over the same capitalization topic area... for almost a decade. I know the proposal title says "MOS edits topic ban" which is a bit misleading and seems wider than it really is, but as the proposal states, it's Making edits ... that only or primarily change capitalisation. Making edits ... that change the capitalisation in any part of the page unrelated to content changes made in the same edit. That's not "excessively draconian" at all. Some1 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support I agree with the evidence Some1 has presented, that Dicklyon's accuracy when making MOS:CAPS related edits is a concurrent issue to the issue with automated and semi-automated edits. Both of these need to be addressed. With all due respect to the points that SMcCandlish has made, I don't find this to be over-reaching at all, as there is a demonstrated issue here going back several years. I also think the point that this is an attempt to get rid of an opponent is pure hyperbole. This isn't a CTOPS broadly construed TBAN, where an editor is being topic banned from all aspects relating to a given topic. Nothing here would prevent Dicklyon from contributing to project space MOS discussions on the applicability of the relevant guidelines.
  There is also a little bit of wiggle room in the proposal as written, to allow for Dicklyon to make a limited number of reasonable requests for corrections on these lines in the talk and draft talk namespaces. All this restricts is his ability to enforce something he has a demonstrated difficulty enforcing directly in the article and draft spaces. If Dicklyon can demonstrate through those that he is capable of making a limited number of accurate requests, alongside any regular editing he may do, this then provides a pathway for this TBAN to eventually be lifted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Sideswipe9th and Some1. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Clarification question - does this proposal only apply to MOS policy and guideline pages or to all Wikipedia mainspace pages? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn: In my reading of it, it specifically states main and draft namespaces. However, I believe it was written to provide at least some level of reasonableness. For example, it excludes fixing cases of vandalism. It also means that if he edits content, capitalization can change as a result, in cases where capitalization is not the sole purpose of the edit. Likewise, if it's just a case of changing capitalization, he can point it out to other editors to fix. If someone came in and changed [[Ronald Reagan]] to [[ronald reagan]], I would see correcting that as fixing a case of obvious vandalism. It doesn't appear to be intended to eliminate something obviously reasonable, but does seek to avoid changes that are questionable. I think that if he made the aforementioned change and someone hauled him into ANI to be indeffed on that evidence it would result in a boomerang on the reporting party since any reasonable person can see the error. Also, there's the caveat that allows for asking additional editors to do the edit, provided he's not doing so to game the system, so-to-speak. So... it's a tough sanction, but I don't think it's intended to bar him from reasonable edits (at least that's my take - I could be being to generous on assumptions regarding the proposal; and FWIW, I haven't weighed in on it yet, and haven't determined if I will or not, nor what that position would be). ButlerBlog (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Butlerblog yes, the intent is to be both firm and reasonable. Firm by preventing them making the types of edits that are the reason they've been brought here and protecting the project from the collateral damage, reasonable by allowing them to still make the types of edits that are not problematic and by making it as clear as possible what the ban covers and what it does not - as I wrote somewhere recently (possibly on my talk page) nobody benefits from topic bans that are vague and woolly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn there are three aspects to this proposed restriction. The first two, regarding capitalisation, explicitly apply only to the article and draft namespaces, there should be no MOS (or any other) policy or guideline pages in those namespaces. The third, related to piping of links, applies everywhere outside their user and user talk space. I can't think of a way that this restriction will impact their participation in project-space discussions of MOS-related policies or guidelines (they are explicitly permitted to add piped links to content they add, which includes replies in talk page discussions). I intentionally titled the section using the broad language used when the topic ban was first suggested, rather than the narrower topic ban actually proposed, but I'm now not convinced that was the right choice as I think some people might be reacting to the title rather than the actual proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the answers, and it sounds silly to ban Dicklyon from making very simple edits manually. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think your point is well taken. As an additional note, if you go upthread and read Sideswipe's second paragraph, I think she points out well what the objective is. It's not to be jerkish and put DL in a corner to embarass him (and anyone who supported this that thinks that way should be ashamed of themselves). The purpose is to put up some guardrails, allow him to edit appropriately, and have a path to appealing to lift the TBAN altogether at some point in the future. TBANS are not intended to be forever. Only if the editor does it to themselves is that ever the case. At some point, it should be totally reasonable for him to appeal. If you look at his past incidents, that's exactly what happened with his previous indeff - he was granted a return under the standard offer, and then after a time was able to appeal the entire restriction and be restored to full editing (as well as having been given JWB access). The same can happen with this (should this end up as a TBAN - that obviously has yet to be determined). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think the proposal above addresses most of this. This can always be revisited in the future if it turns out necessary. On Wikipedia, we tend to have our policies and guidelines (and sanctions) reflect a belief in the possibility of redemption. If someone makes a mistake and fixes that mistake, we typically move on unless/until a possible pattern emerges which may need addressing. In this case, th the "pattern" seems more a case of issues with the use of editing tools rather than the MOS in general. It doesn't seem liike they are intentionally violating the MOS, but rather are apparently making mistakes while trying to follow the MOS. - jc37 14:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I have disagreed with Dickylon in the past on proper capitalization, specifically for MLB related events, I do not believe that they are editing in bad faith as it pertains to the MOS. An outright ban doesn't seem justified. The issue is with the speed and carelessness, not the edits pertaining to the MOS itself. - Skipple ☎ 16:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support - i could be mistaken, but i don't think anyone it really suggesting Dicklyon is editing in bad faith; the worst that can be said is that he is failing to read the room and pushing through sometimes questionable changes, on occasion by the speed of his editing which creates a fait accompli, on occasion by repetitive arguing or changes. This ban should change that. Though i don't believe the other proposal i support should have a time limit, i am not at all averse to this one being limited to six months or, certainly, being appealable at that time. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support As Some1 handily collated, this has been a problem for years and years. The automated editing just makes it more problematic, but the behaviors have not substantially improved; anyone who gets blocked for socking over tiny MoS issues clearly has a value system at odds with the project at large. It's better for everyone if they are not involved in what is clearly an area they cannot edit constructively. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• I support in principle but the scope of the restriction leaves something to be desired. There are too many caveats which make it unworkable; an unscrupulous editor could tie a noticeboard up in knots debating whether something was a violation and an unscrupulous opponent could drag Dicklyon here for inadvertent technical breaches. Hopefully Dicklyon won't have as many problems with opening an edit window and typing in text as he does with automation. Or, TLDR: see WP:ROPE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would think that an unscrupulous editor could tie a noticeboard up in knots on something clearly technical or ridiculous is going to end up boomeranging themselves. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would greatly appreciate more detail on your thoughts regarding too many caveats which make it unworkable as I've tried to word the proposal in away to make it as clear as possible which edits count and which don't, disallowing the problematic stuff but allowing the non-problematic. With any restriction of this nature there is always going to be a need for some level of interpretation (other than something totally ridiculous like a ban from changing the capitalisation of any word in any circumstances), and at some point we have to trust that those enforcing a topic ban will be reasonable. As I note the first "this does not apply to" line isn't the greatest phrasing the project has ever seen, but I still can't think of anything better that allows them to change their own work (we do not expect perfection), the limit on that being while they are the most recent person to edit the page is to avoid OWNERSHIP issues or arguments about what is and isn't their own work if someone changes part of it (e.g. paragraph, sentence or word-level). Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support - After reading and re-reading most of the support and oppose positions, I am supporting for mostly the same reasons as Sideswipe pointed out above: All this restricts is his ability to enforce something he has a demonstrated difficulty enforcing directly in the article and draft spaces. If Dicklyon can demonstrate through those that he is capable of making a limited number of accurate requests, alongside any regular editing he may do, this then provides a pathway for this TBAN to eventually be lifted. ButlerBlog (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this is far too restrictive as proposed. I mean, a blanket ban on this? Just block him at that point, because I am struggling to see how Dicklyon could possibly edit constructively in mainspace while effectively unable to edit wikilinks; you wouldn't get very far trying to improve an article while having to grovel and beg someone to change a wikilink or an evident miscapitalization. Now if this were a ban on mass edits of this kind (if one could even define mass in this context), then that's something I could probably get behind. Curbon7 (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're misunderstanding the restriction proposed. The only thing he can't do under this proposal is change the piping of links he hasn't added himself, and to make edits whose primary purpose is changing capitalisation. The vast majority of editors on the project would find almost none, or in many cases literally none, of their edits would be impacted. Looking through your most recent 150 articles space edits, you would be able to have made 149 of them if you were under this restriction, this one being the only exception (and you would be allowed to request others to change it). Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  As has happened in the past, editors coming in late to this have far too much to wade through, give it only a cursory glance, and thus misread what the proposal actually says. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think I was referring to what you were talking about regarding the changing of the piping of links, as I imagine it would come up frequently if, for example, attempting to improve an article to GA, but if I misunderstood feel free to disregard that portion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hey mr. deputy dog, wait Just a darn Minute (if passed Dicklyon couldn't fix that sentence). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Correct (unless it was part of a larger content edit involving that sentence or it was that way as the result of obvious vandalism), but he could ask someone else to fix it. However, I don't understand your point? We don't topic propose topic bans for people randomly, and the rationale for proposing this one has been explained at length and is the result of many years worth of disruption. Yes, there will be some things that are incorrect that the person topic banned will not be able to fix, but that's true of every topic ban (e.g. someone topic banned from American politics would be unable to fix the capitalisation of that sentence in a biography of a US politician). Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  You need to clarify that this is a comment and not a !vote in addition to your opposition already noted above. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, this is an additional comment to point out how if somehow passed (and any closer approving this is or isn't worth their salt in gold) this is pretty much an indef ban and an insult of an editor who has maybe hundreds of thousands of good MOS edits similar to the edits he would be banned from making. Seems an end-around of commonsense (and that's a difficult play, kudos to the wording of this proposal). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Firstly insults to the prospective closer and prejudging the close are both inappropriate, and the rest of the comments don't seem to bear any relation to the proposal or the background to it? Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose As I said above, it seems to me, as a non-involved editor, that removing Dick's semi-automated editing permissions will adequately prevent the harmful practices that had lead to these complaints being raised. A MoS topic ban is overly broad, will needlessly cripple his ability to contribute to the site, and open him up to tendentious attacks by editors with an axe to grind. Based on what I read in this discussion, it did seem to me that some of the participants had jumped on just to see an old personal enemy taken down, which I find extremely distasteful and contrary to the spirit of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ido66667 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Have you actually read the proposed topic ban or just the title? It is possible to legitimately dispute the necessity of a topic ban, but not really to describe it as "overbroad" and it really would not "cripple his ability to contribute to the site". The rationale for the proposal, as explained in detail multiple times, is nothing at all to do with "enemies" or taking somebody down, but the result of over a decade of disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think you should probably amend the section header for clarity. Sure, we should expect people to actually read the proposal for the details and not just the header, but a mismatched header doesn't serve the discussion well. As for the actual proposal, I support a restriction. Dick's capitalization bugaboo has become a time sink for other editors. I also agree that it should not auto-expire for the same reason you state in the above section (waiting out instead of actually making behavior improvement), so an appeal should be necessary. Let Dicklyon show he has more to contribute than just being the decapitalization guy. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Oknazevad (or anyone else) please feel free to rename the section to reflect the scope of the proposal (rather than the prior discussion). I can't immediately come up with something that is reasonably concise, doesn't come across as trying to unduly sway the discussion and doesn't have all the same problems of sounding overbroad if you don't read the details (e.g. "topic ban from capitalisation"). Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Butterfly and wheel at the moment, although without prejudice to this being revised if the above sanction proves not to have worked in, say, six months. SN54129 14:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's healthy debate above on whether the error rate tied to semi-automated editing is too high, but I don't think we can say it's too high for manual editing. I would describe very few editors here as "anti-MOS", but there is widespread opposition to decapitalization, even when it's obviously supported by MOS:CAPS. Subject-mater-focused editors frequently see Dicklyon begin work in their topic area and challenge this regular copyediting, and we end up with a long ANI thread. Above, these recent-ish no-consensus threads are cited as evidence in support of the restriction, but I see them as a sign that this is a matter where editors commonly disagree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: It sticks in my craw to type this, but. See, we've clashed a number of times. I strongly believe that Dicklyon's anti-capitalization crusade borders on the abusive, that he's way way offbase in his curious belief that MOS overrides how proper usage has been defined for decades by institutions and in the media, and I wonder who the hell decided that MOS:CAPS negated style manuals around the world. But we need more for a TBAN than that, and however much I disagree with his stance, I can't support one without solid evidence that he's trampling policy. Passionately advocating an unpopular stance is not in of itself a policy violation. A ban on him using automated tools in his crusade is valid. This is not. Ravenswing 21:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. If somebody forgets to capitalize "Smith" in "Adam Smith", it makes no sense to prohibit this user from making that fix. If the issue is largely related to the use of automated/semi-automated editing, and we're imposing a ban on that, then I see no issue with the user making thoughtful decisions as to when to manually make these fixes. We want to encourage the editor to put thought into this sort of stuff rather than just doing it en masse; we should let the sanction be narrowly tailored towards the disruption (i.e. editing en masse without checking for false positives) while leaving him enough room to contribute positively (i.e. fixing individual typos manually after evaluating whether or not it's actually a typo). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as as far as I can see they're not making edits against MOS.... they're just making careless edits..., My other concern is that if Dicklyon is MOS-topicbanned then they would only move to something else and would find themselves here again. Simple solution = revoke semi-automated permissions and ban them from using any semi automated tool, Banning them from manually fixing articles achieves nothing as like I say they're not going against MOS specifically. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose because I don't entirely understand what this restriction will do, or why it is necessary in addition to a prohibition against semi-automated editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This user's edits changing capitalisation appear to be in support of policies and guidelines. We get far too many editors who think that "their topic" is so important that the syntactic rules for capitalisation in English should be overridden and Semantic Rules Based on Obvious Importance Should be Used Instead. Dicklyon does very good work in defending us against such nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the discussion above will solve the problem, hopefully. They will surely be able to have a smaller error rate with manual editing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Case fixes

