Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Pollster (talk | contribs) at 13:51, 7 November 2021 (→‎Heavy OWN, TENDENTIOUS and PA behaviour by The Pollster). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    HK unregistered ip cult again

    Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK first.

    • I think i stumbled them again by leaving this stuff in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dgtdddsx123#11 October 2021 as well as Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings (the rfc)
    • Suddenly, the ip range 210.6.10.X that related to the above IncidentArchive1058
    • despite the ip range is from Hong Kong, suddenly claiming i am offsite canvassing them (the ip user(s)) from Mainland Chinese forum (which i never did), which seem they mistook i am one of the "blue" political spectrum because i cannot agree on the "deep yellow" political spectrum wiki editing cult, so that trying to black mudding me
      210.6.10.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests Special:Diff/1050888402
      210.6.10.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings Special:Diff/1050889100
    • And then this guy, Dgtdddsx123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which i has stumbled in the SPI, unsure is genuine believe the ips , or WP:GHBH to try to enforce the controversy. Special:Diff/1051012890
    • A more generic issue. Evidence in the LIHKG forum there is recruitment thread https://lihkg.com/thread/2168907/page/1, and indication of channel and bot for Telegram existed, for off site discussion of wiki matter and offsite canvassing. The link to the channel is dead so that it seems went underground by renaming the channel, but i can still screenshot the bot https://imgur.com/L7qmaSa The forum do have other thread that warn them do not sock , but seems more people still unregistered and summoned to wiki by offsite canvassing. This just mini scale of off site recruiting, just not escalated to those Mainland Chinese level yet, which led to this meta:Office actions/September 2021 statement.
    • Just like @Ymblanter: said in ANI "[he] do not know what the best solution would be." The "ip union" coined by @Atsme: in the last ANI, just readily observable in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings that i never saw a RFC has so many ips as SPA. So, what wikipedia should do on this off-site canvassing from the "deep-yellow" wiki editing cult? Matthew hk (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Dgtdddsx123 just missed a block due to using sock, so that @Tamzin: should also leave the comment here that should give every new Hong Kong user an assumed good faith on they may not aware Sockpuppet policy of wiki, or not. Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simple solution - the IPs need to register their accounts. They do not lose anonymity, they simply validate that they are not socking and are here to help build the encyclopedia. I'm of the mind that in the beginning, the advantage to IP editing was so passerbys could perform some quick copy editing on the fly without having to register but we're at a point in our history that it has become too much drama, and the ill-intentioned have made it an incredible time sink, not to mention what it is costing the project relative to credibility. Just my 2¢ worth, not calculating growing inflation. Atsme 💬 📧 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not at all a solution. One just got to respect the many different ways people follow to protect themselves. In compact metropolitans it's easy to have access to free internet connections, from coffee shops to shopping centres, and from train stations to buses. If people create their accounts it would be much easier to track down all their edits. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you mean IPs editing from Hong Kong or China with this edit summary - [1]? Would you please clarify? 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The orgiginal problem (discussed in the link in OP) was meatpuppetry at Talk:List of lighthouses in China and several related articles dealing with HK. Because these POV-pushing IP-hopping editors are anti-registration due to privacy concerns w/re the Chinese gov't, we managed to protect the article by semi'ing, but because of the unbelievable level of disruptive meatpuppetry at the talk I eventually ended up having to semi the talk page too. Honestly I think semi'ing one by one these articles, and if necessary their talks, is the only way to solve this problem. I truly hate to semi a talk, but it was just unbelievable. —valereee (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Valereee: Actually not registered and expose ip is the opposite side of concerning privacy. Apart from the off-site recruitment thread, the same forum do have people to warn people that registered and building reputation is key (and then yet lots of gossip of getting more Hong Kong people to selected as admin in zh-wiki). Just clearly the same ip range from the last ANI's meatpuppetry , now try to black mudding me off-site canvassing which i clearly haven't , and trace record at all Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hong Kong i participated, there is no trace of any (pro-China) canvassing. And this accusation black mud me on my own political spectrum as well (I have one motive in wiki. Give me WP:RS; i am very supportive to use WSJ, FT to cite the Hong Kong protests, but pretty against to add POV bull shit that without RS or just propaganda. For the sake of Hong Kong democracy, not that way) . So, just leave the ip keep bad mud me, and the registered user as well that just escape the SPI block? Hong Kong people has the best thing to do as 惡人先告狀 (meaning), which over more than 10 years, I don't remember i was involved in any confirm canvassing, meat sock, and sock case, and the registered user just caught black handed. Note that the article 2019-20 Hong Kong protests was keep on WP:RM by different person that relatively new (~1000 edits), to try to POV-pushing that the protest is still live. Registered is still partially solving the problem. They will still act as a mob to try to POV pushing in rotation anyway. Matthew hk (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          @Matthew hk, I think you're saying these IPs who are refusing to register an account are actually making themselves more vulnerable to goverment surveillance, and that registering would make them safer? I agree. But it is hard to convince them of that. They seem to think we are either in on the conspiracy or are simply naive. —valereee (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Valereee that's just because people are coming from very different places and have very different life experiences towards censorship and privacy protection. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't think that was a Mainland China forum and I thought that was you, Matthew. It's fine if that wasn't you and dude I do understand the reason why you simply cannot confirm or deny whether that was be you. My possition remains and is clear: I agree with what was said here on Wiki and over there in the private forum and I thank that person for he brought this up. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • And yes I agree with Matthew and Valareee and Atsme that people should really listen to their leaders, obey them and abide by the law. Say no to political POV pushing. 210.6.10.78 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            With comments like the above, I get the feeling that Matthew is being trolled here. @Valereee: Thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tamzin we are indeed trolled by those people who are self-identitied “yellow” or the “umbrela” camp in the Hong Kong spectrum, as evident in the links Matthew quotes above. They do so in the name of so-called free speech, universal values and democracy. They just want to break law and politicizing all things. They don't know the public order and peace. 210.6.10.127 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Tamzin, quite honestly it's hard to decipher. I think some of these IPs are basically well-intentioned, but the vast majority are here to push a POV, and at least some of them are trolling Matthew and the rest of us. I do wish at least the well-intentioned ones would create an account, but for some reason there's huge paranoia about that w/re creating an account somehow making them vulnerable to discovery by the Chinest government. They don't believe anyone who tries to tell them creating an account will actually help prevent that rather than the other way around. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              @Valereee: Yeah, this seems to me like a case where a probably-valid filing is made a lot harder to parse by lack of clarity (which, before someone misinterprets me, I don't think is an EAL thing, just a matter of keeping things to-the-point). And then made worse by some of the responses being in less than good faith. Having booted this from SPI, I feel some duty to make sense out of things here, so, if I may, an analysis of the ranges in play here. We start off with the assumption that anyone accusing Matthew of off-wiki canvassing is trolling and is themself engaged in off-wiki coördination (or is one person hopping networks), which I think is a pretty justifiable assumption, but I'm happy to make the case for if you feel it's non-obvious.
              I see you've already protected Talk:List of lighthouses in Macau. I could also see a case for semi'ing
              Anyways, hope this is helpful. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              N.B. I linked 210.6.0.0/18 because it's the ASN range. Matthew is correct that all of the issues are coming from 210.6.10.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), so perhaps that's a better range, if a block is to be made. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              Hi Tamzin. Since Matthew hk has called me troll I don't think I want to be involve with him any more . I just don't understand why Hong Kongers (presumably Matthew is) can just walked away like this. I will focus on my own area of interests and expertees and I will relieve myself from the talk page of China border crossings and Hong Kong 2019/20 protests. I have not followed the lighthouse things and I am not interested. Please remove me from the bullet dots above. Thanks. 210.6.10.90 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              My observation is that what's happening around Talk:Hong Kong protests 2019–2020 has had little connection with Talk:List of lighthouses in China, except that Matthew hk took part in both of them. It may not be reasonable to treat them as the same case. On the other hand don't think semi'ing any talk pages would be a helpful solution to the actual problem. It'd be just a way to pretend the problem don't exist (just because there'd be no way for it to be known). 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              Meanwhile would CU re Matthew hk be the way forward to look into whether those are people who Matthew hk recruited (and denied), Matthew hk's socks or meatpuppets, unrelated at all, or some people "blackmudding" him? 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              Hello Tamzin would you please help take a look at this edit request? 219.76.24.212 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              Two cents from just another passer-by: You gotta look into their global contributions, not just en-wiki. The account Matthew hk for example is actually more active elsewhere (not to mention his IPs, and sock and meatpuppet handles). 118.140.125.85 (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commenting from the SPI side here, I don't currently see persuasive evidence that Dgtdddsx123 is the IP-hopper. I've marked the filing as {{moreinfo}}; if anyone sees good evidence, please do let me know at the SPI. I do think there's a decent chance of meatpuppetry or canvassing here, although I'm not sure I have the subject-matter expertise to opine, which is part of why I referred Matthew to ANI. This is the kind of meatpuppetry allegation that is hard to handle at SPI, since you may have legitimate editors who stumbled on something independently, or who were made aware of something from an off-site post but aren't actively colluding; easier for ANI to look at it as primarily a conduct issue. (As an aside, I'm not sure "Let's just ban IP editing" is a helpful take here; VPR is thataway.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh and as to the warning I gave Dgtdddsx123, standard practice for first-offense non-innocent sockpuppetry by a newbie is either a warning or a short tempblock. Since they hadn't actually !vote-stacked (just used one account on the article and another on talk), I elected to warn. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It just policy that i can't request CU to check the relation of IP and Dgtdddsx123 . Time will tell. Matthew hk (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's too bad. 210.6.10.127 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any admin can just block the range 210.6.10.X from edit and account creation (and block account that used that ip range recently) I don't think there is any need to assume good faith of that ip range anymore. It just vandalism . Matthew hk (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • An interesting yet important point to note is that while Matthew hk, Atsme and Valereee believe that they have been doing the right thing the participants at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings think quite the contrary. The same is true at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses. 219.76.24.196 (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that the RfC discussion at Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings which Matthew hk started has been concluded not in his favour. With precedence cases like Talk:List of tallest buildings and Talk:List of Singapore Airlines destinations and now this one on border crossings I do hope that these people who act like in a way that they were behind the great firewall would back down and observe how the rest of the world function, and that there should be no need to bring anything like this again to WP:AN/I. 219.76.24.213 (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Matthew hk has so far never demonstrated how the non-English off-site canvassing he mentioned and referred to as "pro-Hong Kong" or "deep yellow" is related to the three talk pages identified. It is not even known if that was targeted at the English version of Wikipedia, or if there had ever been any canvassing effort in general which is relevant to this version of Wikipedia. Chinese involvement (or in words of their statement in September, "infiltration") in the Wikipedia project, in comparison, had been something investigated and publicly acknowledged by the Wikimedia Foundation[2] and reported in the press.[3] [4][5][6] In that statement Maggie Dennis of the foundation had called what had happened "security risks" and concluded there were "potential persecutions"; the foundation had noted the problem as early as mid-2020.[7] 219.76.18.201 (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      None of that is directly relevant to this discussion. What exactly are you asking to be done here, 219? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite
      @HandThatFeeds: The ip just show up to request a block too as self confession as one of the not constructive underground / offwiki mob. Matthew hk (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks 219.76.18.201. I didn't know Maggie Dennis' recent statement nor the one from the Wikipedia Foundation a year ago. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Such threats are a genuine matter of concern that Tamzin, Valereee, Atsme and other administrators here cannot simply disregard. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Matthew hk can you please translate the screenshot you provided? Or at least copy and paste the text here so that it can be submitted to Bing or Google Translator? I just found it funny for anyone to suppose others can read in whatever languages. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Lihkg.com one appears to be just another message to encourage people to contribute in a certain topic/area. If you found anything problematic please elaborate and be specific. 118.140.125.85 (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The thread literally teach people how to use a mobilization bot, which this ANI thread and all the rest of the IP SPAs show there must be one place that can summon all of you as off wiki canvassing. You guys just boomerang yourself so hard. And if you able to point out which ip or account are my sock, please open a SPI, but if you are trolling again (just like the User:mathew_hk in the past), beware of a harder block. Matthew hk (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Please be specific. Quote the post number and the specific sentence. Translate it. Spell out in what way that's relevant to the Wikipedia articles in question on this version of Wikipedia. Prove that that's relevant and that indeed happened. 219.76.18.204 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To 118.140.125.85, nice try on another black mudding. You just show the ips in this threads, almost all of them are SPA/ip hopper if counting in the same ip range, that without any edit in en-wiki except directly involve in the issues and articles in this ANI thread. Which clearly you just boomeranged all of your ip mob for a block. Matthew hk (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • What Matthew hk did above is precisely what's described in this BBC story.[8] (Jimbo weighed in in BBC Click's follow-up story.[9]) 219.76.18.202 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Are you paranoid that every single admins or editor that report your cult is from China? Then you should have that ban for not constructive off site cult parallel universe or just mentally not stable? Matthew hk (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I repeat my stance. Your ip cult is ip hopping to vote stacking or try to vote move or try to populate a "discussion" thread with yourself and may be one or two more people. That is not due to admin are from China, if you got blocked , it is your behaviour is not acceptable. Also trolling for accuse me off site canvassing is another reason for a block. I dig out prove you guys organize offsite wiki activity and you guys have no prove on me, which i always a lone wolf in en-wiki (Find me in POE wiki discord BTW for my other wiki edit in poewiki.net). Matthew hk (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          "...From China": No. Certainly not. It's always reasonable to believe everyone is they themself and acting on their very own behalf - unless and if and only if such people are working for somebody else when they edit. It was you who labelled people for being "(deep) yellow" and associate whoever editing without registered accounts to the Lihkg.com and Telegram posts you mentioned - with no evidence or proof whatsoever. You simply assert. (On a side note: Is it a "blockable" act for suggesting any editor is "mentally not stable?") 219.76.18.204 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion that Tamzin called 210.6.10.X as troll is because Tamzin is Chinese. Or Atsme ask you (the ips) registered an account because he/she (whatever non-binary) is a Chinese. You guy delusional really bad, for example, 210.6.10.X (or 219.76.18.X) has only 256 ips so that registered an account is a right choice, ip hopping and then vote stacking is not and blockable as illegitimate use of socking. Matthew hk (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tamzin: Please consider to add 219.76.18.X to the block list suggestion due to this edit that claim i am off site canvassing (which does not exist) Special:Diff/1052291298. Matthew hk (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Matthew hk you don't seem to be familiar with Hong Kong although you claimed yourself to be originated from there. The IP range which I have been editing from belongs to the largest ISP in the territory. It's a service open for use by subscription at many restaurants, coffee shops, railway stations, buses, telephone booths, some retail shops, and so on. The diff you quoted was apparently done by someone else in a similar range. There are probably many other edits in the range and neighbouring ranges across global wikis. As for off-site canvassing which you alleged (yet all appear to be your staunch supporters, self-motivated or otherwise) from what I know they are across at least three ranges of different ISPs. Maybe more. Are you suggesting that all these ISPs should be blocked? 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, @Matthew hk:, back down. You're crossing some personal attack lines here. I get that you're frustrated, but Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion is over the line.
    That said, the IP hoppers do appear to be stirring the pot here, and not legitimately attempting to improve the Wiki. A temporary block on some of these IP groups may be in order. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for the reference to NPA. Meanwhile I myself don't actually hop. It's the network which asssigns random IPs to me (and many many others). As for "stirring the pot", one gotta understand what's actually happening in this territory and the extent that has spilled over all across Wikipedia and other wikis. What Matthew and some of the pushers (say, S 0524, Walter Grassroot) have been doing may or may not be coordinated but that undisputably serves the same outcome (as mentioned above). That's the background or backdrop against which the events happened. Editors from the territory are probably tired of defending fact and truth against these people, and blocks simply aren't the solution and would work quite the opposite way. 219.76.18.202 (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HandThatFeeds: Clearly Tamzin suggested a larger ip block range and then i suggested a smaller one and then there is no block actually issued. Ips from 219.76.18.X still spamming this thread. If you are an admin. Just do it instead of claiming there may be a block already in force. Matthew hk (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think HandThatFeeds had ever suggested so in his or her comment at 16:17, 5 November 2021. 219.76.18.203 (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it is a genuine suggestion on seek medical advice. The ips still have zero understanding what going on and then blame the articles are protected (or potentially, blaming anyone that block them from editing) because wikipedia is corrupted and admin are Chinese spy, or anyone not agree them are enemy and anyone agree them are friend. They (most of them) still have zero idea on what is WP:V or WP:RS and still thinking not using talk page and then just spam for unprotection on List of lighthouses in Macau (just read above on begging someone to read their demand in this thread as off topic) and don't even read the talk page of Talk:List of lighthouses in China that what is the potential way to get what they want on splitting List of lighthouses in Hong Kong as child article. Zh-wiki do have infested so that no one has CU right, but it is delusional so bad that they truly believe trolling me by spamming joke that I am the one canvassing that a low-key /stupid way to think it would made me / the "stumbling block" of rock to get blocked. This is no difference than the Mainland China wiki cult that doxing other Mainlander and force them to join. They just really need to learn to use talk page and solve the matter in civil way. (Still WP:WPHK is a deserted place and no one ever open a meaningful real discussion thread for a long time). It is deranged so bad that a few days before posting trolling comment in talk pages as 219.76.18.X and 210.6.10.X and then totally act like they are angel and innocent in here the ANI. Matthew hk (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are talking about my request at 12:21, 3 November 2021, that's an edit request, a request to edit.. hm.. a talk page. Are you suggesting me to go to a talk page of a talk page? Meanwhile apparently it wasn't me who first referred to that talk page. It probably wasn't me who first gone off-topic if that indeed were off-topic. Medical advice, huh? 219.76.24.213 (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On "medical advice" and "delusional": HandThatFeeds had asked Matthew to back down but he carried on. Would any admin evaluate and see what action(s) ought to be taken? 219.76.18.75 (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yoruba disruption (still)