Lacking JWB access, I've done only about 1000 case fix edits in the last week. I'd appreciate it if someone would look at a few of my contribs and say if some of those represent the "drive-by recapitalisation and repiping" that T seeks to ban me from. There are certainly some that don't change the displayed article text, but do have a positive effect in removing miscapitalized redirects from the report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. The last time we discussed this, there was not a consensus that working on this was a bad idea, though some editors failed to see the value of it. Check the history there, to see that I have fixed the majority of the reported errors (from over 500 linked miscapitalized redirects to only 137). Making further progress will be slower without JWB, but I can live with that, especially if someone with AWB or JWB can help on the "long end", which is where I was working with JWB when I messed up. Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Good job. Hopefully you can use the tools again. As you know, the benefits of manual casing runs include the increased overview of both the encyclopedia and the subject matters. I case run on many words, sometimes into the thousands of edits, and have absorbed a great deal of information doing that (although I certainly can't say I remember a great percentage of it you get some good bits now and then). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Dicklyon, your post only gives me greater concern. Removing things from database reports is not a useful thing to do for its own sake, and doing so while introducing other errors actually has a negative effect. I'm all for stylistic consistency between articles but it's not an emergency that justifies leaving an article in a worse state than you found it in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree. Notice how I said "I messed up". I didn't say I thought that was OK. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If that's useful work, then great. But truthfully, your editing history of the last few days could be summarily discarded as you obviously know you're under scrutiny right now. It's more important what you do when no one is paying attention, or when you think no one is paying attention. If the real issue truly was just carelessness and speed with semi-automated editing, then that will become evident over time, not just a couple of days. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I always edit like people are paying attention. Here I'm just pointing out the type of edits that Thryduulf thinks I should be banned from. Or to inquire what he's talking about, if not these kinds of primarily capitalization changes that often affect piping. His ban proposal had little or nothing to do with mistakes and speed. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Consistent breaking of NOR rule

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

User CriticKende continuously employs original research to edit articles, see History of Transylvania: 1, 2, 3. Previously on the article Vlachs: 1 which was admitted here and on Keszthely Culture article for example here which was admitted on the talk page here and on another dicussion seen here. I have opened a discussion on his talk page at User talk:CriticKende#Recent edits on History of Transylvania after which he briefly stopped editing and resumed today with this. His OR edits are sometimes masked under citations of sources but those sources do not, specifically or at all, say what the editor added, circumventing 3rd opinion mediation as seen here.

Edit: sorry, I missed the most recent example: 1, after the discussion on the user's talk page.Aristeus01 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I am insistent, is there someone who can provide some assistance ? Aristeus01 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a content issue (a dispute about what a source says/means), and it looks like the two of them are talking it out at the link provided above. As an aside, I think both of them could probably do with a (re-)read of WP:SYNTH. - jc37 02:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37 thank you for taking the time to look into this!

My reasoning here is at it follows:

source 1 which speaks of the event (at page 97 not 98 as the editor stated) says:

"(Βλαχου γένος), according to Kekaumenos, originally Dacians and Bessis, who lived on the banks of the Danube and Sava, where "now" the Serbs live. They feigned allegiance to the Romans while constantly attacking and plundering them. Therefore, Trajan made war, their leader Decebal was killed, and then they were dispersed to Macedonia, Epirus and Hellas."

In the second source there is nothing at the page cited about the topic. Even more, the author cited, Gyóni Mátyás, wrote a passage in the book from the page 212 to page 219 where he talks about "Early Magyar-Byzantine Matrimonial relations", saying nothing about Vlachs.

The text added by the editor is:

"He (Kekaumenos) called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia."

Let me highlight the parts that are not in the sources:

"He called them Bessis because they now live where the Bessis once lived, in Macedonia, and he called them Dacians because he believed they came from the north, "where the Serbs now live", and that was then the Diocese of Dacia."

So the editor:

1.added half of the text from his opinion

2.added some random sources after writing the statement without verifying the content

3.wrongfully gave the page number(s)

all in the hope to cover OR because no one is so determined to go trough hundred of pages of documents written in Hungarian to see if the source explicitly says what the editor added and determine if his editing is ok. And he is not wrong, considering the reactions so far, no offense.

As for WP:Synth, I would agree with this if the editing was done by collecting information from sources and patching it together in an edit, but the fact is the editor is simply stating his opinion and then dropping poor quality citations to pretend it is the actual source and "muddle the waters" on the OR accusation. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Aristeus01 - I understand that you are concerned about this situation, but based upon the talk page discussion, and what you have laid out above, this looks like it's a content dispute.

I note that so far no one else has commented in this thread. That could be because typically content disputes are not handled here. As noted at the top of this page, AN/I is for behavioual issues.

For a content dispute, you may want to try WP:3PO to get one or more third-party opinions. And there is also the NOR noticeboard, as well. If you do feel that this situation is disruptive, you could also try WP:DRN. But I would suggest the 3PO route first.

And for that matter, looking at the top of Talk:History of Transylvania, there appear to be several WikiProjects which you could reach out to as well.

I hope this helps - jc37 18:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

021120x

021120x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) British Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user was blocked for edit warring. But they have also made pa's in edit summaries [[49]] (not as well misrepresenting sources, this is in fact highly edited, in that it leaves out some context that alters what it says). Is bludgeoning the discussion (and telling about half a dozen experienced edds they are all wrong), launching somewhat dishonest RFC's [[50]] (not one had in fact objected to this), continues to misrepresent the source by cheery picking [[51]] [[52]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Your first two diffs are from 2005.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Mistake god knows that happened there. [[53]] [[54]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I may be stating the obvious, but: The two broken diff links both lack their two final digits, compared to the correct ones. Likely broken while copying. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Obvious? Not to normal people. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This user has been resorting to noticeboard escalations when it becomes clear that his arguments may be lacking. He has reversed positions in the middle of discussions,[[55]] cherry-picked information from sources while simultaneously accusing others of doing the same - and then deleting his comment and the response which disproved it[[56]][[57]]. And is now trying to close an ongoing RfC that has only just started and has not received any external comments. 021120x (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not nominate if to be closed, and no one (at the point you launched the RFC) had objected to the way you worded the text (In the RFC). My position reversed (as I said) after I checked what your source actually said (as opposed to what you claimed it said), Nor do I see any deletion of comments, I see a comment by you, and me altering my comment to include the right link. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Its worth noting that these are exactly the same behaviours that previously led to a week's block in a WP:BOOMERANG by GeneralNotability. We are seeing POV editing [58], which is not supported by the source and I found when checking the source the quotation was very much chery picked to give a misleading impression. There are personal attacks in edit summaries [59] and edit warring. The editor is simply bludgeoning the discussion. The block appeal shows no sign of comprehension that their conduct was in any way wrong and they blamed everyone else. There is very much a battlefield mentality at play here. If after a week's block for inappropriate behaviour, repeating the same nearly 3 years later and believing they are being wronged by everyone then perhaps a WP:CIR block could be considered, at the very least some mentoring may be appropriate. 16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wee Curry Monster (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This [[60]] is what caused the mistake, deleting both a block and unblock rejection notice that is still active. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• It pains me to learn that not only has the user not stopped doing the exact behavior that was in question in the previous conflict linked above, but has escalated the behavior. Even despite repeated warnings from several editors in the past few months. User seemingly takes the warnings off their talk page when they happen, which is likely to be why this has not resulted in some 3RR or other action being already taken. User is clearly aware the behavior is inappropriate and yet continues to do it. I have little faith that the current page-specific block would bring an end to the disruptive behavior, or the battlefield behavior. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

[61] It seems that the editor has moved on to other articles but is continuing with the same behaviour of reverting without discussion to insert personal opinion as fact and misrepresenting sources to do so. This really does need nipping in the bud or else there will be tears before bedtime. WCM_email 10:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Abusive homophobic edit summaries

A look at the edit summaries by Special:Contributions/Territory Woods suggests to me that he/she needs an indefinite block and most/all of their edits revdelled.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

They were indeffed so this case can be closed. UnironicEditor (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I imagine that this new account is a sock account, and that his/her posts are attacks on editors he/she disagreed with using a different account. So please could checkuser be used on the account.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

THeyve been infected with TPA and email disabled. 2600:100F:B1A4:5889:D8A6:8071:D4E7:527B (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(Non-checkuser comment) They appear to be the IP-hopper at Special:PageHistory/Achterdam and Special:PageHistory/Mail-order bride. I doubt a check would tie them back to any past sockmaster. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This account was the LTA known as Evlekis, who likes to jump into stuff. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well it was inevitable I'd be wrong about something eventually. /lh -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a first time for everything! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin just forgot to check the deleted contribs! A quick scan of those page histories says to me that this LTA was just stalking some recent changes. I should take this opportunity to observe that the content being persistently removed in the first of those articles appears to have a reference which sucks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Link for people interested: Evlekis (talk · contribs · logs · block log) NM 17:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Uninvolved, but that historical user page was something else. Dronebogus (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Deceptive contact by political operators

Early this morning I was approached by WondersShallNeverEnd on my talk page to upload an image of a politician from Flickr. As I am not well versed in Wikimedia Commons, I declined their request. This is the full log: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borgenland&diff=prev&oldid=1174562864

Adding image to article Simon Ekpa @Borgenland

Greetings to you!