    I would really like to see this closed properly. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Next time propose a sanction. Saying "all I know is that something needs to change here" and not proposing any changes is going to make it difficult for an admin to close. I believe this is the plot of a "Yes, Minister" episode about the Politician's syllogism where we all end up agreeing that something must be done yet the bureaucracy of the situation results in the "something" being referred to further study until we all just forget about the issue and nothing happens. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL, Chess does make an excellent point. I’ve made the same error over and over again, wherein I report an incident without proposing a sanction, thus making the report hard to officially close by sysops, I believe the onus is on us to initiate a proposal. Celestina007 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Celestina007 and Chess: Alright, I have re-notified Ppdallo about this issue. Let's talk WP:TBAN. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Close requested. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Now the edit warring has spread to the talk page itself, Talk:Yoruba people#Etymology Dispute and consensus. A table of sources was created, and the entries had been numbered for the sake of referencing them in the subsequent discussion. Once that had begun, one of them unilaterally rearranged and renumbered all the items, rendering the previous numeric references opaque. Those changes have now been undone and redone three times, with accusations of having deleted one user's commentary on top of the complaint over the renumbering. I think Ppadallo is the one who re-sorted and renumbered the table, creating the disruption, per Talisman-white's new entry at WP:AN3, with Ppadallo, who didn't create the table, insisting that it has to be ordered in Ppadallo's preferred way. Largoplazo (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Largoplazo: Here I am, trying to watch Looper only to get a notification about this edit warring. If this doesn't show what I mean by this report that Ppdallo is disruptive, then I don't know what will.
    For any admin out there, the report is here (permalink). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed T-BAN

    Per the evidence laid out in the last report, and seeing that Ppdallo has failed to listen to any advice given on the matter since its opening,[10][11][12] I would like to formally proposed that Ppdallo receive a T-BAN for the topic of West Africa ethnic groups, broadly construed. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. As proposer. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have nowhere near the context that most of the participants in this discussion will have had, plus I'm not an admin, so I won't !vote, but at this point I draw your attention to the latest discussion, which I have found quite perplexing, at Talk:Yoruba people#Etymology Dispute and consensus, initiated by Ppdallo just over a day ago. After a bit, this appeared: That was why opened this new section and as soon as the protection on Yoruba People page is lifted i will go ahead and enforce (WP:ONUS) by reverting the Etymology section to just before you illegally made drastic edit on it, pending our resolution of the dispute in this new section. I read this not as "I will bring the article into compliance with any resolution that is reached" but somewhat closer to "I'll wait till the page is no longer protected and then I'll undo your work and return it to my version." Certainly nothing about taking into account other people's opinions as to which onus has or has not been met by any participant. Largoplazo (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly? That reads a bit WP:NOTHERE to me. If they are openly saying they are going to revert to their version as soon as they are allowed to, I fully *Support a topic ban for them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — per analysis by MJL and RickinBaltimore. Celestina007 (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. As involved user with a brand new Ppdallo report it was just suggested I move into this voting section. Report I'm moving -Oluwatalisman (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I should look for the suitable noticeboard to report all of you. Why do you folks so readily and selectively pick on me? Thank God there are procedures for doing things on wikipedia. Ppdallo (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ppdallo: This is nothing personal. If I am being honest, I don't think you are the only one that could have done things a lot better. (Oramfe, you have been no angel in this dispute.) However, Ppdallo, you're contributions to this topic have been the most inflammatory; the most disruptive contributions I have seen.
      I do not come at this from the perspective of a Nigerian as I am an Arab-American. Things like this I find personally appalling and do not conform to Wikipedia's policies on Civility. You can blame no one besides yourself and your own words for finding yourself here (again). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @ MJL are my statements any more inflammatory than the the Islamophobic and hate statements made by Oluwatalisman and Oramfe who, in addition, called a particular Tribe of people as "slaves, menial job doers, inconsequential, opportunistic vultures and willing tools"? Whoever or whatever you are does not matter here, I find your partial and selective reporting me to be even more serious than what you are accusing me of. By the way, how partial can you be on this issue when you are already involved in the dispute, by siding with Talisman and calling one of my reference as "citogenesis"?Ppdallo (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It is what it is. I'm done responding here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - As an involved user, the current dispute is only the most recent I (and others) have had with Ppdallo and he has shown no sign that he would make any change for the better. He had previously engaged in an edit war over a map involving the Yoruba people [13]|[14] and my reply to that here[15] and here[16]. Even accused my person of "wanton expansionism and sowing seeds of ethnic conflict in West Africa" here[17] He has been constantly engaging in edit wars on the Yoruba people across various subsections. User:MJL that was the context of some of the exchanges you may have seen me having with him, until I eventually had him reported over failures to heed edit warnings. How can he turn around to accuse multiple editors of readily and selectively picking on him" when he is the only common denominator with the various people? #Pointing fingers. Oramfe (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Oramfe: What Ppdallo said to you is irrelevant and no excuse for comments like this where you indeed called the Fula people opportunistic vultures before immediately inquiring if the other editor in the dispute had any relation to that ethnicity (among other inappropriate things you said there). If I see something like that again, the next report will be about you.
      The reason I had not said anything sooner is (A) it was a month ago now, (B) Ppdallo's disruption is still ongoing, (C) I didn't want to overly complicate this report, and (D) I have not had a good opportunity to bring it up. Let this be your only warning to never make a comment like that again. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @MJL ‐Talk‐☖ this was his words (Hausas used to be slaves, domestic servants and menial job doers in old Oyo which was very cosmopolitan. Internal political rivalry destroyed Oyo-ile and the Fulanis came as the opportunistic vultures they usually present themselves to be. Hausas were inconsequential.lol.... All they did was cower in runaway refuge towns like Suleja.) Why are you covering things up? For your information i am not disrupting any Wikipedia article, rather i am doing my best to correct misinformation on articles i have knowledge on. Just check out the current dispute here and you will see.[18] I might just as well add here too that It is what it is. I'm done responding here. Ppdallo (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per other supporters and the blatantly inflammatory rhetoric Ppdallo has used here. A T-ban will be getting off easy, in my view. Jusdafax (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - although not involved in the current debate, previous interaction with Ppdallo showed that there was no reasoning with him once he was set on a path, and the above discussion shows no change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mixed thoughts from someone who watched the dispute unfold: I became aware of this nexus of disputes a little while before MJL's first thread here a couple of weeks back, after receiving an FRS notice to a discussion on the Yoruba people talk page. When I arrived, I found the entire discussion an irreconcilable mess of confused argumentation and bad formatting. Essentially at that juncture it was two groups of less than perfectly informed editors lobbing massive walls of text without using indentation and without adequately premising their arguments in policy. There was plenty of suggestion of ethnocentric bias coming from both directions, with inappropriate "you people"-adjacent comments coming from both sides, as well as general incivility crossing the line into outright PAs; not every one of the editors who commented in those discussions pre-RfC behaved in this fashion, but it was certainly a two-way street between Ppdallo and some of their rhetorical opposition.
    That situation has slowly but substantially improved now, following some strongly worded guidance from uninvolved editors on the talk page. The discussion is much more easy to track now and there is movement towards consensus building (if still widely divergent opinions between the two camps). I'll be honest: I don't think that Ppdallo has the right end of the stick with regard to the majority of the content still in dispute (some disputed issues seem to have found general consensus, but others differences of opinion remain). To be fair, I have not seen his most recent proposals yet (because of a miscommunication/tempest in a teapot regarding a meta discussion issue), so I can't say with absolute certainty that new sourcing from Ppdallo won't change the course of the discussion. But based on the current sourcing, I think Talisman-white(aka Oluwatalisman) and Oramfe are probably likely to be found to have the more policy-stable arguments on the remaining points of contention and therefore to carry the ultimate consensus. At that point, depending on how Ppdallo reacts, I think the proof will be in the pudding as to whether or not they are editing within the sphere of a strident (but barely within the bounds of process) editor, or if the WP:tendentiousness and WP:IDHT extend to a level where they are unable to drop the stick, necessitating a sanction of some sort. I have seen repeated evidence that Ppdallo is attempting to adjust their approach and work within process. What remains to be seen is whether or not they are capable of accepting the consensus result if it does not favour their preferred version of the content.
    But if there is one complaint that Ppdallo has some reasonable claim to, it's true that the two recent threads here at ANI have focused upon some of his missteps a little bit more than some very similar issues coming from his opposition on the Yoruba article/talk page. That said, while there was plenty of blame to go around initially, the editors on the "other side" from Ppdallo have been very quick to accept feedback and to alter tone and form of their arguments. Ppdallo has been comparably a little slower to adapt to more appropriate strategies, as evidenced by the recent edit war to preserve alterations to another editor's talk page commentary (though even there, there are some mitigating factors that explain why they might not have seen why this was inappropriate).
    So where do I land on the proposal? I'm rather divided on a sanction at this moment in time. Bluntly, I have seen a lot in Ppdallo's approach that suggests that this might just be an area they shouldn't be editing in. However, given three important factors--1) that there was plenty of initial problem editing on all sides, some of which prompted Ppdallo's own problematic comments, 2) that things are inching towards resolving the editorial deadlock on the talk page, and having Ppdallo present his evidence in structured fashion should resolve the question of whether he has a leg to stand on when it comes to the sourcing/content, and 3) thereafter we will have a better understanding of just how problematic Ppdallo is in this area--I'm kind of leaning towards a tiny additional extension of WP:ROPE here. I think erring on the side of a light touch/final warning here might also be warranted because of the procedural history here: I very much view MJL's decision to renew this discussion after the original thread was archived for lack of community action twice in the best possible good faith light (they were uninvolved in the original dispute and I believe they have no other objective but to act in the best interests of the project), but that said, any relatively inexperienced editor (Pdallo has just over 700 edits total) could find themselves facing a slide into the community's bad graces if we take enough bites at that apple and keep them under a microscope. I fully appreciate that there is a good chance that egg will be on my face here after I advocate for restraint and Ppdallo keeps plowing on with problematic actions, but I still think there's enough mitigation here arguing for a last chance/let's try to see resolve the content dispute and see what happens next approach. SnowRise let's rap 20:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: How I got familiar with this dispute was the same as how you did (seeing the three concurrent RFCs). However, I saw on your comment and felt optimistic it could be handled until I saw on your talk page you were only semi-active. It was obvious to me that Talisman-white was the newest in regards to Wiki discussion, so I offered them a bit of advice and left it at that.
    From there, I got pinged a lot (as I am sure you have) which kept me up-to-date on the situation.
    For me, WP:BITE cuts both ways. While it is obvious that I have more experience than Ppdallo, the same can be said that Ppdallo has more experience than Talisman-white.
    I saw the dispute kept going for the entire month of October, so eventually I resolved to intervene. I don't think the community is generally well equipped to handle more than one problem user at a time, so I felt the need to initially focus on Ppdallo.
    My original hope was the first AN/I thread would get closed with a warning, I was going to then follow-up on it later if I saw any further disruption come from Oramfe. Sadly, no uninvolved user came around to close the original AN/I report. As far as I can tell, nothing significantly has changed since I opened it, and with the edit warring just recently (which has yet to result in any action), I am less optimistic than I once was about this getting resolved whatsoever. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough--and certainly there is no judgment here for your proactive approach, especially in the circumstances. Nor can I fault you for your skepticism that more rope would help. But the record is mixed enough here that personally I'm reserving final judgment/endorsement of a ban until after I see how the situation plays out, now that the situation is (I think) fairly close to having something that might qualify as consensus on the talk page. Of course, given the way the discussion is rolling, I doubt my hesitation is going to change the outcome of this proposal discussion. And for that matter, I do think there are very decent chances I'll regret advocating (sort of) for a benefit-of-the-doubt approach here. But in close cases I do like to err on the side of a last chance, even when there's opportunity for further disruption. SnowRise let's rap 21:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Per the outcome of the Edit warring report, Ppdallo was given a final warning and blocked. I'm fine with that being the end of this assuming that we see no further disruption. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ironically enough, after the continued IDHT at the AN3, on the talk page, and in the unblock request, I'm having doubts about the wait-and-see strategy that I was leaning towards above. Nevertheless, I've made one last effort on the article talk page to communicate to Ppdallo why the behaviour that got them blocked was problematic and that they need to take the final warning of the blocking admin (and the other concerns expressed by community members here) seriously. Given the !votes above, I'm not sure the TBAN will be avoided, even in light of the lesser sanction invoked at AN3. But in the contingency that it is, I can only imagine the forewarned indefinite block being avoided through a radical change in approach. I hope Ppdallo gets that at this point, because, even aside from the possibility of independent administrative action, the next time these issues end up here at ANI, I can only imagine the CBAN !vote switching from mostly to completely unanimous. SnowRise let's rap 04:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Babydoll9799