Can you help me to add an image found on Flickr to the article page Simon Ekpa? The page is protected, hence l can't add it. Meanwhile, l have already uploaded the image to Wikimedia commons automatically. Link here WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello! As much as I'd like to, I'm not an expert in Commons. Also, are you sure this is not a potential copyright violation? There is a tendency to remove such items if found so. Borgenland (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland

I understands your concerns but I can assure you that the image is not copyright violation. It's in terms with Wikimedia commons rules. Thanks WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If the image is a copyvio, it would have been removed from Wikimedia or probably marked for deletion. WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A few hours later, I get dragged into Talk:Simon Ekpa and find out that WondersShallNeverEnd is a sockpuppet of several accounts that have been affiliated with certain African separatist organizations. Ultimately another account that is also identified as a sockpuppet admits to being a member of the said organization who is trying to find someone else to upload the image. Showing you all the full log:

Add Simon Ekpa's image to the article

Hello, distinguished editors,

There's an image found on Flickr that needs to be added to the article page. Here is the link. The image has never been seen elsewhere. This page is protected and that's the reason I can't add it myself. Can an editor help add it? Licenced (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Licenced, upload it to Commons then, I'll add it here. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Now that's interesting. Per previous uploads of pictures of Ekpa, the question arises if it's reasonable to assume the uploader is who they say the are, or if this is more FLICKRWASHING. It's not very common that an org would put it's own logo in the public domain, like the flickr-uploader is on-the-face-of-it doing. FYI ping to @Yann and @Elcobbola. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, have you used other WP-accounts, and if so, which ones? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, was it you who put the images on flickr? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I confirmed Licenced to be a Unibrill sock, along with WondersShallNeverEnd which had already uploaded the image and was also proxying here, and blocked both about two hours before your ping above. Why are we feeding the trolls? Эlcobbola _talk 12:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hope springs eternal? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

FYI-ping to @Borgenland, in case you wonder what that was about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I do wonder why I got dragged into this out of nowhere. Dealing with images and Wikimedia Commons is not exactly my forte. Borgenland (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, you did so admirably in this case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I was trying my best to be polite to a stranger. Now come to think of it, I think someone may have remembered me when Ekpa was dragged into the 2023 Nigerien crisis which I was heavily involved in at the time. Borgenland (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Elcobbola, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång,

All of your concerns are well noted. In all sincerity, l am directly affiliated with Biafra Republic Government in Exile organization. I was directly informed by Simon Ekpa to add the image they uploaded on Flickr to Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I work for him and Biafra Republic Government in Exile.If you do your thorough research on the media, you will find out that image never existed anywhere prior to it's upload on Flickr on 7th of September 2023. I was directly authorized to add the image but to COI and page protection, l couldn't. I will inform them about the development that l have been blocked and see how they will react. Licenced (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland@Reading Beans

Maybe, Simon Ekpa himself will assign a new user to add the image on Wikimedia. I have tried my best and I give up! Licenced (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying you tried to hire me to do work for a political organization under false pretenses? You do know Wikipedia has very serious rules on that. I am afraid I would have to report you to ANI. Borgenland (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Long story short, this is the first time that this has happened to me and I am shocked by the fact that there are users like this who are trying to lure neutral, objective minded users into moonlighting as promoters of certain political agendas. I urge any concerned admin who reads this to take the appropriate action to ensure this does not happen again. Thank you very much especially to @Gråbergs Gråa Sång and @Elcobbola for helping me connect the dots to this horribly bizarre anomaly. Borgenland (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Borgenland, non-admin here. Just to remind you that you should leave a talk message on the talk page of @WondersShallNeverEnd to notify that they're on AN/I. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Also putting one on User:Licenced. Borgenland (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland Both accounts are now blocked:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UniBrill Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help! Borgenland (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

For context, there's a bit of history on Ekpa-pics on Commons:[62] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Borgenland, misconstrued the whole maybe. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång understands the scenario better because he has been there. Generally, the image found on Flickr was dedicated to public domain which enabled me to add it to wikicommons. Simon Ekpa took the picture himself and uploaded on Flickr through the political organization flick account. He directed that I add it to Wikipedia but when I came, the page was protected which made me to write @Borgenland on his talk page. I never meant any harm. WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you using the User:Licenced account as well? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

But as far as I’m concerned, that in itself is against the rules. It appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia but are here for en errand for your boss, which is a blatant violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:PROMOTION. Borgenland (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

And if I had accepted your request and got caught up when dung hit the fan, I could have lost this account that I built for 2 years on suspicion of being a meat/sockpuppet. As such you and your friends are threatening to harm the integrity of users you are trying to recruit. I hope I don’t get misunderstood to be making legal threats but you and your backers could end up having notability in Wikipedia in things that are the opposite of what you expect. Borgenland (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I erred against @Borgenland and I am deeply sorry. In all these, shall we leave the article page without any image of Simon Ekpa? This is a critical issue here. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, You can testify the hurdles passed so far on trying to improve the article page by adding an image. As a human, l am deeply feeling bad now. I wish I can be understood but I assume that everyone now understands. WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What I know is that various user-accounts have for whatever reason made copyvio etc uploads of Ekpa-pics on Commons since 2021, and, I'm told, made fraudulent VRT-claims. This wastes time and cause annoyance. So yes, to leave the article page without any image of Simon Ekpa seems like an excellent solution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps en.wiki CUs should tend to their duties (10 days and no response (!!!)). Outrageous. Эlcobbola _talk 18:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of valid wikilinks by Sandi0000

On List of Nat Geo Wild original programming article, Sandi0000 have removed all of the wikilinks that redirects to many TV programs that actually has an article for them, despite disagreement with other editors (You can see the talk page to know more). In addition, Sandi0000 displays WP:OWN behavior when confronted (see 1) 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 09:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. Similar disruptive edits at List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC and List of programs broadcast by BBC America. Further warnings at their talk page deleted [63]. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 09:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

In addition to what has already been mentioned, disruptive editing also occurred at List of Animal Planet original programming and List of National Geographic original programming. Thanks. Cheezknight (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sandi0000 this is section for you, see you responded to other sections above confused Indagate (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

New issue, alongside the previous issues, of copyrighted descriptions. This user is not listening or able to understand what we have told them. Can an admin revdel please? [64]

@Sandi0000 Please stop and discuss. Indagate (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

discuss what? I gave info on every on-going Tv show how is that "copyright" Sandi0000 (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sandi0000 discuss your editing which editors are finding disruptive. Why did you get the descriptions you added from? I googled the descriptions you added and they match official sites. You're still making the disputed edits, please stop while this is discussion is ongoing. Indagate (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sandi0000 has now created a duplicate article under a different name at Draft:Nat Geo Aniaml Shows to continue editing. This has previously happened at least once. Cheezknight (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Because they have continued to make exactly the same kinds of edits rather than discuss matters I've partially blocked them from the article and draft namespaces for a week. Hopefully this will get them talking, if it does and matters are successfully resolved before the week is up any admin should feel free to unblock at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I took out shows that weren't even from Nat Geo Wild they where from Animal Planet how are you understanding that? Sandi0000 (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"how are you NOT understanding that* Sandi0000 (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sandi0000 responded on my talk page, again in an irrelevant section, clearly not understanding the block. I have attempted to explain there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Other drafts they created as duplicate of the mainspace article are Draft:Nat Geo Wild Shows and Draft:List of Nat Geo Wild original programming, have redirected both. Thanks for blocking. Indagate (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:BestOkieHistory