    This editor Babydoll9799 (talk · contribs) is disruptively removing valid categories from articles and edit warring to keep them out, see edit history at Billy Balmer as an example. They are removing Category:People from District, on the basis that the bio is already categorised by both Category:Profession from City, but these categories are not mutually exclusive - if everybody was classified only by Category:Profession from City (footballer, actor etc.), there would be nobody in the Category:People from District category, and the category would be empty and pointless. But, it's not, which shows that it is a valid category.

    Furthermore, edits like this violate WP:SUBCAT, and I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories!

    A quick look at their talk page shows other users have raised similar concerns (regarding disruptive editing and edit warring) for a number of years now, and they have refused to discuss the matter with me, simply reverting and edit warring. Can somebody please take a further look? GiantSnowman 12:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Above person is missing my point. Please don't try to make this about myself being some kind of problem. My point is the birthplace and "People from" category. People are not actually from a district the are born in the city, IE Liverpool. The district can be noted on the individual's page and also the person can be noted on the district page.Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The category overlap with "Footballers from Liverpool" is taken out of context. This can co-exist with "People from Liverpool". If you wish. I don't have a problem with that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The other user is the one choosing to edit war. The point is, the person is from (city) Liverpool. Not West Derby. You can see by my edits that this is exactly what I have been clearing up. Babydoll9799 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also to say I have "refused" to discuss with him is a lie. I have not "refused". In fact you can argue that the above user has refused to understand what I have been trying to do. In view of "I am concerned why this user is trying to place articles in less precise categories! ".
    The the place of birth is the city, not the district a person is from. Also I have been checking where these people are from that I have corrected and a handful are not even from the places they are supposed to be. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User GiantSnowman stated to me on my talk page "Please do not remove categories - a player can be in both Category:Footballers from City and Category:People from District, they are not mutually exclusive.". When stating 'People from District' this should be clarified, as the general view I get is this means the city or town; and not the inner district within the city or town. I can assure you I understand the above point from GiantSnowman and this is reflected the person is both a 'Footballer from Liverpool' and 'People from Liverpool'. West Derby is an historical township but it has been within Liverpool for some time. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to be more succinct in your comments, I don't actually have a clue what your position is - especially with edits like this (removing category) followed by this (restoring the same category 2 mins later). If Burnham can be in both Category:Politicians from Liverpool and Category:People from Aintree, why can't Billy Balmer be in both Category:Footballers from Liverpool and Category:People from West Derby? You have contradicted yourself there.
    If you are saying that people can't be 'from' a district, then why do we have a long established category tree of that nature? Doesn't that tell you anything?
    You did refuse to discuss, you ignored WP:BRD, you continued to remove the category despite my revert, and ignored my talk page posts. GiantSnowman 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also no, a person cannot be in both Category:People from Liverpool and Category:Footballers from Liverpool per WP:SUBCAT. People get categorised into district and profession. I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence. GiantSnowman 13:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you from Liverpool? Aintree is outside the city boundary but West Derby is within the city boundary, so a person from West Derby is from Liverpool a person from Aintree is technically, not from Liverpool. There is a wider consensus to promote Liverpool which is why I added politicians from Liverpool. But to call me wrong on another matter is just poor judgement on your part. You seem to be point scoring. Good for you. I am arguing that in the first two pages you chose to revert were a person from Toxteth and from West Derby. Their birthplace will still be Liverpool. Therefore they are from Liverpool. What more can I add? When you look at People by Districts it is Liverpool that is named not any inner district from the city. Whereas Aintree, is outside the city boundary. Babydoll9799 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    When did I refuse to discuss this matter? I have had diaglogue with you but again and again you are not listening to what I am saying. Stop talking down to me. Listen to what I am saying. West Derby is not classified the same as Aintree. West Derby is a part of Liverpool, Aintree is just outside the boundary. Just outside, technically a person will still say they are from Liverpool but for the purpose of this the city (or district) is Liverpool not West Derby. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England Liverpool is noted so to Knowsley, just like Luton. The district is the city for the purposes of this the person is from Liverpool. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As you quoted "No, you are just plain wrong - the issue is we do get as specific as Category:People from District, hence why those categories exist!". You are pointing something out to me but you're not understanding why I made the corrections. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As stated on the header: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You state "People get categorised into district and profession" and yet immediately prior you say no, so what is it to be? Also "I am growing increasingly concerned about your editing and competence". You again make this a personal attack on myself. When all through this I have continually imformed you what my point is. Babydoll9799 (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point, as expressed here, seems to be that "we don't need to be too specific like people from West Derby. The city is Liverpool". However, that completely ignores the long standing and well established categories of the Category:People from District series. This is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument and is therefore not valid. Like it or not, the categories exist and are in use. So, again, why have you repeatedly removed the Category:People from West Derby category when it is entirely valid? I really need a third party here to step in please, because this editor is disruptively removing valid categories from articles purely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GiantSnowman 14:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My partner's family always said they were from West Derby. They were also proud Liverpudlians. Both can be simultaneously true. If I was to create an article for my partner's grandfather, it could happily be placed in both "People from West Derby" and "Bakers from Liverpool" and still be correct. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 16:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it matters what Babydoll9799 or any other editor thinks about whether a person is "from Liverpool" or "from West Derby". The only thing that matters is what reliable sources (RS) say. If the RSes say "from West Derby", then we say "Category:People from West Derby". End of discussion. If the RSes say "from West Derby" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", that's disruptive editing and should stop. However, if the RSes say "from Liverpool" and someone is changing "Category:People from West Derby" to "Category:People from Liverpool", then that's productive editing and thank you for fixing that. I'm not sure which one this is but it should be pretty straightforward to figure that out. Levivich 17:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: - reliable sources confirming that Balmer was from West Derby include this and this and this. Therefore, in the absence of a Category:Footballers from West Derby (which would likely be OVERCAT in any event), the correct categories are Category:Footballers from Liverpool and Category:People from West Derby. Therefore, as you say, Babydoll9799's editing in removing Category:People from West Derby has been disruptive, has it not? GiantSnowman 18:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah this is just classic WP:RGW editing ignoring WP:V (and our category policy and what it says about categories being supported by the body, i.e. cats must meet V)... not the first editor to take the position I know the truth, sources be damned! If this disruption continues, a sanction may be necessary to stop it. And it should be mentioned that when it comes to the birthplaces and similar biographical details of pro athletes, entertainers, and others whose professions involve advertising biographical statistics such as birthplace, there will be an "official", advertised birthplace (or height, weight, age, name, etc.) that will be easy to source (because it was advertised, e.g. footballer stats websites), and since our articles are summaries of those sources, we would list the "official", whatever it was. Even if it's actually incorrect! If someone is known for being born in West Derby then we say that, regardless of whether they were born there or not. If their birth certificate conflicted with what RSes say, we'd go with RSes, not the birth certificate. This is an issue (truth v verifiably) as old as Wikipedia, and almost all our core content policies are aimed at addressing this. Levivich 18:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: perhaps therefore you would be kind enough to undo their edits at the Balmer article, given that they are unwilling to do it themselves despite admitting that they were wrong (although not for the right reasons). GiantSnowman 19:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No need, helpfully @Orangemike: has restored the correct edit. Many thanks both. GiantSnowman 19:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: I don't have an opinion on the main subject of this dispute, but it seems quite unlikely to me that it'd ever be correct to insist an article contain information that is known for a fact to be untrue. At the very least, it ought to be omitted -- especially in a biography. and especially especially in a BLP. jp×g 10:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it quite laughable and insulting the way I am being talked down to by GiantSnowman.
    In addition, Levivich. You are 100% disregarding the fact that West Derby in this example, is simply just a part of Liverpool. It is NOT I repeat NOT, a place where someone comes from as the place where they come from in this example is Liverpool. Of course like Trey Maturin has put it, we can come from places like West Derby. I was born in Everton. But my page would not say "People from Everton" it would say "People from Liverpool". Because the city is Liverpool my birthplace is Liverpool it is Liverpool in People by district in England.
    I often find (as in response from Levivich here) that when someone starts kicking up a fuss then there is someone else that will tell you the claim must be sourced or show what a source says. But remember, West Derby, Toxteth, Everton, unlike say Aintree or Bootle, are part of Liverpool since the 1800's. Therefore it does not matter what you say about the source, the fact is the person is born in the late 1800's or in the 1900's then if they are from West Derby their place of birth is Liverpool. It's a fact. It's not me being disruptive or petty. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So from minding my own business and correcting categories to show where people are from, based on city, rather than a locality within the city, I am now being accused of being disruptive and changing articles because "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Please stop behaving like a dead behind the eyes robot and understand it is not always black and white. And, as Trey Maturin said both can be simultaneously true. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To that end I admit that West Derby did not become absorbed in to Liverpool until 1895 so technically, the page in question (Billy Balmer) would be born in West Derby, Lancashire. (Now Liverpool). Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you do not get it. Here on Wikipedia we do categorise by locality within the city. The sources say Balmer was from West Derby, so we categorise accordingly. You repeatedly removing the precise category for a more general category, for no reason other than you do not like it, is disruptive, and the fact that you still cannot understand that (and that you have also clearly misunderstood what Trey Maturin says), is concerning. Competency is required and you do not seem to have any. GiantSnowman 18:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I find your attitude stinks. You disregard anything I have stated, insult me and insult my editing. Calling in to question competency is very low indeed. I have given several pointers to where I am editing from. I even have the humility to admit that I got it wrong with this because in 1875 West Derby was not yet absorbed in to Liverpool. But you continually offer insults and point scoring. How very admirable. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not insulted you; I have criticised your editing, as have others. You now admit you are wrong - so the criticism was appropriate - but why have you not self-reverted and restored the correct edit/information? Also you seem completely unwilling to listen or learn... GiantSnowman 19:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Babydoll9799, please take some time and review our verifiability policy and category guidelines. While you're at it, you should also read up on BOLD, revert, discuss and how to use Talk pages. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so there's no such thing as minding my own business when you're being disruptive. Woodroar (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Woodroar now on the bandwagon. So I am being disruptive am I? Rubbish. I had a point and someone disagreed we've spent the day back and forth but guess what? I am not the one crying to other people to rat me out. I admitted my error on this specific edit but that does not mean I am either wrong or disruptive. I made my points quite clear the that my point was about the city as opposed to the district within the city. I have not been disruptive I have stood my ground as someone that knows Liverpool perhaps less so Wiki. So less of the insults please. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Wikipedia or anywhere else works. And you're edit warring to get your way. Your replies here aren't formatted correctly and others are cleaning up after you. Look, I don't know you and I'm reading about this dispute for the first time, so I'm trying to be neutral here. Please take my advice to step back and read our policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bingo. Babydoll9799, this is not a "bandwagon", this is consensus - multiple editors agreeing, and advising you how to edit. However, you are ignoring everyone and our policies/the sources, and viewing it as being personally targeted against you, which it is not. Please just listen to us and take on board our comments. GiantSnowman 20:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know anything about UK geography but I was wondering why we're seeing so many empty "People from..." categories at Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and I guess this is why, at least for some of the categories. Right now, it looks like 24 categories have been emptied (which is not how editors are supposed to empty categories, they should be nominating them for deletion at WP:CFD). And there's a bit of edit-warring over at the Billy Balmer article. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: - yes, this editor has made lots of these kind of edits over the last few days, removing valid categories from articles, resulting in an empty category (see this and this and this as some examples beyond the ones already detailed above - I think there have been over 100 in the east 48 hours) - as well as the disruptive editing/edit warring when editors like me have challenged the behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am very angry at the accusations being made by GiantSnowman. Making me out to be disruptive. Bringing my edits in to question. Witch hunt comes to mind. All I have tried to do is correct the pages for where people are from in the Liverpool area as they are from Liverpool (city) not district. I have given examples and yet you're getting on my back about this. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    But everybody here is saying that your edits were wrong and that your editing was disruptive. Do you not understand that? do you still think, after all these comments, that removing the categories is correct? GiantSnowman 08:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    I have just noticed that this user has been canvassing, see this and this and this. They clearly do not get it and are not willing ti listen/change - their disruption will simply con tinge because they are so convinced that they are in the right and that all criticism is personal. GiantSnowman 09:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: topic ban for Babydoll9799

    Because of the disruption mentioned above, I propose an indefinite topic ban for Babydoll9799 from categories and people from the UK, broadly construed, until they can demonstrate an understanding of our policies and guidelines.

    How can you say this when I was correcting articles? Is Wikipedia not available for people who have only a passing interest in certain pages and wish to correct articles and information? Because another user has chose to disagree I am hung drawn and quartered? I spent time correcting articles and repeatedly explained why but I have been cast as a trouble causer, edit warrer being called disruptive, and also "canvassing" when I am asking for help. Seems you're all interested in calling out people rather than focusing on the articles themselves. Surely correct information is desired? When a person is from a city their birthplace it the city and not a district within; this is the entire basis of my arguement. However I am not even allowed to speak because people like the above user are whipping my ass. Amongst the other users Woodroar and GiantSnowman have refused to listen to my point of view and instead dismissed it. Instead making accusations.

    I don't accept this. I edit in good faith if I make mistakes I will accept that. However I will not back down if I know that I am right. (You will have already castigated me about this but yes I know my city do you?). I can say what edi is right and why but all I have is blanket faceless jobsworths telling me that I am in the wrong.

    I have stated several times that people from Liverpool should be categorised as the city not the district, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_district_in_England and that the numerous pages I have edited all (but a handful) have contained incorrect information about their birthplace and the category of where they are from. But those edits have all been reverted. Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd recommend reading WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:CANVASS and agreeing to heed their advice going forward. Levivich 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would add three things and then I will break:

    This is about the [Category:People from Liverpool by locality] page which were set up by user Rathfelder in March 2020. Those pages seemed error strewn and I had attempted to restore them to [Category:People from Liverpool]. After all, the city (here Liverpool) is the primary place where the person is from, not the district within. As per [Category:People by district in England] This category groups people by the 326 local government districts of England (32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan boroughs, 201 non-metropolitan districts, 55 unitary authorities, the Isles of Scilly and the City of London). (See Category:People by city or town in England for people in cities and towns.) .

    1 When making these changes there were a number of errors in the birthplace of various people. The birthplace is not an inner district it is the city of Liverpool. 2 When making these changes I found a handful of the pages were not in the correct category anyway. Either from the wrong district or not even from Liverpool. 3 When making these changes I tried to establish when those known people had a specific occupation I recategorised them from [Category:People from Liverpool] to occupation such as [Category:Footballers from Liverpool]. A person can be both categories but most pages are by occupation when it is a more specific occupation.

    The above edits were all correct. However some consternation arose because some of the edits were unsual. Taking in to account what (districts) were within Liverpool and also when they were absorbed in to Liverpool (mostly in the 1800's). It is a question of both correcting the birthplace of someone and identifying where they are from. I gave an example Ibou Touray the page said he was born in Toxteth and the category was [Category:People from Toxteth] yet Toxteth is part of Liverpool and has been for some time. Which means this person's birthplace is Liverpool, and should be categorised as [Category:People from Liverpool]. Equally [Category:Footballers from Liverpool]. Finally as the page currently states "Born in Toxteth,[3] Liverpool, " ... However since GiantSnowman objected to this incorrectly I might add, and chose to air his grivences here, I am portrayed in a very negative light by both GiantSnowman, and others including Woodroar. Because I am not playing the game they want.

    Above I provide reasons why I have edited. I don't think I should have had to jusitfy this but because of being called amongst other things "disruptive" because I have tried to stand my ground, I have had to do this. Perhaps I do need to understand Wiki more but I am not a professional editor, and that does not justify being hounded like this. I have not had any one wanting to discuss this with me; to ask just complete disregard. I assume you have read the above and will consider the reasoning for my edits. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Further points (regarding WP:DROPTHESTICK ) Quote from an earlier comment " Yes, you are being disruptive. Your argument boils down to "I'm from here, so I get to decide how everyone else from here is described", which is not how Wikipedia or anywhere else works. ".

    Surely instead of telling me off for portraying "I'm from here, I know best" point of view, that you verify that I am wrong? Surely the article needs to be right? Right? I refer to my earlier examples of both the Categories and the person pages that I had edited/correct. I stand by that. Babydoll9799 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - These lengthy and multiple responses from Babydoll9799 make it very clear that they do not see what is wrong what their behavior, and that they intend to continue their disruptive behavior. A topic ban is warranted. - Aoidh (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support this idea, whilst also knowing that it's not going to gain traction. The problem here is that Babydoll is not wrong, per se, but also not right. They do have a point - to the outside observer (which is the majority of our readership and the majority of our editors) it does look weird. How can someone be both from West Derby and from Liverpool? But that's how much of European society is organised, with our towns and cities growing organically over 1000+ years, swallowing up neighbouring towns and villages. It's hard for most readers to see that someone can - happily - enthusiastically - fully sourced - be both from Acklam and Middlesbrough, or, conversely, from Rainhill but not from Liverpool.
    Nevertheless, the main issue here is that Babydoll clearly doesn't grasp how we work here. We work on the basis of consensus. We work on the basis of verifiability not The Truth. They have their own opinion on what the articles should say, and the people who disagree are wrong, as are the sources they quote. We're being ignorant about something that is obvious to them. It must be intensely frustrating and I really do understand. It sucks. But it's how things are done here, and until they can demonstrate that they understand, and stop posting huge screeds explaining how everybody else volunteering here is a fool for not grasping their point, they need to stay away from the articles in question. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban for all category-related edits, broadly construed, with the exception of talk page posts. It is clear that Babydoll, for whatever reason, cannot see or understand the relevant policies and lacks competence in this area. If a topic ban does not work, then extend to indef block. (NB I've only just seen this discussion on my watchlist; would have appreciated a ping!) GiantSnowman 19:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry about that, @GiantSnowman! Woodroar (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Woodroar: not an issue! GiantSnowman 22:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Two requests regarding Emigré55

    First request: WP:IBAN between myself and him

    Hi! Over the past few weeks the interactions between him and I have been of contentious, personal, and aggressive character so I am seeking an IBAN. Another possibility that might be suitable here is a topic ban for both of us. I cordially invite JBchrch to pitch in, they have been invaluable in mediating between us two and helped me realized when I had crossed the line when interacting with Emigre55. I know you wanted to avoid an IBAN but I just want to forget about Emigre and be done with this.

    On my side

    I have been disrespectful to him in multiple cases:

    On his side

    He has been disruptive while responding to my edits in this case:

    The following diffs refer to either his general conduct in the talk page or main page of the Article on Eric Zemmour, which should be taken into context when dealing on this matter. Aggresive wikilawyering: Perhaps this characterization is not the most accurate for all the diffs and another way of qualifying the disruptiveness (as I see it) of his edits listed below, but I leave that up to others to comment.

    WP:Hounding:

    Second request:

    I don't have a specific request, I just would like for editors reading my submission here to take into account other instances of his disruptive editing to either other users or other pages. Munci,Hemiauchenia feel free to contribute if you see it necessary. Other ANI-related discussions in the past: October of last year, October of last year, this month, August last year, September last year, Discussion in his appeal to the block given to him mentioned in previous diffs, July of this year.

    Final comment:

    I might have not followed the WP procedure for creating this page discussing the incident, in that case I apologize in advance as my only previous experience in ANI was with this unresolved incident (which I think got resolved after I asked for the relevant pages to be semi-protected). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    As to the first request:

    1/ On accusation: “He has been disruptive while responding to my edits in this case:
    Contrary to what is claimed with this diff, where it can also be seen that I announce it in the commentary of the diff ("→‎International relations: see following sentence and ref"), I have provided 3 citations and a source immediately after this revert, here.
    Contrary to what is claimed with this diff, I have not refused to seek consensus:
    I have first answered her question, and stated, as precisely as I could, the reasons why I thought/think that there is “undue weight” in the § in discussions.
    Furthermore, I have then, with the last sentence of my edit, asked a question: “Please, explain if you see another way to improve neutrality and also undue weight of the whole section relative to the whole article”. Question which remained unanswered by Santacruz. She then only answered: “Well, I disagree Emigré55".
    It appears to me that, by only answering then that she disagreed, and not answering my questions and/or suggestions on how to reduce undue weight, she decided to leave the debate on that particular point, which was hence closed “de facto” by her without the search of a further consensus on her side.
    2/ On accusation of “Aggressive wikilawyering":
    • I have always tried to explain precisely what I understand from the rules, citing them and mentioning what and how is pertinent to the case or the point in discussion. E.g., here, and here again:
    Particularly on « undue weight », « So, rephrasing my question could be: What to do to correct the "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements" of the first sub section, which is presently given an "undue weight", because of them ? », I do not understand why this can be qualified as «aggressive wikilawyering», having patiently rephrased my question and further asked how to make the article better in her opinion, following the rule as explained. Here again, I also received no answer to my question.
    I have also never been «aggressive» , no example is even given on this point.
    3/ On WP:HOUNDING:
    I have never "joined discussions on multiple pages or topics (she) may have edit(ed) or multiple debates where (she) contribute(d), to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". Since September, I ONLY contribute to the Eric Zemmour article, which can be easily verified.
    Furthermore, the rule states that "the contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases".
    In my opinion, the first request is hence based on accusations against me lacking all merits.
    Reading WP:HOUNDING, I noticed that it also states that "Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor."--Emigré55 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As to the second request:

    • WP:NPA states here: « It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. »
    • Also, I do not understand what is the request, with several diff given “to be characterised” or assessed by others, what appears to me, for lack of a better word, as “cherry-picking”, or approaching this practice.
    • If a request is not characterised, I think that this “claim” should be dismissed, as being unduly brought.
    Emigré55 (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As to the Final Comment:

    Finally, I would like to add that I have introduced the sections on Zemmour's political ideas at the end of September, somewhat reorganised them, waiting for others to bring input, which did not happen. I started then, slowly, carefully, to improve and substantiate them, as they should be more important than controversies, as was and still is the case now in this article.
    Since September, on an article which was/still is to a large extent (before I started patiently editing it) heavily biased, breaching neutrality as well as balance and BLP rules, not to mention lack of content on the real substance of his political and economic ideas, I have contributed 261 edits, 57,4% of all edits, or 31,4% of the article by added text.
    Becoming, to my surprise, the first contributor to this article.
    By contrast, A.C.Santacruz appears to have made 3 edits, and appears to rank n°36 among all 266 editors.
    See statistics of the article, here:
    Top 10 by edits:
    Emigré55 · 261 (57.4%)
ActiveContributor2020 · 45 (9.9%)
Hemiauchenia · 36 (7.9%)
Philip Cross · 24 (5.3%)
JBchrch · 20 (4.4%)
Steve Smith · 18 (4%)
Causteau · 16 (3.5%)
MB · 15 (3.3%)
Munci · 11 (2.4%)
Xiaopo · 9 (2%)
    Top 10 by added text (approximate):
    Emigré55 · 45,979 (31.4%)
BrownHairedGirl · 37,083 (25.3%)
Xiaopo · 27,324 (18.7%)
ActiveContributor2020 · 10,791 (7.4%)
Munci · 7,033 (4.8%)
Steve Smith · 6,899 (4.7%)
Malaria28 · 5,513 (3.8%)
Hemiauchenia · 2,246 (1.5%)
Causteau · 1,852 (1.3%)
JBchrch · 1,656 (1.1%)
    --Emigré55 (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to Emigré55's retorts

    1. Disruptive also means to disregard other editors' explanations for their edits, such as you did here. On refusing to build consensus, such is your endless arguing ad nauseam that other editors have told you to stop WP:BLUDGEON.
    2. On wikilawyering, i especially refer to the section describing it as "brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution". You frequently wave the name of NPOV around to back your own claims while forgetting that we are all biased and thus need consensus to find the best way to show information on this project. In the discussion I linked about Zemmour's trials section, I proposed here to change the section from a he said/she said type structure to a chronological one in order to encourage less bias. You not only disagreed, but then disregarded my proposed solution. I realized that anything short of exactly whatever you were asking (perfect partiality suiting your bias) would not be enough for you and just left the discussion. You were, in my opinion, not suggesting solutions as much as brandishing WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE to shut down other editors in the discussion from proposing solutions and finding common ground.
    3. You justify your watching my contribution log as being useful to "dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases". However, what dispute resolution or arbitration case are you referring to where you needed to gather evidence on my actions? Why was it necessary for you to complain against me asking for a neutral editor to judge the discussion?
    4. Why are you trying to use statistics on the contribution of the article here? What does that have to do with anything? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You presented your arguments in your initial 2requests/complaint. I presented then mine in response to your accusations, which, as I have shown with diffs, have no merit in my opinion.
    I think there are enough arguments for an admin to make a decision, if needed.
    You seem to further want to argue, with this "response" to my previous statement. I don’t think it is necessary to further argue here:
    • Either on your side as you just did above, because you seem to be willing to extend the dispute to new grounds, thus escalating the dispute you started before.
    • Or on my side, although I would have precise arguments to answer you, because I do not wish to fuel such escalation.
    I will therefore not answer you, unless an admin finds it useful and/or asks me to do so.
    Thank you for your understanding.--Emigré55 (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A._C._Santacruz, it's inappropriate for you to link to editorial processes on the article talk page in a footnote! Those are only intended for sources and/or explanatory notes about the content. El_C 15:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it's inappropriate to invoke that RfC for anything, seeing as it's still ongoing. You need to wait till it concludes before consensus or lack thereof can be asserted in connection to it. El_C 15:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, I just noticed this. Your edit summary says: Edited page based on closed RfC (diff) — but it hasn't been closed. Okay, now I'm confused. El_C 15:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C See [19] and subsequent [20]. JBchrch talk 15:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eep. El_C 16:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I thought that since no one had talked in the RfC in 3 days, and with it being open for over a week with only one editor disagreeing w consensus on far-right it was safe enough for me to close, my bad on that. JBchrch instructed me on how to do it properly and I thus filed the closure request. I'll take into account in the future not to link talk pages on efns. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    • Oppose. As A._C._Santacruz noted, I sort of attempted to moderate the disputes between the two editors. I have ostensibly failed, but that's beyond the point. In my view, there's nothing here that reaches the intensity required for administrative action. As Arb Dennis Brown recently said at WP:AE "some heat is expected in contentious areas, and is tolerated by the community". Both editors just need to take a chill pill, and either drop the WP:STICK in relation to the disputes they are involved in, or seek WP:DR. They should both be trouted upside the head for their agressive demeanor over the last week and their consistent failure to de-escalate (maybe A._C._Santacruz should be trouted a second time for this ANI request), given some Tylenol, and sent on their way. JBchrch talk 15:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      JBchrch, Dennis Brown is not an arbitrator. El_C 16:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks El_C. Calling every admin an arb is my way of networking with the admins. JBchrch talk 17:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appears unnecessary. Granted, I've only taken a cursory look, but if you were rude, but have the good sense to apologize, and the other party doesn't want a iban, and both have been rude to each other.... then go do something different for a while. I'm not trying to be overly simplistic, but maybe that should be tried first. Wikipedia has no deadline. We will get by if you don't edit in that area for a time. You have the power, use it. I say this because I do not like ibans, and my history of using the admin bit has been filled with TOPIC bans and extended mutual blocks instead, refusing to support ibans in virtually all circumstances. As an admin, my goal isn't "justice", it's about finding a solution that benefits everyone, not just you two. There are plenty of other areas that can benefit from your efforts, just go do something else for a while, will you guys? Chill out, and figure out how to get along, because an iban isn't something I'm likely to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • JBchrch, El_C, Dennis Brown After seeing this was going nowhere and I had removed the relevant pages from my watchlist I took some time off to reflect on my and Emigre's actions and wrote a humorous essay on it. I added a section based on the insanely long ARS thread above. I'm still somewhat wilded out by him watchlisting my contributions (or however he found out about my closure request), but I don't see any action happening there and I'd much rather focus my time and stress on fixing the article on the First Carlist War in my sandbox. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 00:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, obviously. Seems like a heated content dispute, which could have easily been resolved at the talk page if either user just took a moment to cool down. As an aside, I seriously believe something needs to be done with the essay project at this point. Even if they're labelled "humorous", I find it quite derisive of our entire volunteer experience – and counter-intuitive to our policies – that someone can passive aggressively vent their frustrations at another user in that manner. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from proposer