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

---

• BestOkieHistory (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Okiehistory is a user with an apparent conflict of interest with Wade Burleson, who was partially blocked on 23 July 2021.
• BestOkieHistory signed up on 9 May 2021 with the sole purpose of patrolling Okiehistory's contributions and later report Okiehistory (this report is a spin off of Okiehistory SPI.
• The activity and BestOkieHistory's username choice makes it clear that badgering Okiehistory is the sole purpose of this account. This sounds like a WP:NOTHERE issue.
• BestOkieHistory was clearly not a new user when they started editing, and this not a valid purpose for a privacy alt. Regardless of who the sockmaster is, this looks like WP:ILLEGIT socking. MarioGom (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @MarioGom, I've blocked under NOTHERE. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Talk page edits by 24.38.185.65

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

---

Since at least January 2021, IP user 24.38.185.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been using talk pages as a soapbox, complaining that the article subjects are not "really" the gender that matches their gender identity. On September 9, 2023, the IP user did so again on Talk:Amy Schneider. I gave a warning on that page and on the IP's user talk page. The user responded with vitriol that included more misgendering of the subject and removed a "final warning" of WP:BLP violation from User:Innisfree987. Please block the user to stop the misgendering and editor attacks, and please provide guidance on how to appropriately remove the WP:BLP-violating content from talk pages. Thank you. --LinkTiger (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the comments on the talkpage and made a req to protect the talkpage at WP:RFPP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• I support this block request, and would underscore that this disruption follows on related issues that have gone on for years now, previously resulting in blocks in 2021 and 2022. Unfortunately, this IP editor has also threatened to evade a block, saying in response to a warning, "FYI, changing IP addresses is not a problem for me.” Innisfree987 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, it seems to have been a problem for them during the last years, and block evasion can be simply reverted. I found their contributions via WP:RFPP and blocked them for two years with talk page access disabled to prevent further misuse of Wikipedia as a discussion forum. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks so much for your help @ToBeFree, much appreciated. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Editor making malicious adjustments to page, possibly as sock puppet or changes for hire

It appears an individual from India with no editing history correlating to the page in question was either used as a sock puppet or edit for hire to make malicious and false adjustments to a personal page through three revisions.

No edits had been made to this page since 2020, with the last one being:

The first malicious edit was made by User:43.229.88.122 on July 6, 2023: with a minor edit made on the same day:

Note if you look at the IP of this editor, it both maps to India and has a history of editing Indian pages. The history is clear:

It makes absolutely no sense for this individual to make such edits as they did to the page in question. The only logical conclusion is this individual was asked to or paid to make these edits by a 3rd party to a page it had absolutely no connection or relation to in any capacity.

Another edit was made on August 31, 2023, just a little over a week ago. More changes with obvious malicious intent.

Note this "new" account User:103.42.196.70 has only this one edit under it, and the IP traces to the exact same provider in India as the previous 43.229.88.122 address.

I request the core page () is reverted to its January 30, 2020 state () and the accounts in question are investigated for violating Wikipedia TOS. It would also be very interesting to find out who was really behind these edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Requnix (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

References

• It's a BLP with very few page watchers, which has allowed BLP violations to slip in undetected. As such, I've added PC protection for a spell to help prevent further incidences. There were only two IPs making the edits, nearly two months apart, so I don't think anything further is needed at this time (except perhaps a check whether WP:N is met; I haven't looked to deeply but I have my doubts).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Ponyo! Requnix (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

IP user 174.88.125.115 is making legal threats on Talk:Ivan Katchanovski

The IP user claims to be the subject of the article Ivan Katchanovski. He alleges defamation. Nangaf (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Unambiguous legal threat. Blocked for a month (what is the usual period for NLT blocks for IPs?) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, Nangaf, the article does use a primary reference (a PhD dissertation by the then Ukrainian activist Emily S Channell) to conclude that the subject's works are not widely accepted in the scholarly community and with a non-NPOV inference such as "Although cited with approval by scholars including Richard Sakwa and Stephen F. Cohen, according to ethnographer Emily S. Channell-Justice, writing in 2016, Katchnovski's conclusions were not widely accepted in the academic community." While this is a content issue, I would suggest giving heed to the subject's requests and review the sourcing reliability on the BLP, given the claimed dangers/issues that he would face. Thanks, Lourdes 07:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Globally blocked

User:Juyiscally reappears as User:AOJCCD (removing tags related to the "Chinese New Left", interaction tool) and as User:SKhanask (removing tags related to the "Chinese New Left", interaction tool). Can anyone help look at this? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 15:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked:

• AOJCCD (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• UBAUSN (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Vinasn3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Siliuma (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

CC @Sotiale: You might want to take a look. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also

• Situany (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SKhanask (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WSZD1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Thank you! ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 15:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Another Wiki User

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

---

• Another Wiki User the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Another Wiki User the Guest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first encountered Another Wiki User via VPR and an outlandish proposal to redirect all "Battle for Dream Island" pages to a (now-deleted) page called "Go to FANDOM". I initially assumed they were new, but apparently they have 500+ edits across these three different accounts. I am wondering if a WP:NH block might be next in line. They already have a few warnings, their editing schedule seems sporadic but it appears that they are causing a long term pattern of potentially problematic editing.

Some of the problems with their editing include:

1. Absurd proposals [65] (2023) [66] (2020)
2. Reinstating disruptive edits in mainspace [67] (2021)
3. Disruptive edits to April Fools' Day documentation and joke pages outside of April Fools' Day [68] (2023)
4. Disruptive page creations [69] (2020)
5. Goofing around with Wikipedia "games" [70] (2023)

I am reporting because:

1. Their overall editing pattern demonstrates little interest in improving Wikipedia
2. They have not demonstrated any improvement in their editing style or pattern
3. Some of their edits, while well intentioned, demonstrates a serious fail of WP:CIR

I hate for it to come to this point, but they have been given no shortage of explanations by other administrators why their edits are problematic and how to return to productive editing. That is why I am reporting here. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, courtesy ping Moneytrees as an admin who has explained the disruptive edits. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim They haven't really edited since they were last warned a few days ago. I didn't block at the time, I'll block if there is further disruption. I'm content to leave them be for now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Moneytrees Ok thank you. I wonder if I or you could give a final warning for disruption. Because I really think they should not be in Wikipedia space unless if it is absolutely relevant to improving the encyclopedia. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I CLEARLY do not know what I am doing here. Please don't block me, I'm not trying to be disruptive. I was only editing casually and saying "No matter how much you try to stop it, people will edit war over the section title" Thanks, Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, #2 was a total accident. I reverted it because manual rollback. And please apologize for me being a goof. Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I request everyone involved in this ANI to trout slap me. I deserve it. Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk, contribs) (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Another Wiki User the 2nd No trouts: further unnecessary silliness, and doing things like closing discussions on yourself (do not ever do that!), will result in an indefinite block. Do you understand? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I UNDERSTAND. Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk, contribs) (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Aaand... appears to be blocked indefinitely. Thank you so much for handling this Moneytrees. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 21:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User connected to commercial institution

User:AnbanSH seems to be connected to the for-profit college American College of Greece and contributes ad-like material to an already biased article. They have attempted to remove well-sourced parts of articles multiple times. 62.74.56.60 (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I notified the user on their talk page. Keep in mind that notifying users with {{subst:ANI-notice}} is required. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ought to be banned for conflict of interest. UnironicEditor (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There's no "seems to be" about it: they admitted it back in March, although without details (they simply responded "yes" when asked if they were "connected" to the College). The boilerplate COI notice contains an advisory about paid editing but there's a better series about the requirement to disclose, I'll drop that on their page. They haven't edited in 2 weeks, though, there's really nothing else to do at this time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

SealedCargo

SealedCargo (talk · contribs · count) is another editor who doesn't understand why we need to add sources and use good edit summaries or talk page comments where necessary, and has been previously blocked for this, when they got angry and snippy and called the challenging editor a racist. I notice despite the blocks, they're still not adding sources and putting in unverifiable original research, so can anyone have a word before an indefinite block becomes necessary? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Might also be a legal threat here: [71]. Ravenswing 13:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Judging by their tenuous familiarity with English, and their insistence on labelling every opinion that isn't theirs racist, I wouldn't jump to "take this to a higher court" being a threat of legal action, they could just as easily have meant taking the issue to a noticeboard. I'd wait to see if they make a more credible threat. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Long term edit war on Ottoman battle articles by possible sockpuppets, 5 reverts within 2 hours

• Göktuğ538538 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Keremmaarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Overvecht3301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User: Göktuğ538538

I would like to show the same boring edit war pattern, possible by the same users (case still open): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keremmaarda

These users (or this sockpuppet user) always edit only the info boxes, rewrite many Ottoman battle articles to Ottoman victory, or if Ottoman lost he rewrite like "Ottomans not lost, but Ottomans just went home from a "picnic" due to the bad weather", he always decreases the number of Ottoman army and casualties while he always increases the number of the enemy and their casualties. Even he rewrote the famous Siege of Belgrade was just a "pyrrhic Hungarian victory" (which stopped the Ottomans for 70 years) and he rewrote the "Turks won the battle". He always remove modern academic sources and replace it with 200-500 years sources with bad referencing stlye that hard to check if true of twisted.

• Siege Güns: Same edit war pattern: "Ottomans went home due the bad weather" Talk:Siege of Güns#RESULT 5 reverts within 2 hours: [72][73][74][75][76]
• Siege Vienna 1529: Same edit war pattern: "Ottomans went home due the bad weather": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Vienna_(1529)&diff=prev&oldid=1172458325
• Siege of Belgrade 1456: Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456)#"Turks won the field battle"?
• Siege Jajce 1464: Talk:Siege of Jajce (1464)#Result
• Battle Nicopolis: Talk:Battle of Nicopolis#Army size and sources
• Battle of Keresztes: Talk:Battle of Keresztes#Sources, numbers
• Siege of Maribor 1532: Same bad weather excuse Talk:Siege of Maribor (1532)
• Battle of Mohacs: Talk:Battle of Mohács#Hungarian army
• Siege of Kruje 1467: Same edit war pattern by 2 possible sock users: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Krujë_(1467)&action=history

OrionNimrod (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Due to the great similarity of interest among these three editors, Keremmaarda, Göktuğ538538 and Overvecht3301, all wanting to change just the infoboxes of Ottoman battle articles and in similar ways, I would go ahead and block all three for WP:MEAT. The block would be based in this report and on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keremmaarda. I ran a check but did not find anything conclusive. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed a similarity in articles created by Keremmaarda, which are either sieges or battles, and articles created by Kurya Khan and Soldier of Seljuk 1071. These similarities all share the same issues: poorly written(example:"The Sultan reached the Danube after difficulty and suffering."), foreign language sources with no page numbers or impossible to verify, over reliance on primary source(s), and few if any English sources. Kurya Khan's article creation list and Soldier of Seljuk 1071's list are perfect examples. Note the number of deleted articles from both creation lists. I agree completely with Ed's suggestion of blocking all of them. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

IP editor and Occupation of Smyrna

Occupation of Smyrna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP editor is adding unsourced POV to article. Eastern European sanctions area and I have reverted once, per BURDEN/ONUS. Don't want to edit war, but this should be looked at.

Diffs [77], [78] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs)

• It's cute that the IP thinks that Putin is motivated by a failed invasion a hundred years ago. Ravenswing 13:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Cute isn't exactly the qualification I would have used, but still. I do not really think this rises to anything worthy of an AN/I discussion. RPP seems more useful if this persists. I have the page on my watch list, and will revert that nonsense if I encounter it. (Non-administrator comment) Kleuske (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

    Enough of this sporadic CTOP disruption. Semied and logged. Courcelles (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Chronic religious soapboxing

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

---

• KerimF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On User talk:KerimF (diff): The user does not understand that WP:SOAPBOXING his own religion is unwelcome. Please block as WP:NOTHERE. His modus operandi: WP:CITEs no WP:RS, and claims that the World's Elite ([79], [80], [81], [82]—ad nauseam) does WP:CENSOR the divine truths he advocates at Wikipedia ([83]). Final warning at [84]. The overt message of his actions is that he is a meek Christian lamb, persecuted by the big bad wolves of the World's Elite. The purpose of his message is proselytizing. In other words, he thinks that the WP:RULES of Wikipedia were made purposefully to stifle spreading the gospel ([85]). He is using Wikipedia for spiritual warfare (the allegations that he is persecuted by the World's Elite do make sense within such worldview, he thinks that everything which stifles preaching the good news is essentially demonic). tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Blocked. Enough of that. Courcelles (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock needed

A number of UK IP-hopping vandals is insisting on inserting stuff about genital discharge into an article about cottage cheese (See page history). Issuing warnings is of no use. Likely the same person. User:Wwiki123456789 held the fort, but got an (undeserved) 3RR warning as a reward. Kleuske (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a range block is practical here; I've added a spoonful of semi-protection. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

That helps. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The 3RR warning by YesI'mOnFire was not appropriate. Seriously deserves a WP:TROUT for that one. WCM_email 16:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

IP continuing to breach WP:ENGVAR, despite warnings

116.86.53.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
116.86.7.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have reported another IP who I assume is the same editor before for this very reason.

This IP has made several edits (1, 2, 3, 4) breaching WP:ENGVAR, primarily making changes to English varieties in articles without discussion. They appear to be non-communicative and fail to use edit summaries, so while their intention may be good, disruptive editing is still disruptive.

The first IP I listed is the one I'm reporting now, and the second IP I listed has shown this exact editing pattern the year prior.

If this doesn't encourage the IP to tell their side of the story, I'm not sure what will. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• The IP hasn't edited for over 24 hours, so I think it's just a case of seeing if they continue, at which point a sanction may be merited. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Two editors are one and possible COI

Sebastian.newdigate12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is replying to messages on Newdigate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) talk page in a way which makes it reasonable to assume they are the same person. Both have only ever edited Simon Lee (academic), and I suspect a COI. Sebastian.newdigat12 has denied being the subject or a relative or employee, but has not denied having some other connexion. I don't think this is intentional socking, but it needs sorting out, and I have to say I find their edits to the article very hard to believe aren't done with the intention of promoting the subject. The article itself has been in a mess for years. Could someone take an admin-minded look at it all? Ta, DuncanHill (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

As you will see, my edits today have addressed material contained within the citations within the wiki for clarity. I was concerned about the questions asked by DuncanHill as they sought personal detail, which might be used for a range of purposes. As indicated in my responses, I am not Professor Lee, a relation, an employee, and have crossed professional paths with him over the years - I do have a high respect for him and his work, particularly with regard to the peace process in Northern Ireland.

I would agree that the article is a mess, it was a place of some unpleasantness at the time of its origin, but seems to have been tidied up and be less so more recently.

what I have added is supported by citation, or addresses an opinion added to a cited item adding personal subjective opinion, which I believe is not appropriate within Wikipedia.