    Admins feel free to close without action. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 19:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    DinosaursLoveExistence

    Hi Folks!!. I would like, if possible, that the articles created by User:DinosaursLoveExistence could go through Afc in a similar manner to FloridaArmy's. These article of which there is reams of them have barely any references, often in format that you can't tell what they are, and often only one or two. They are lowest type of junk. I've reviewed several of them in the last hour, some were redirected, other sent to draft, as part of the NPP review process. This is the 2nd editor I see in the last couple of months, and I was planning to post the editor but they have started adding much better references. This article Mike Short is an example. This is a BLP. It has three links, nor refs, the 1st is a companies house profile page, the 2nd is another profile, the 3rd is the front page of some website. I've sure User:DinosaursLoveExistence is more than capable of adding properly formatted reference of the correct type, as they have been here since 2005. Quality must be better than quantity in every instance. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That article clearly needs help from project ARS. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roxy the dog: Well, if you're interested, you can sign up on their project page; I'm sure they would appreciate the help! jp×g 21:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking through their ten most-recent page creations (out of 1,000+ total), I agree. Most don't seem to meet notability guidelines and the referencing seems questionable. Levivich 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if a conversation with this editor could be productive? Their talk page is almost entirely template messages, which doesn't help them understand what they did wrong with the articles in question. While many of their articles are low quality, particularly when it comes to sourcing, I don't think they're a lost cause. Mlb96 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that limiting them to AfC might be a good idea in the meantime, though. Mlb96 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FloridaArmy's creations go to AfC because they often do demonstrate notability, albeit not always on the first attempt, and generally relying on fairly obscure conditions of notability. In contrast, the complaint here is that DinosaursLoveExistence's creations are never or barely ever showing notability. We should first be talking to DinosaursLoveExistence to tell them very clearly that standards are much higher than they were in 2005, and they need to spend much more time on much fewer creations.
    I would guess that they simply pick a topic and go for it in writing what they can—this won't work. You need to have a research phase before typing a single word in the edit box where you find all the sources you can and very carefully read the relevant notability policies, and assessments of source reliability (e.g. WP:RSP, or searching for mentions of the source in discussion pages). Only if you are convinced that the topic is notable can you proceed. This has worked for me in my 130+ article creations, but it also has led me to discard maybe 20–50 potential topics as non-starters, because I was surprised to find the sources were simply not there.
    (If escalation is needed, limiting DinosaursLoveExistence to AfC will not be the right move, as this would not really change the amount of volunteer time needed to reviewing their creations.) — Bilorv (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SportsOlympic
    This is another editor who doesn't reference articles, User:SportsOlympic. This is an example of one of their articles Viktoriia Yaroshenko. The references are two database generated profile pages, with no secondary sources. The editor complain incessantly when their articles are sent to draft. It would be ideal if both these editors were sent through AFC for six months to upgrade the quality, as its trash. scope_creepTalk 02:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence is started with "This is another editor who doesn't reference articles", adding one example saying "Here is one example, all his other articles are the same". I don't like you complain about me at ANI, while you never came to my talk page to talk. If you blame someone of something serious, do a bit of research (I asked you before), especially if it could be a false accusation. Your example of Viktoriia Yaroshenko, probably a deliberate choice but not mentioned before, was created by me during a few days I started creating cyclists who competed at the World Championships. Between 23 and 26 October I created about 50 articles on cyclists who participated at the UCI Track Cycling World Championships or UCI Road World Championships.
    Cyclists created by SportsOlympic between 23-26 October
    If you check the list, if's actually hard to find articles without secondary sources, so it looks like you well selected your "example"; but it doesn't show "all other articles are the same".
    But nevertheless, all these articles are meeting notability guidelines of WP:NCYCLING under WP:NSPORTS. Please read Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review. Draftification during page review is "an alternative to deletion". People meeting the notability guidelines are likely to survive an AFD; so those created articles shoult not be moved to the drafst space.
    I already told you that when I came to your talk page in June User talk:Scope creep#Please stop moving to draft space and the other time last September User talk:Scope creep#Please stop moving to draft space. Your response last time to that was inappropriate in my opinion, with a personal attack and threat with words like "No, dude. I'm not... ...What I will do, is take you to Ani, and suggest..". I looks personal, while you never came to me to talk about the problems you have with my articles.
    In addition other users didn't agree with you to move my content to draft space (for instance here, and here)
    To reply to your request, I created over 2250 articles in the last 1,5 years. And they have all been reviewed by PageReviewers. To save time of the reviewers at AFC it would be better, in my opinion, that you start talking with me; instead of going straight to ANI with only a few sentences of complaints requesting for AFC. SportsOlympic (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scope creep: please do not make personal attacks against other editors. Rude and abrasive behaviour, such as that which SportsOlympics evidences, only ever entrenches disagreements and makes it almost certain that the other editor will not improve their quality of content creation. Referring to another person's hard work as "trash" is disgraceful. Additionally, it is short-sighted to propose that editors be limited to AFC when this will do nothing to reduce the amount of reviewer time that will have to be invested. — Bilorv (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What personal attack exactly? Ok, got you, that was probably a bit out of order. Sorry, that was crass. SportsOlympic, I've spent the last month or two trying to get you to up the quality of your references. You can't even accept maintenance tags. I know you can create great articles, I've seen them, but there is reams of article which have 1 and 2 references, that are barely there. They often don't have the correct website name on them, just the shortened domain name. They're is generally no authors, publishers, page numbers, dates, access dates times, language versions or locations. All it is doing is creating masses amount of work for the future, when those links disappear. Here is an another example, with a link on it: Toros Toranyan. Even domains change. They're a reason that all the guidance asks for a many fields as possible to be filled in, because it's to stop the article aging. It's storing up trouble for the future. In the argument above you stating the review time is problem, but FloridaArmy's draft articles are not much better in terms of quality than they were a years, otherwise they don't get through. The reality that in 5-10 years time, most of these references that SportsOlympic are adding, are going to be dead and invisible. They break every convention of referenced publishing. The review time is nothing compared to amount of work that will be required in the future to fix these profile articles. scope_creepTalk 18:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's best to start a new section for SportsOlympic, with a lot of diffs or links to recent creations, the issues with them, and to discussions already had with them on their user talk page. Sadly, there are plenty of issues, see e.g. his latest creation from today, Hubert Sevenich, where two of the three sources are to a Wordpress blog and the third is a statistics database: all three sources have very little information, which is turned into a somewhat fanciful narrative in the article. So yes, there clearly are issues, but it's best to start this section from scratch (and separately) if they are ripe for an ANI discussion. Fram (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, this sounds like what Sander.v.Ginkel was doing a few years ago. Creation of many marginally-notable or non-notable athletes. Not saying that the user here is SvG, just noting the similarities. Discussion from 2018. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks folks, @Fram: That is heartening. I'll get information together in the next couple of days. scope_creepTalk 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Havana syndrome and guerilla skeptics

    I've seen enough; we already have discretionary sanctions for fringe science and pseudo science. As such editors may raise concerns about specific people with evidence at arbitration enforcement and uninvolved administrators will review the request and determine appropriate responses. Concerns involving private evidence may be sent to the arbitration committee. Concerns about off-wiki canvasssing or relationships between editors and off-wiki organizations should be addressed through an arbitration case request. Any of those venues will be appropriate to respond to the various concerns raised in this thread. Even if ANI could handle these things, the thread has grown beyond the point where a viable solution will be found. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    While considering a new RfC on this page which had been advertised at WP:RS/N, I noticed a thread in which accusations of off-wiki recruitment and meatpuppetry were flying, and requests for people to disclose their RL roles being made. I commented and attempted to close the thread directing people to a more appropriate venue (e.g. here) but my comment (and close) was reverted by Geogene who seems unwilling[21] to restore it or heed it. In any event, an admin eye or two would probably be useful there. Alexbrn (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I disagree with Alexbrn unilaterally closing a discussion with five other participants in it, and I reject the ultimatum he left on my talk page. I do agree though that that area needs admin attention. Geogene (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You may disagree with my close. But why delete my separate comment? Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Your close was preventing me from replying to a remark there that was directed at me. If you want to leave a comment there that you feel it's an inappropriate venue, I don't object to that. Geogene (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      They why did you delete it?[22] You know you generally shouldn't delete other people's comments right? Alexbrn (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you asking me to restore the comment without closing the thread? Geogene (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Facepalm Facepalm I don't think you are taking proper care in your editing. For the record, what you deleted was this:

      This has come up before and as I recall if GSoW is getting fresh editors into Wikipedia to improve articles in a policy-based manner, that is welcomed by the community in the same way as edit-a-thons, etc are. In any event, this article Talk page is not the appropriate place for discussing GSoW, off-wiki recruitment, or puppetry - take any further grumblings to ANI or similar, and be sure to ping Sgerbic in any such posting

      Alexbrn (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If you don't close that discussion again, I won't revert. If any other editor want to close that, then that's okay too. I think you're being too aggressive in trying to control the talk page (and leaving ultimatums on my user talk). Geogene (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      What the hell are you even talking about? You reversed a close and deleted a comment, I asked you to restore the comment. You haven't. Are you in control of your actions? Alexbrn (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Alexbrn, you left a comment inside the discussion in the same edit that you closed the discussion. This illustrates why you don't do that; an auto-revert removes both. You could have either summarized the point you wanted to make in the space allotted for that in the template, or you could have made a separate edit. Participating in the discussion and simultaneously closing it is often interpreted as a Supervote. That's said, it's pretty clear that was not your intention. Similarly, it doesn't look like it was Geogene's intention to violate WP:TPG by reverting the close. AlexEng(TALK) 05:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you in control of your actions? sounds like a PA. I think I'm done with trying to accommodate Alexbrn's demands. Geogene (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've actually been watching this discussion as it developed on the talk page today, and this is very clearly not a case of WP:MEATPUPPETRY. As far as I understand, off-wiki organization is not in itself against WP:PAGs. The editors in question are not newbies and have been careful to follow the rules. The closing user or admin should read the article being used as evidence in that thread prior to making any assessments regarding a potential violation. AlexEng(TALK) 05:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      At WP:MEAT, the policy reads, High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. I don't understand this [23], which tries to recruit new editors of a particular POV as a form of activism isn't meatpuppetry. Yes, of course, they claim to be following all guidelines. Geogene (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Where's the high-profile dispute? Recruiting competent editors isn't meatpuppetry. Canvassing to influence !votes, for instance, would be. AlexEng(TALK) 05:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      They're targeting people of a certain POV to teach them how to engage in what they themselves call "activism" on Wikipedia. How do you know if they're Canvassing or not when they use off-wiki backchannel communications for everything? Geogene (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It sounds to me like you're playing fast and loose with of a certain POV here. Wikipedia is biased toward science, toward reliable sources, and against conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific dogma. From the mission statement page you just posted, it sounds very much like Guerrilla Skeptics are following PAGs and improving the encyclopedia. Unless you have any concrete complaints for specific instances of even suspected canvassing, it doesn't look like there's anything more to address here. AlexEng(TALK) 05:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Guerilla Skepticism doesn't seem to be about reliable sourcing, it seems to be about stuffing articles with as much Skeptic Movement POV sourcing (most of which is actually low quality) as possible. For example, this document [24] describes POV pushing I will describe the role I had in converting the story’s initially credulous Wikipedia article into its current version: one that makes it clear that the purported “sonic attacks” in Cuba and China all but certainly never happened more POV pushing Being a Guerrilla Skeptics team member, and having sworn a solemn oath to fight fake news and pseudoscience on Wikipedia (wouldn’t it be cool if we actually swore an oath?!) in October 2017 I set out to investigate what the English-speaking world’s number-one source of online information had to say on this subject and stuffing the article with commentary from hand-picked Skeptic Movement personalities in order to try to sway the readership to their POV The article still included all the injury claims being made by the diplomats, as well as the political finger pointing, but it now included ample skepticism that the medical issues were related to any attacks, and many statements made by sociologist Robert Bartholomew were used. Anyone reading this version of the article (or even just reading the revised lead) would hopefully come away with a very different opinion than they would otherwise have had. Robert Bartholomew isn't a random sociologist the Guerilla Skeptics found, he's a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, which publishes Skeptical Inquirer. Geogene (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The more you expound on your point of view here, the less convincing it gets. What's with all of this loaded language? Skeptic Movement POV? Referring to Robert Bartholomew as a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and not as "an expert in fields such as mass hysteria and mass psychogenic illness... frequently consulted by media during... incidences of suspected mass hysteria or panic" as he is described in the article about him? Why wouldn't his work carry due weight in an article about a suspected psychogenic phenomenon, if quoted and attributed in a reliable source? As a reminder, in the timeframe we're discussing (2017-2018), that was still being debated by experts. The crux of my argument is this: Geogene, can you point to any specific violations? Any bad edits, including low quality sources? Any instances of suspected WP:CANVASSING on the talk page? Or do you just not like self-described skeptics promoting editing of Wikipedia? I don't think there are any policies against the latter. Personally, I would encourage it. AlexEng(TALK) 06:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Here's an example of a truckload of bad quality sources proposed just now by Rp2006 [25], he said he knew it would "piss me off" [26] because I believe in quality sourcing standards. Geogene (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see that Rp2006 added any of the more questionable sources to the actual article, and it sounds like the one you have a problem with (MEL magazine) was not a serious suggestion. Do you suspect that this person is associated with Guerrilla Skeptics? A meatpuppet, perhaps? AlexEng(TALK) 06:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No, he only proposed adding questionable sources to the article, and then admitted he did that in order to annoy me. You don't see the problem there, either? Perhaps debating this with you is not going to be productive? Geogene (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Geogene persists in bending the truth. It is disturbing that I can't tell if he does it intentionally or it is a matter of self-deception.[27] RobP (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the actual article and considering sourcing standards - yikes! It is crammed full of bold biomedical claims soured to non-WP:MEDRS sources and relayed as plain fact in Wikivoice. If some sceptics ("self-described" or not) were to bring some order to the article, that could be a very good thing! I have posted at WP:FT/N accordingly. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a current event article, and the patients are all anonymous. What do you expect? The best sources currently available are JAMA (which I see you don't like, because you tagged it) and a report from the National Academies of Science and Medicine, that favored the raygun hypothesis. If you want to advance some other hypothesis, then you should publish it yourself. Geogene (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      We should use only reliable sources, and the JAMA sources ain't, for what they're being used for. Wikipedia is not a venue for original thought so editors' hypotheses (whatever they may be) are irrelevant. In any case, this is a content question best sorted-out at the articles. Alexbrn (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Then that leaves the New York Times (which you also tagged as unreliable). Or nothing. So what then? That article is using the best quality sources that are available as it is. And I didn't say anything about editor hypotheses, I told you that you should publish your own papers if JAMA and the National Academy of Science aren't good enough. Geogene (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't be obtuse. WP:NPOV and WP:V are core policies and if we can't relay accepted knowledge we remain silent. There is no word quota for articles which mean they need to be stuffed with sub-par content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but you're arguing from MEDRS, which isn't a core policy but a guideline that should be followed with common sense. The New York Times, JAMA, and the National Academies of Science and Medicine all pass normal V and NPOV. If you think the article is a candidate for deletion, then you can always propose it. Deleting it would be a better option than stuffing it with Skeptic Movement podcasts nobody has ever heard of. Geogene (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Seriously? WP:RS is by its nature "only" a guidelines, but WP:V is the policy that requires us to use reliable sources, and WP:MEDRS tells us what those reliable sources are for WP:BMI. Articles should always be based on secondary sources. If Wikipedia is going to assert things about brain injuries in people it can't do so off the back of primary research, and especially not when that primary research has been questioned by other RS. I don't think your deletion idea is in good faith. Alexbrn (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, the article already uses the best sources available for the subject. Deletion is what happens when an article doesn't have enough reliable sources available. I doubt you've ever been able to assume good faith, and am not particularly concerned about that. What annoys me is editors trying to use things like podcasts as sources so they can get their preferred POV in. Geogene (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      JAMA is a peer-reviewed journal, but neither of the two studies cited in the article support a "raygun hypothesis." At any rate, this is a content dispute and belongs on the article talk page. We can discuss the specifics there. AlexEng(TALK) 06:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I told you earlier in this thread that it was National Academies of Science and Medicine that considered the microwave weapon theory the most likely explanation. Please pay attention if you wish to continue this dialogue. Here it is from the The Lancet, which is secondary for this [28] A US National Academies report concludes that many of the symptoms felt by embassy staff are consistent with pulsed radiofrequency energy. Geogene (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The grammar in your post implies that the hypothesis is supported by both JAMA and NAS/M sources. I have not read the NAS/M report yet. AlexEng(TALK) 07:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They have not revealed what they do off-wiki (if anything). I asked one person who is a member, no response yet. All we know is they claim over 100 members and have an off-wiki email contact to join. We don't know who the members are (specific Wiki IDs, not real names), nor notified if they become involved in a page, controversial dispute, or consensus discussion. We are told to trust them, they follow the rules and do good work. Possibly all 100 members are equally trustworthy all the time. Individuals are highly variable in their knowledge of rules, respect of rules, and pushing the interpretation of rules. If there is abuse of canvassing going on among some members, it would fester and grow with lack of community oversight. I would also be concerned with other forms of potential abuse such as COI pushing certain websites that have a connection to the membership. These are not accusations but concerns of problems that can often arise with secretive offsite groups. -- GreenC 07:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Very much agree with your assessment GreenC. The lack of oversight and accountability that a coordinated "international group of 100 or so" members have by not being a WikiProject (as mentioned in your linked diff) or a public list of members (such as Category:Eventualist_Wikipedians) is highly problematic, without needing to pass judgement on the actual activities/purpose/interests of such a group. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Most especially if, as they tout in the Skeptical Inquirer article on them, their articles receive over 26 million views all-together and are referred to by journalists. They also seem to be quite organized.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much agree that collective action should be coordinated onwiki not offwiki. That's what Wikiprojects are for. Everyone can see what's going on, and contribute if they see fit. Narky Blert (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So you'd prohibit edit-a-thons, class assignments and so on? I'd say there is no problem if the "collective action" is to improve Wikipedia. If however the "collective actions" is (e.g.) to promote a product or organization against the grain of the WP:PAG, or if there is some shared COI in the group, then that would be bad. Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be mistaken, but is it not the expectation that edit-a-thons are for a predetermined amount of time and keep a record of participants (such as First People Power Wikipedia Editathon - February 2021)? Also, I really don't see how the benefits of their collective action cannot also come from them being part of a publicly visible WikiProject (with WikiProject Skepticism being an obvious alternative). The biggest issue I feel is that we cannot determine if there are collective actions that go against PAG or if there are blatant COIs as all we can do is guess who the members are or are not. In essence,absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 10:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If they like to chat on facebook instead of on a talk page, they can do that. By this logic we'd have to shut down the Wikipedia IRC channels, discords, and such. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm aware, there are not specific IRC/Discord channels for specific ideological alignments, and there are policies in place to strongly discourage anything that looks like collusion on on-wiki activities (the Discord moderators take a rather dim view of discussing ongoing AfDs and the like). jp×g 22:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that 'pro science' should be considered a problematic ideological alignment. A COI is only a COI when there is actually a conflict between the outside interest and the interest of Wikipedia. Any number of edit-a-thons and GLAM projects exist in that space. We wouldn't run a feminist edit-a-thon or an art museum off the project because they coordinated by talking around a conference table rather than in talk pages everyone can see, even if they had an ideological alignment that supported improving content about women or about particular movements in art. MrOllie (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, the issue to me is not so much that the POV itself is problematic, but that it is being pushed by a large mysterious group whose membership is not disclosed. And my beef is not even just that they are doing things non-publicly per se, it's that they do that and their activity involves a lot of contentious editing and there isn't anything preventing them from running it as a wikiproject. It's not like the CheckUser Wiki or something, where there is a compelling reason to keep the activity nonpublic, or an IRL event, where it would be definitionally impossible to conduct on-wiki (although I suppose you could require editathon attendees to sit in separate soundproofed cubicles and only communicate using talk pages). jp×g 00:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it bluntly, A._C._Santacruz, we don't need evidence of absence. We need to assume good faith and not cast aspersions without evidence. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, fine; let's hear it. Otherwise, I must confess I do not see any reason to badger the editors involved in that off-wiki project on the off chance that they might do something wrong. This whole discussion should be closed unless something new comes up. AlexEng(TALK) 19:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we know who User:Sgerbic is, and her user page gives a decent introduction to the group and what they do. MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like saying if WP:MILHIST did not exist on-wiki, and then if Peacemaker67's page gave a "decent introduction" to a group that edits military history articles worth many millions of views, that the concerns mentioned by GreenC would not apply. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 00:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the post I was replying to you said above you didn't know who the members are or what they do, I was just pointing out some information available on-wiki. MrOllie (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As one of those who said maybe ANI was the way to go. I also said I was unsure what can be done. This does not seem like canvassing, nor do I see any evidence of meat puppetry. what I see is a lot of unfocused accusation. In fact it all reads like a massive ABF and wp:pa's.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • What have GSoW done wrong? Everything they do is out in the open on deadface. Bring diffs of their misbehaviour or go away. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      What? Did you even read what I posted?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe I was not clear I AM saying that those who have been accused of canvassing (they are not) and Meat Puppetry (without any evidence, or specific allegations) have done nothing wrong. I hope that is now a bit clearer for you, I am saying what you are saying.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And do not tell users to go away because you disagree with them (especially when in fact you do not, you have just not bothered to read what they have posted), it is rude and uncivil.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Roxy the dog: Seems like you put your comment in the wrong place? RobP (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps. I get it wrong quite often even after all this time. I was just following SS, indenting once more and responding to the silly accusations against GSOW made by somebody who just discovered the excellent work they do. Thanks for the ping. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Inconsistent formatting led to the first batch of comments in this section being indented with a bullet point and then another batch of comments not being indented at all. AlexEng(TALK) 19:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      What work? We can't really analyze it as theirs can we. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I don't have a horse in the race with the specific article in question (the only "Havana Syndrome" I'm familiar with is "Havana couple beers"). But I think that a little skepticism is warranted for an advocacy group whose members coordinate off-wiki, especially when said group was previously involved with an unreasonably promotional article about their founder (which has since been drastically copyedited for neutrality and tone). The objection here seems to be that the things they're advocating for are good, so they should be allowed to go nuts and do whatever. This doesn't seem very compelling to me: ostensibly, every advocacy group is oriented toward something good. For example, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Greens will all say, if you ask them, that their purpose is to fight injustice and stand up for what's right. And, I mean, I don't think they're lying: they really do believe this. Nonetheless, it would (and should) raise eyebrows if any them assembled an opaque, off-wiki, hundred-strong group that edited to give the movement more favorable coverage.
    In case you think I am being hyperbolic, note this passage from the original version of the article:
    Gerbic states that the "We Got Your Wiki Back Project!" is a popular GSoW sub-project. The project's goal is to improve the Wikipedia pages of skeptical spokespeople, especially when they are in the media's eye and their Wikipedia page views tend to spike.