There is no attempt to promote the subject, but rather to clarify material cited. Sebastian.newdigate12 (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

As indicated to DuncanHill, to the best of my knowledge I am the only Newdigate who has contributed to this article. I did have a change of email address that may have caused the issue with appearing as two different contributors. Sebastian.newdigate12 (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

There's also Sebastian Newdigate and Sebastian.newdigate1. This user was warned back in 2017 that they must declare use of multiple accounts; see Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2017_March_21#Talk_on_Wikipedia_Page_for_Simon_Lee_(Academic). They do not appear to have done so. Additionally, I'm concerned this is a single purpose account stretching back an impressive 14 years (to the very day). --Yamla (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

A lot of SPA's in the history of the article. DuncanHill (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Just found Sebastian a newdigate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. DuncanHill (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

And Sebastion Newdigate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sebastian.newdigate13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too! DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Topic ban this user from Simon Lee (academic) and Talk:Simon Lee (academic), restrict the user to a single account going forward. We can block all other accounts. It's time to put a stop to this. --Yamla (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, account restriction, and blocks. User has indicated a desire to close an account. I advised them to engage here. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Sebastian.newdigate12 (ec) Changing your email in your account Preferences would not cause you to appear as two different accounts, unless you created a second account to add your new email address to(which is unnecessary, as you can just change your account preferences). 331dot (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editor

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

---

People for all (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user continued to create promotional drafts on non-notable companies and people despite multiple warnings and has not disclosed their status as a paid editor.--24.211.70.219 (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. They have made several edits after a final warning, and recieved at least one additional warning after the final warning, but have not addressed the accusations of paid editing anywhere. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That said, I find it unlikely they are actually being paid to edit. I do think it is highly likely though, that they have a non-financial conflict of interest and are editing inappropriately. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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

User:TheAlienMan2002

User:TheAlienMan2002 has, IMHO, been way, WAY, WAY too heavy-handed on the Yardley Hastings article. And I'm sorry to say, his behaviour has peed me off considerably.

As 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:F550:7D61:A1C9:B6C8, I edited this article to make clear that Yardley Hastings was in the West Northamptonshire unitary authority area of Northamptonshire, England. And this is quite true: Yardley Hastings was in the South Northamptonshire local government district until 1 April 2021, when South Northamptonshire was merged with Daventry District and the Borough of Northampton to form West Northamptonshire (and East Northamptonshire was merged with the boroughs of Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough to form North Northamptonshire, which is also a unitary authority area). And indeed, just two days after this reorganisation, User:Eopsid edited the article's infobox accordingly, and did the same in the articles for most other settlements in Northamptonshire.

At various addresses in my range over the last month or so, I have edited quite a few articles on settlements in Northamptonshire to clarify whether they are in West Northamptonshire or in North Northamptonshire, and to clarify that these two areas are unitary authority areas (like Bath and North East Somerset, Blackburn with Darwen, Central Bedfordshire, Medway, North East Lincolnshire, Thurrock, etc. etc.). Up to now I have not had such edits reverted, nor have I been asked to provide a source of any kind. So one can imagine my surprise when User:TheAlienMan2002 reverted my edit on the Yardley Hastings article, with the summary, "If this is true, please provide a reliable source for it. Otherwise, please don't add this into the article."

Did he not believe - indeed, does he not believe - that Yardley Hastings is in West Northamptonshire, an area which has existed for nearly two-and-a-half years now (as has North Northamptonshire)?

Anyway, as well as being surprised, I was annoyed - so I wasted no time in restoring my edit. While I admit to being OTT at the start of my summary, which was purely my annoyance talking ("Jeepers H Crackers, are you stuck in the 2010s or something?!"), I did point out in this summary what district Yardley Hastings had been in previously, when and exactly how West Northamptonshire came into being, and that when this happened the infobox had been updated accordingly.

I also left a message on User:TheAlienMan2002's talk page (again, OTT in going so far as to warn him for disruptive editing - but I genuinely was that annoyed), suggesting to him that he look at the articles for all the other settlements in Northamptonshire. I said that these articles said that the settlement was in West Northamptonshire or in North Northamptonshire, with no sources provided - and I said that the reason why no sources were provided was because there was no obvious need for them. (Well there isn't, is there? If there was, then surely there would be "citation needed" tags all over the shop - not just as regards articles on Northamptonshire settlements, but as regards articles on settlements in every county of Great Britain.)

His response? Simply to revert my edit on the Yardley Hastings article again, and say, "Again, if this is a true statement, please provide a citation for it. Otherwise, dont [sic] make edits out of your head. You always need a source for something and everything on Wikipedia."

Now, that really angried up my blood. Such words gave me the pretty overwhelming impression that he did not look at my summary for my restoration of my edit, that he did not look at the infobox, that he did not pay attention to the message I left on his talk page, and that he did not look at the articles for all the other Northamptonshire settlements as I suggested. (This could be completely the wrong impression, I'm more than happy to admit, although that's rather beside the point.)

As far as I'm concerned, he has been way too heavy-handed, way too autocratic - and, dare I say it, a touch on the ignorant side as well.

I do respect the rules that I know of, let me say, and I most certainly would provide a source if there was a clear and obvious need for one - like for the date someone was born, or for the length of a road or a river, or for the population of a particular inhabited place. But... since when has it been the rule that a source is always needed for every single little thing? Is there a clear and obvious need for a source regarding the Earth revolving around the Sun, or for a source regarding the square root of 4 being 2? And as regards settlements in Great Britain, is there a clear and obvious need for a source regarding Darwen being in Blackburn with Darwen, or for a source regarding North East Derbyshire being part of Derbyshire, or for a source regarding Inverclyde being in Scotland, when it's all prominently displayed in the infoboxes (by means of both text and maps), when the articles have been added to the appropriate categories (indeed, the Yardley Hastings article is in Category:West Northamptonshire District), and when there are the appropriate external links? (Again, if there was a clear and obvious need, then surely there would be "citation needed" tags everywhere.)

IMHO, User:TheAlienMan2002 needs a good talking-to here. And I would also like my edit to the Yardley Hastings article to be restored again, source or no source. (I'm not going to restore it myself this time, because I'm quite familiar with the concept of edit warring and I do not wish to get involved in such wars.)

Cheers, 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Before I respond with your rant, I'd like to say that the edits that you have made on the article were not cited. Failure to appropriately attribute your references constitutes a flagrant violation of the established protocols that govern conduct on Wikipedia. As an active participant in this online compendium of knowledge, it's incumbent upon you to familiarize yourself with the prescribed code of conduct, which unequivocally mandates the incorporation of citations when modifying webpages, and such.

It's noteworthy you have abstained from extending the courtesy of communicating to me the rationale underlying your actions, a gesture which would have expedited our mutual comprehension of the matter at hand.

In essence, you should endeavor to augment an article by incorporating additional individuals into its narrative, it's imperative that you substantiate such edits through the deployment of verifiable sources.

Absent this crucial validation, the inclusion cannot be deemed as possessing the requisite legitimacy

I would interpret such an advisement as a personal affront, implicitly insinuating that the onus of errant communication rests solely with me, despite a preponderance of evidence suggesting that you have been he perpetrator of such transgressions throughout the entirety of our interaction.

I have not merely glanced at, but rather scrutinized, your summative elucidation, initially deeming it to possess a veneer of authenticity.

However, any semblance of legitimacy swiftly evaporated upon my realization that you failed to substantiate your assertions through the employment of credible resources. Conversely, if my contentions are substantiated as accurate, it would be incumbent upon you to accord greater diligence to the pre-established regulations that govern conduct within this platform. I would strongly advise the initiation of a formula user account, as your current mode of participating via an unshielded IP address leaves you vulnerable to public scrutiny within Wikipedia.

We will see what an administrator will decide based on the result here, but if they choose you, its definitely biased.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me on my talk page. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, Verifiability is a core content policy and it says quite clearly that material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. In other words, if TheAlienMan2002 or any other editor reverts any edit you make and asks for a reference (citation), then the onus is on you to provide an inline reference. Following that policy is mandatory, so please do so going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

IP user: WP:WHYCITE indicates that, "sources are needed for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." When @TheAlienMan2002 reverted your edit and asked for a source, the material became challenged, and a source became needed.

@TheAlienMan2002 The excessive verbiage in your response comes across as snarky. Please be civil. By the way - the admonition to be civil applies to both of you. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn Then how come I've made similar, sourceless edits to the articles for many other settlements in Northamptonshire and other counties, and no-one has challenged these?

And may I say once again, West Northamptonshire and North Northamptonshire have both existed for nearly two-and-a-half years. Surely that's long enough now that people shouldn't have to challenge this? (If someone challenged Epping being in Epping Forest District, or Gravesend being in Gravesham, or Slough being in the Borough of Slough, when all three of these districts have existed for nearly fifty years, I honestly would despair greatly.) 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why. If any of those were reverted then the exact same principle (that you would bear the onus of supplying a source) would apply. --173.70.129.146 (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@173.70.129.146 And let me say with my hand on my heart, if any of those were reverted I would be very, very angry indeed.

I would be very, very angry because I see absolutely no good reason for these to be challenged, source or no source. Challenging something that has clearly been the case for nearly half a century? Sorry but, IMHO, you might as well challenge everything in that case.

I saw, and indeed still see, no good reason for it to be challenged that Yardley Hastings is in West Northamptonshire. If one challenges that, then why not challenge Northampton, Daventry, Towcester etc. etc. being in West Northamptonshire too (and, for that matter, Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough etc. etc. being in North Northamptonshire)? Why not remove the appropriate text from these articles, and demand sources? Just doing it on the Yardley Hastings article is singling out - and let me say, again with my hand on my heart, that I absolutely abhor the practice of singling out, not just here on Wikipedia but in the real world too. I firmly believe that if one thing or person is targeted for having something perceived to be bad (whether this something genuinely is bad or not), then everything/everyone else who has this something perceived to be bad should be targeted too, instead of being allowed to continue on as if there's nothing wrong with them at all (again, whether this genuinely is the case or not). 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me very quickly add: if something was challenged and there was a genuinely good reason for that something to be challenged, I most certainly would add a source then. But once again, as far as I'm concerned there was, and is, no genuinely good reason for it to be challenged that Yardley Hastings is in West Northamptonshire. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheAlienMan2002 "It's noteworthy you have abstained from extending the courtesy of communicating to me the rationale underlying your actions, a gesture which would have expedited our mutual comprehension of the matter at hand."

Excuse me, but I did "extend to you the courtesy of communicating to you the rationale underlying my actions" (and may I say with all due respect, I fail to see any need to use such elaborate language here). I may not have communicated it to you on your talk page, but I *did* communicate it to you in the edit summary box when restoring these actions. I said, "Yardley Hastings was in the South Northamptonshire district until 1 April 2021, when this was merged with Daventry District and the Borough of Northampton to form the West Northamptonshire unitary authority area. And when this merger took place, the infobox was updated accordingly."

It says in the West Northamptonshire article, "West Northamptonshire was formed on 1 April 2021 through the merger of the three non-metropolitan districts of Daventry, Northampton, and South Northamptonshire; it absorbed the functions of these districts, plus those of the abolished Northamptonshire County Council." And guess what, there's no source attached to this - but there's also no "citation needed" tag, no challenge of any kind.

If you still believe my actions on the Yardley Hastings article were wrong, then you might as well believe that User:Eopsid's actions on the same article were wrong too, because he was the one who changed the infobox to say "Unitary authority: West Northamptonshire" and "Ceremonial county: Northamptonshire".

(There's another piece of advice for the future: do not single out one editor for a (rightly or wrongly) perceived bad action when other editors have done the same or similar actions on the same article.)

2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to verify the information that is coming out of your head, and remember to be civil when doing edit summaries since you've called me different names. I'd like to remind you that if an editor asks you to provide a source when they do a revert then you're expected too, per the Validity Article On Wikipedia.

Anyone can say any information that themselves think of, and they'll always try and do it without sources. You should know as a Wikipedia user- excuse me, IP user, you have to use sources, because they're important! Really simple.

If you have any questions, go to my talk page, here isn't the best location to talk at. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheAlienMan2002 "If you have any questions, go to my talk page, here isn't the best location to talk at." Too late for that now.

Perhaps you would care to explain why I have made similar, sourceless edits to the articles for so many other settlements in Northamptonshire and beyond, and not been challenged on any of these? And perhaps you would also care to explain why when User:Eopsid changed Yardley Hastings' infobox to say "Unitary authority: West Northamptonshire" and "Ceremonial county: Northamptonshire", that wasn't challenged either?

I'm not backing down here, you know. If it means me getting blocked, so be it. And if you're not going to back down either - even in the face of everything I've tried to explain to you - well, it'll be even sadder a state of affairs than it already is, but again so be it. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

IP editor, you must back down if you have any desire to keep editing Wikipedia. Verifiability is a core content policy, and complying with it is mandatory and non-negotiable. Do you understand? Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: do you understand that I absolutely abhor the practice of singling out, which is exactly what User:TheAlienMan2002 has done here?

He singled out the Yardley Hastings article for a perceived fault, without obviously bothering to look at the many other similar articles that have that same perceived fault. And he singled me out for putting this perceived fault in the Yardley Hastings article, without obviously bothering to notice that User:Eopsid did something pretty similar in the very same article two-and-a-half years ago and that was not challenged.

User:TheAlienMan2002 peed me off, he really did. Maybe if he had taken the time to go over my recent history, see that I'd put in this perceived fault in many other similar articles, and take this perceived fault out of those articles too, then I wouldn't be so peed off and I wouldn't have felt the need to take the matter here to ANI.

To answer your question, yes, I do understand that verifiability is a core content policy and must be complied with. But I'm afraid to say, I firmly disagree with what I believe to be the way in which User:TheAlienMan2002 has tried to enforce this policy: by singling out one article and one editor of that article, and by being heavy-handed and autocratic. And I'm also afraid to say, I am not backing down in this belief unless someone - anyone - can convince me otherwise. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D112:1D3D:6847:ABEB (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Tech issue

The recent changes only shows stuff from 40 minutes ago, please fix this. TheCarch (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, happily showing the last 500 changes. Canterbury Tail talk 01:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Miafvmoa's talk page abuse while blocked

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

---

Miafvmoa (talk · contribs), who has been blocked since September 8, has been making unexpected edits to their own talk page while blocked. This is not proper use of one's talk page for blocked users. In their edits, they turned their own talk page into a Wikipedia article. A blocked editor, if able to edit their talk page, should be used for filing unblock requests, not making experiments. Eyesnore 01:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(Update) From the user's contributions, it appears that the editor was copying and pasting wikicode from another page, probably one of the communities in Fandom. This behavior is unexpected coming from a blocked editor still able to edit their own talk page. Eyesnore 01:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I've revoked TPA. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Inserting OR and threatening other editors

JordiWild98 has repeatedly inserted original research into the article U.S. Agent based on their own analysis of the character's comic book appearances (diffs: 1, 2, 3). Several editors have reverted and tried to explain the problem, but JordiWild98 responded with this threatening message informing an IP editor that their "end will not be pretty". This specific IP address has never edited the article in question, but it's in the same range as an IP editor that reverted the OR. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Removing troll response made by the user here. User has been indefinitely blocked for repeatedly failing to cite a reliable source with their edits, and for their threatening conduct (diffs: 1, 2) with their response to feedback. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)