    Whatever this is -- and, hell, it could be completely innocuous, for all I know -- I guarantee that if I got on IRC and convinced a hundred of my friends to make accounts to edit the articles of politicians/bloggers/etc we liked, called the organization "We Got Your Back", and refused to disclose a membership list, people on Wikipedia would not be saying "well, they're probably legit, no need to look into this further". jp×g 22:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is more info on the GSoW at Wired. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm inclined to agree with JPxG, but I think they're missing something: this is an anti-quackery advocacy group, and Wikipedia –because of its own crowd-sourced nature– has a special need for anti-quackery input. In my view, WP:FTN is an anti-quackery 'POV-fork' of WP:NPOVN, and basically functions as a canvassing club for anti-quackery editors. But then again, it is my impression that Wikipedia needs this. There are various side effects, some of which are pretty serious problems of their own, but on the whole it's a net-positive. I think that the "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" is being given a free pass by many editors (the name alone screams WP:BATTLEGROUND, and long-term off-wiki coordination by a network of undeclared editors around a certain topic is almost the definition of WP:MEATPUPPETRY), but perhaps for good pragmatic reasons. Maybe it would help if they would change their name and create a WikiProject to at least have an on-wiki presence? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see this being solved here. I think there is a significant potential problem - if nothing else, the Guerrilla Skeptics are not just a Wikipedia-editing group, but have also been actively opposing people outside of Wikipedia, running sting operations against individuals whom they are potentially writing about here. That creates a serious COI. However, if they are unwilling to self-identify, ultimately it will involve private evidence that can only be managed by ArbCom, not AN/I. - Bilby (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, so there is a group of people who are coordinating off-wiki to edit an article for the purpose of pushing a specific point of view which they assert is "correct" and people are defending them? This is absolute madness. Imagine how people would respond if this were a Scientology group. Mlb96 (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That would be bad if that's what is happening, but we don't have evidence of that, just a lot of speculation. MrOllie (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That does seem to be what they say they are doing [29]. - Bilby (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see anything that indicates they're colluding on individual articles. If we have 100 editors (or even, say, 5) that are showing up on a single article and acting in a block to shift consensus that is very different than 100 editors who are each assigned to 100 different articles that they edit mostly independently. MrOllie (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I interpreted "We wanted to see how many different Wikipedia pages we could edit just by using this one issue of SI. Honestly, I had no idea how many we could do, so we set up a deadline of two-months (when the next issue came out) and using the GSoW Facebook Secret Cabal and a Google spreadsheet to keep track, we set to work" as an indicator that they were willing to coordinate editing of Wikipedia articles. - Bilby (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That was coordinated in the sense of some people were using the same reference material (one edition of an RS magazine). Editors would individually find information there that could be used to improve articles. Is something wrong with that? Does it break any rules? How is that different from several other types of editing events we hear about? VdSV9•♫ 12:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It's different because membership in the event wasn't disclosed on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It also wasn't an event. Also, Bilby's quote leaves out the part that it was mostly two people, Susan and David (and a few others). But this sort of "coordination" doesn't break any rules. People say coordination, some think it is some sort of canvassing, while it is nothing of the sort. It is about people discussing off-wiki a way of adding well-sourced information and then doing it. VdSV9•♫ 13:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that's a conundrum. Either it proves off wiki collaboration to edit towards a certain pov, or the source is unreliable and shouldn't be used in articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Just look at the talk page for the article, there has very clearly been a concerted effort to push the psychogenic theory. When there are posts on the talk page like this decrying the suppression of the psychogenic origin hypothesis, or posts like this using language like supposed attacks, it is not "speculation" to point out the coordinated POV pushing. Mlb96 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This whole thing reminds me of how I first heard of the Guerilla Skeptics, when Rupert Sheldrake became convinced that they were controlling his article. It turned out that they hadn't edited it at all. Just because some folks think mass hysteria is more likely then secret microwave laser weapons, that does not mean they are necessarily part of a shadowy conspiracy. MrOllie (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      "Just look at it! It is clear!" and the thing they claimed was clearly so, was in fact not the case all along... @Mlb96: The fact that you find something wrong with the language "supposed attacks" just shows how poorly you understand what is going on. The claims of attacks with sci-fi weapons that have never been shown to exist or to even be physically possible are wild speculations. What you're doing is just casting aspersions. This is ridiculous. VdSV9•♫ 13:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no scientific consensus on what the cause of Havana syndrome is. Therefore, any assertion that any particular theory must be correct, such as what you are doing in this very post, is POV pushing. Mlb96 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may be wrong as I've not attended Gerbic lectures about Wikipedia editing, but my impression is that they attend an introduction, with an encouragement to edit articles including about notable skeptics (not necessarily them). I've sometimes noticed a few WP editors with a mention of the initiative on their user page. From what I see on WP at least, they took some course then appear to be independent editors working where they like. I've noticed that some drafts were sometimes written collaboratively in a user sandbox by two people. Some biographies initially appeared promotional and some suboptimal sources were used; it's something editors learn about when editing Wikipedia. This reminds me of students being assigned to edit Wikipedia, the result is not always optimal (however, those usually are listed as part of an assignment by a tutor, i.e. see WP:EDUP). If specific editors need WP:WARN or reporting, or have an obvious conflict of interest and repeatedly keep editing problematically (an article about themselves, about the org itself perhaps), that should be handled on a case by case basis... Similarly, if some create articles that should be deleted, there's AfD. As others noted, another similarity is WikiProjects. Some of them appear to be WP:SKEPTIC members. I see a claim that it's a large organization. Is it? —PaleoNeonate – 00:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      According to the group, they have 130 members who edit Wikipedia. [30] They have a private Facebook group and use that for continual training, mentoring motivation and coordination after editors complete the initial training program. [31] - Bilby (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      From their FAQ: Do I have to be on Facebook? Yes, we have tried many other ways of communicating, email and a forum. Nothing beats Facebook. You do not have to use Facebook for anything but our Secret Cabal. The way they use the word 'cabal' almost seems like a deflection. But I'm especially concerned about the next entry in their FAQ: I’m an experienced Wikipedia editor, can I join GSoW and skip the training? No. We have found that experienced editors have a very different experience as a team like ours. With very few exceptions we have found that they do not fit in well. We are not “just” editors, we have a different mind-set and focus than a normal editor. We are much more social, use Facebook to discuss, train and motivate. We follow all the rules of Wikipedia, and love normal Wikipedia editors, but we approach things as a team. If you would still like to join us, please do so, but you will not be skipping lessons, will still have to proceed through training like someone who has never edited before. So even if you're a very experienced WP editor who understands and knows how to follow policy, there's still something they insist on 'teaching'? If experienced editors do not really fit in their team, maybe they do not really fit in Wikipedia? To be honest, I get the impression that both their numbers and impact are being inflated by the team 'leader'. But in any case an editing team, in so far as such a thing should even exist, should never be allowed to organize strictly off-wiki. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      After reading Gerbic's long post and now reading the above, my impression is that this conveys that the target is less experienced editors or those who never tried before, the goal being to introduce them to WP. I share part of your concern about WP:CIR, if that's what you mean, on the other hand the WMF itself tries hard to make WP easier to use so it can reach out to less technical people and to most of the world I believe that there's an aspect of elitism felt about WP, its processes, community, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can someone point me to an actual problem as opposed to a potential problem? There is a page of "research" at User:A. C. Santacruz/Research/GSoW by A. C. Santacruz but I don't see anything there that warrants alarm other than the use of Wikipedia to construct a list of bad people. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Echoing Johnuniq, the evidence of actual misconduct is lacking in this thread, though speculation and suspicion is rampant. All the "cabal" jokes are variations of commonplace humor on Wikipedia. Off-Wikipedia communication is common at edit-a-thons, various WMF gatherings, mailing lists, IRC channels, Wikipedia related Facebook pages, and so on. There are some aspects of Gerbic's project that I do like very very much, but I do not claim the right to impose my personal preferences on others without solid evidence of actual misconduct. So, it is time for all the critics to furnish the evidence of the misconduct, or to be quiet. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ultimately, the only way to provide evidence is to prove that GSoW editors are involved. As they don't generally self-identify, that can't be done without evidence that risks outing. And that - as in a lot of COI cases - can't be made on-wiki. Then even if that is managed, somehow, can AN/I effectively sanction an off-wiki organisation of largely unknown editors? If this is ever going to be tackled it will have to be at the level of ArbCom. - Bilby (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Expressing the view that off-wiki editorial coordination should not be allowed is not the same thing as speculation and suspicion. Evidence that this type of editorial coordination is taking place has been brought forward, and the fact that they call themselves a 'cabal' is not taking away anything from that (it's a deflection precisely because of the sarcastic usage of that term on WP). Evidence of negative (or positive) effects on actual articles is all but impossible to gather given the fact that no one knows who is part of the 'cabal'. However, to demand article-related evidence to allow speaking of a "real problem" or "actual misconduct" is special pleading. If (and only if) coordinating off-wiki to edit specific articles in specific ways is misconduct, then this is misconduct, regardless of whether the editing activity has a positive or negative impact. Verifiable impact on articles isn't always a central criterion for conduct issues, and in this case it isn't. Finally, though it may be a genuine question whether coordinating off-wiki to edit specific articles in specific ways should be okay or not, comparing it with edit-a-thons or WMF gatherings is inaccurate and disingenuous. As for whether something can be done here or by regular admin action: the leader of this group is editing here, and could be approached with proposals for more transparency. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I want something much simpler. Is there an article which has had bad content in the last month and where any of the potentially problematic editors have contributed to the problems? Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You know I can read right? You all are talking about GSoW and myself as if I'm not right here, you can ask me if you have questions. This happens from time to time where editors learn about our project and freak out, not over what we do, but over the idea of the possibility of maybe some people might be doing something wrong one day. Really? Listen to yourselves. BTW this challenge happens when some other editor does not like our editors pushing the science narrative on a page, you know, following the rules of Wikipedia. It's "look over there at that person they are a Cabal" not "don't pay attention to me who is trying to add nonsense to a page". Go back to the talk page of Havana Syndrome to see what started this recent drama. You can't stop people from gathering together off Wikipedia to talk about editing Wikipedia, we aren't changing our name either, so what is the point of this discussion? And A. C. Santacruz seriously? You are going to make a list of GSoW editors? What are you planning on doing with that list? Just research? Really? Just FYI you have about two thirds of that list wrong, a couple people on that list are now dead, and some haven't edited with GSoW in years and years but still edit Wikipedia. People come and go, are you going to follow them around Wikipedia and do what, out them? For what? If you have a problem with an editor on a specific page, then deal with them on that specific page. Just like you normally would, cause guess what, we are you. And Bilby , Seriously? Sgerbic (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • How about this interesting remark from User:Sgerbic, the Guerrilla Skeptics' founder on BLPN from April. Let me be crystal clear, if Susan Gerbic really cared about the Susan Gerbic Wikipedia page it would have been rewritten years ago ... correctly and my team would have descended on anyone making changes like rabid space monkeys. Diff [32]. I presume that's Gerbic referring to herself in the third person. Complete archived thread [33] (which is an interesting read). I believe that this notion that she has a team of editors that will or would attack articles on her command is something that the community should be very interested in, whether AN/I is the perfect venue or not. Geogene (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder if we've reached peak ANI when there's a call to consider the grave matter of whether somebody has (not) used their space monkeys to correct their biography? Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You mean, merely possessing an acknowledged army of meatpuppets that you could use, but claim you haven't yet, is just fine and there's nothing to see here? Geogene (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Geogene, what you need to produce here now, is persuasive evidence of meatpuppetry. Bring it forward for evaluation. If you are not able to do so, then please do not persist with unsupported allegations of misconduct. I hope that you understand your obligation to provide persuasive evidence in support of your recent allegations. Once you have provided your solid evidence as opposed to speculation, the community can evaluate your evidence. Maybe you are right. Produce the evidence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I understand it, statements like I have a team that would descend on any editor messing with my BLP like rabid space monkeys is persuasive evidence of meatpuppetry. Saying that you have meatpuppets at your disposal is evidence of meatpuppetry. Geogene (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • It seems that you understand incorrectly, Geogene. In this case, the editor was using routine Wizard of Oz humor to say that other editors would protect her BLP from attack by the type of people that Jimbo Wales called "lunatic charlatans". I hope that you do not deny that these charlatans exist, or that they target Wikipedia biographies like this? Where is the evidence of actual misconduct? Please furnish it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • You interpret that very differently than I do, then, Cullen. Geogene (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, Geogene. I am doing my best to interpret things based on persuasive evidence presented here. In my opinion (I could be wrong based on evidence yet to be presented), you are relying on speculation and innuendo. Please prove me wrong. If you do so, I will be happy to concede your point. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • What are some examples of things that you would find persuasive enough to take action on? What sorts of on-wiki evidence would you reasonably expect a meatpuppetry campaign would leave behind? Geogene (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • We don't normally debate what is inside people's heads—we don't know if it was a joke or an actionable threat. The important point for Wikipedia is whether anything actually happened. Apparently nothing has happened apart from moral outrage. It's up to the accusers to produce an example of bad content. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am asking for is quite simple, Geogene. Please provide diffs of the meatpuppet edits with convincing evidence of meatpuppetry, or refrain from further accusations. I already said that I am receptive to evidence. Please provide it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) If there were any evidence of meatpuppetry, it would have been provided already – perhaps on one of the three occasions when I asked for it in this thread. Instead, we're treated to repeated accusations and vexatious reiteration of the same evidence-free suspicions. Was I asleep for so long that I missed the time when WP:AGF ceased to be a guideline? This discussion has long since run its course and should be closed by an uninvolved administrator. AlexEng(TALK) 07:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Small reminder for everyone to please remember using Template:OutdentA. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the people that are demanding "convincing evidence of meatpuppetry" are unable to define what that might even look like, I will simply remove the conflict area from my watchlist instead. I believe the community as a whole will deal with this problem in due time; it's not my responsibility to demand that now. Geogene (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You want us to speculate on what the evidence that you presuppose exists might look like? How would we know? If there is an evidentiary basis for accusations of WP:meatpuppetry, then you can just lay out whatever you have gathered. If there is no evidence, then why make an accusation in the first place? If I were to come to ANI to discuss an instance of meatpuppetry, then I would be here with diffs and timestamps of 1) specific discussions or RfCs that look like they were influenced by meatpuppets and/or 2) specific edits to articles where it looks like meatpuppets are tag teaming an edit war and/or 3) an influx of new users and SPAs with a specific common goal arriving around the same time with no other reasonable explanation. Did you come to this discussion with any of that prepared? Do you have a different idea of what "convincing evidence of meatpuppetry" would look like that you would like to share with the community here? If the answer turns out to be "nothing," then what was the point of all of this, Geogene? AlexEng(TALK) 09:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The kind of evidence you're asking for is the type that would be appropriate at WP:SPI, i.e., where there are indications of collusion between different accounts without any indication of which organization is behind it. But here we have the exact opposite: we have an organization explicitly declaring that they exist in order to collude on specific Wikipedia articles, but no indication of which accounts are doing it. It is one thing to say that the evidence given is not sufficient to be actionable, and a wholly different thing to say no evidence is given at all. I've already argued above that there may be special considerations to allow an anti-quackery group to do something which we would never tolerate from, say, a pro-fringe group. But it would be incredibly helpful if it would be admitted that the existence of an off-wiki facebook-only editorial group focused on a specific set of controversial articles is a topic worthy of discussion by itself, and not in any special need of SPI-like evidence. Such a discussion may quickly come to the conclusion that it should be allowed, especially if the group's goals align with those of Wikipedia, but at least that would be an honest discussion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The whole Wikipedia editorial corps is (or should be) "colluding" to improve the encyclopedia, and every Wikipedia editor should be "anti-quackery" in line with the relevant PAGS (so yes, we do treat anti-quackery groups differently from WP:PROFRINGE ones; that's one of Wikipedia's best features). It's just GSoW seems to have this particular focus. This has come up from time-to-time over the years, and the pattern this time is the same as before. If there are specific problems (and there may be, such as an in-group bias towards sourcing which would have been okay 10 years ago, but isn't now) - then let's see some specific examples. Wikipedia cannot prevent people communicating on FB. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Cavansing must be "come to this page and make these edits" or something similar, I have seen no evidence they have done this. No direct accusations have been made against any user for being a meat puppet. As such, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, but a lot of "I do not like it" (so actually there is, these accusations violate wp:npa).Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with off-site collaboration is it's difficult to investigate or prove, especially when WP:OUTING is taken into consideration. In this situation the difficulty is compounded because of the fact that the POV, in general, aligns with the views of most editors. I think that we can ignore the possibility of meatpuppeting and collusion until it becomes obvious, and instead just make sure the articles that could be affected are edited in a neutral manner. The biggest problem I've seen is over-reliance on primary sourcing to insert negative content into BLPs. I don't know that this is a concerted effort by GSoW, but it also doesn't matter. Just removing the material and watching the articles often works well enough. If a problem arises from that routine editing, then we can take action in specific cases. I think that looking at Skeptical Inquirer on WP:RSN in relation to it's use on BLPs would be a great step. It ends up being used as a primary source for investigations and sting operations on BLPs. This is a decent example of over-reliance on SI as a primary source, quoting someone who spent her career photographing babies at a department store[34] as an expert of the level necessary to add negative content to BLPs. I think we can all agree that psychics are woo woo bullshit, but that doesn't excuse violating our editing standards. Pinging Sgerbic and Rp2006, as I've mentioned them.

    In conclusion, discuss Skeptical Inquirer on RSN, especially for use on BLPs. It may also be worth discussing if something only covered in a primary source is WP:DUE. In some cases SI's investigations have been covered elsewhere, but if SI is the only source discussing a thing they did, is it really due? Also keep an eye on articles, and clean up as necessary. Doing such will cause problem editors, if any exist in the topic area, to become apparent, at which point they can be dealt with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a great example of the poor editing in this area. This was created as a hit piece in 2018, calling him a convicted felon in the lead with no sourcing, then continuing to assert that in its own section, still without a source that actually supports it. I've cleaned the article a bit in the past, but it still reads like a hit piece. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, do not discourage editors from investigating

    User subpage has been deleted, collapsing tangent from main discussion

    Hi. Just thought I'd leave a comment outside the above discussion. Some users have linked to a user subpage I have created called User:A. C. Santacruz/Research/GSoW. I am highly offended by users trying to rope that into the current discussion. As I see it, the discussion above is about principles. The research I wish to do which is by far not complete and will take quite some time before it is is to see if I can find overlaps between different users to see if there actually is some level of coordination between skepticism-interested editors. It is most absolutely not a "list of GSoW users" or some kind of witchhunt. Notice I myself am in the list of users, as well as highly unlikely GSoW editors such as Ser Amantio di Nicolao. Did I share that page here? No. I definitely did not. Did someone go through my contributions in order to find it (as I hadn't linked it anywhere)? Most likely. This is a blatant offense to my ability to interact on Wikipedia independently through harassment. Let me do my work in silence if I choose to do so in silence, and once I find it is worth sharing I will. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For clarification, I decided to make the page as a subpage of my userpage rather than do the work off-wiki because I believe in making such work transparent, both for peer-review of my methods and as a principle I hold to be as transparent as possible with other editors in this Wiki. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Smells of WP:NOTHERE - and maintaining personal lists of users for possible later busting is something the community can take a dim view of. Conversely, reviewing the contributions of potentially problematic users is not "blatant offense" or "harassment" but fairly routine, especially at ANI. Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A cursory look through my user page should dispel any claim that I'm all bark no write. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 08:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating and maintaining a page with a list of editors which could result in tying them to an off-wiki group or to real-life identities without their consent is in my opinion much more offensive than having somebody draw attention to your public edits in userspace, which you presumably understand you do not own. If I were you, I would ask for the page to be deleted to prevent any unintentional harm. AlexEng(TALK) 08:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AlexEng there is no intention on my part to post private information on editors or tying them to an off-wiki group where I cannot verify their membership. Users above kept asking for evidence that some level of canvassing has happened. This is what I thought was the best way to do so. What others would you suggest? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 08:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I read your silly little list. You might wish to note that Susan, bless her, refused to marry me. Her loss. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Roxy the dog please there is no need for such language. Why belittle me like this. I don't understand. Its not a silly little list, I wanted to do some mathematical analysis on user contributions in skeptic areas but needed to gather a large enough set of users for it to be meaningful. Why is everyone taking it as a personal attack of some sort when even my name is there. I don't understand. I'm just trying to help give some clarity to the whole situation but I get such jerk-like comments from you. Where's the need. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 08:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all harm done is intentionally done. You can just use the user interaction tools available to find suspected instances of canvassing. I think examining actual edits in RfCs and other talk page discussions for evidence of suspected canvassing or meatpuppetry would also be more productive than maintaining a list of users who participate in a specific area of interest. AlexEng(TALK) 08:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, I'll look into that :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 08:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why dont you just join GSoW on bookfarce (now deadbook) and you can find out all you want. I believe they are an open group, and all their discussion is open. Susan seems to take newbies like yourself and turn them into decent wiki contributers. You could do worse. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the reasons for caution here is that FB's "real name" policy combined with sleuthing about Wikipedia editors there is a recipe for WP:OUTING and opposition research activity which is likely to be career-limiting so far an editing here is concerned. Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop making such derogatory comments. It doesn't help the discussion. It doesn't contribute anything. It just serves to make me feel bad and for you to stand on a pedestal. It's completely unnecessary. Please please just stop and find something else to do than entertain yourself at my expense. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless this is being used to build a case it may well violate wp:userpage.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was being used in order to build a case to show evidence of GSoW coordination, but I have since G7 deleted the page. Don't think the attention it is receiving is worth the effort, especially as it is distracting from the main discussion above. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It that case continue, if there is meat puppetry we should know about it (and it should be stamped down upon), but it has to be pretty clear.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Decided to take it offline and will move it to a new user page once I'm done. It's getting some weird attention and weird requests so it's best to build the case and then show how I built it once its done. The thorny replies from roxy, Sgerbic, and others in SGoW do indicate that perhaps there is something to gain from poking around a bit, but I'll wait until I have a very detailed case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the fact that you have pre-decided that you'll have a "case", and that there is "a massive problem"[35] might have led people to suspect this wasn't an entirely impartial endeavour? Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll help you ACS. I am not and never have been a GSoW member. Therefore, please remove my name from your post above. Thanks. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF
    Ironically, it's only two days since an admin warned ACS that your actions at ANI... are becoming disruptive, and need to remind you that we are here to write an encyclopedia. And yet, here we are again. ——Serial 16:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, why are y'all scrutinizing me like this. Roxy was incredibly insulting above in this same thread and now you also begin with ad hominems. Please stop. There is no need for all these personal attacks. Stick to the discussion at hand. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 20:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what Roxy said up there. But making unsupported accusations of personal attacks is itself an aspersion; please be mindful. See WP:WIAPA for details. ——Serial 20:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right! This thread is about scrutinizing people who may possibly violate rules some day in the future, not about scrutinizing people who actually did violate WP:AGF and WP:POLEMIC already. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to ACS, both situations were good faith attempts to help, and that didn't sound like a formal warning that Ritchie333 issued in his capacity as an admin so much as an expression of concern—though he is free to correct me if I'm wrong. My point is that it's not probably not fair to conclude that both events are part of a disruptive pattern. AlexEng(TALK) 19:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An alternative suggestion might be that ACS may need to be encouraged to find their editorial feet before attempting to wade themselves into these murky waters. Not only will the purpose of the project become clear, but they will gain experience of consensus building, action through discussoin, and find themselves able to contribute rather more usefully to meta areas such as this. Unfortunately, we are not at that stge yet. Cheers, ——Serial 19:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued discussion about GSoW

    From the Wired article GW posted above:

    GSoW editors have collectively created or completely rewritten more than 630 Wikipedia pages, which together have garnered over 28 million page visits. They’ve worked in multiple languages in addition to English, including Spanish, French, and Arabic. A private group on Facebook called the Secret Cabal functions as a sort of headquarters, where members discuss edits and decide which articles to tackle next.

    That's an off-wiki canvassing club. That is not like an edit-a-thon or Discord or anything like that. This is a problem because there is no transparency and thus no accountability. Instead of a private Facebook group, they need to set up an on-wiki WikiProject, and have their discussions there. Also I'm wondering if this group is contributing to the overzealous anti-woo we've seen arising over the last couple years, currently being discussed at the Village Pump. It's hard to say without a members list. Levivich 16:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That does read like it might be meat puppetry, but we still need names of people who are clearly acting in that way, not vague assertions. But this does raise some concerns about breaches of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your assessment. Nothing in the quotation that you provided supports or even implies an off-wiki canvassing club. Maybe you could re-read WP:CANVASSING and point out the exact part of the guideline that you think is being violated based on the quoted text. Otherwise, I think you should strike that remark. AlexEng(TALK) 17:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages) Levivich 17:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: maybe I missed something, but I am not grasping where you got Contacting users off-wiki ... to persuade them to join in discussions out of what you quoted in your original comment. Perhaps you would be kind enough to connect the dots for me? Is there another section of the article or some other source where you can see that they are claiming that they canvass their users into discussion threads? Discussing edits off-wiki is not against guidelines. Collaborating off-wiki to decide which articles should be edited is not against guidelines. Stealth-canvassing users to bias and sway discussions to create a false consensus is obviously against guidelines. I don't see anything to support the perspective that that is happening. If you do, please share that with the community. AlexEng(TALK) 18:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (after tiresome edit conflict - why can't we just use a decent free off-the-shelf forum package that has room for an extension for Mediawiki markup?) "A private group on Facebook ... where members discuss edits and decide which articles to tackle next" would certainly seem to violate WP:CANVASSING#Stealth canvassing. How can it not, if it is private? That canvassing is done in a cause that I support doesn't stop it being canvassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little unconvinced that they have as many regular editors on enwiki, to be honest. I have a lot of woo on my watchlist and I haven't really noticed any new editors suddenly appearing on multiple articles - though, perhaps, many of the ones I do keep an eye on have restrictions in place already. To be honest, I wouldn't have a massive problem with a group which was simply dedicated to removing nonsense from fringe subjects, but I'd be far more concerned if they were - as it appears - editing BLPs, especially of those who fall on the "woo" side of reality. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only canvassing if they're doing it to influence the outcome of discussions. That's the crucial bit that's missing in this discussion - some pointer to a discussion that they've tried to influence. For all we know they're just critiquing each other's grammar. It would certainly a bit weird to do that on facebook, but we don't have any rules against it - nor could we effectively enforce them if we did. - MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we do have rules against it, it's stealth canvassing. "For all we know..." is exactly the problem: because it's a private Facebook group, we can't know. GSoW sounds like a laudable group with a laudable goal, but they need to move their activities on-wiki and use WikiProject pages just like Women in Red and Milhist and all the rest. Which articles to tackle should be discussed at the WikiProject page, and how to edit articles should be discussed on the article's talk page. A private Facebook group is not an appropriate forum to coordinate editing, and that's per our canvassing and meatpuppet policies. Levivich 17:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It does all smack rather of something to hide.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a proponent of everything-on-Wiki and scrutiny, I have email disabled and other than my personal notes, my username isn't used anywhere else, I don't use chat, social networks or WP-oriented websites in relation to Wikipedia, I don't even blog about it. I understand that this is not necessarily policy, but for this reason I too encourage members to favor WikiProjects and on-wiki processes. —PaleoNeonate – 22:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 17:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See, these comments are illustrative of my problem with the argument being made, and I haven't seen any supporters of this point of view address it yet. We don't need to know what they're talking about off-wiki. It's not our problem. We need to assume they are acting in good faith until shown otherwise. It becomes our problem when they coordinate off-wiki in an attempt to violate or circumvent PAGs. Nobody in this whole ANI section has pointed to a single violation of WP:PAGs caused by this group – with the pointed exception of suspected meatpuppetry – again, with no proof. "That's suspicious" is not a policy-based argument against off-wiki editing interest groups. If you so badly want this to be against PAGs—it is not currently against PAGs—then you should consider making a reasoned argument for why this behavior should be barred in a policy proposal at WP:VP. AlexEng(TALK) 18:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this argument is pedantic, as it's suggesting that it's not OK to canvass people off-wiki to discussions on-wiki, but it is ok to have the discussions themselves off-wiki, which is nonsensical. And AGF is one thing, but I don't believe they've edited 630 articles in a DS area and have participated in zero on-wiki discussions along the way. Levivich 18:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but we still need actual evidence (not assumption) of wrongdoing. I agree it is odd, but without evidence, it is also not actionable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a minor example, but does it help? Health Freedom Idaho: the article is created by a GSoW editor, then when a new editor disputes the content, three separate GSoW editors revert in minutes of each other, even though none had edited the article in the past, while another asks for protection. - Bilby (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that might well be a good example.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's helpful to have at least something to look at that may be evidence, and I appreciate you providing that. Which of the editors are affiliated with GSoW? The only one I know of is VdSV9, as he chose to disclose that here. Perhaps you could provide some clarity on what happened here, VdSV9? AlexEng(TALK) 19:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is NOT a good example. This seems like a no-brainer. Gerbic already said that her team work on articles together to support one another to produce the best quality material. So once such an article is published, I would think those editors, as well as other skeptics and friends alerted to a new article from Gerbic's social media posts about it (she says she posts often and in many venues), would put it on their watchlists. The Idaho one I think I discovered due to such a FB or Twitter post (or maybe stumbled upon earlier in the year - I don't recall), saw the vandalism by a SPA (HFITruthBeTold), did a revert, and asked for page protection. I have email notices turned on and get notices about edits for HUNDREDS of articles on my watchlist - many I may have not yet edited yet. Why do that? If the topic is of interest and I like the article contents, I take an interest in battling vandalism on it. And BTW, claiming "three separate GSoW editors..." seems to be a claim based on @Bilby: knowing who is on Gerbic's team. Citation Needed! RobP (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps, the announcement that they had created the article, reverted the edits, and were organising to have it protected is here. - Bilby (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like protection was accomplished based on one editor's report at RPP. In what sense did they organize to to have it protected? AlexEng(TALK) 21:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All I know is that they described it as "We got this - so don't panic, we should be able to get the page locked so they can't keep doing this" in the announcement. I assume that this was a reference to the request for protection. - Bilby (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I read the diffs correctly, a GSoW member created the article, and another GSow member reverted POV pushing vandalism to it by an anti-vax SPA. I would say that's a net plus for Wikipedia. The fact that they might have communicated with each other on Facebook isn't concerning to me, since all editors have email and can potentially communicate with each other. I'm not affiliated with this group, and I dislike excessive userboxes, but if there was an "I support the work of GSoW" userbox, I would be tempted to display it on my user page. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the difference between two actions is the difference between a rule violation and a non-violation, then it's not pedantic to point that out. Re: I don't believe they've edited 630 articles in a DS area and have participated in zero on-wiki discussions along the way. – that's a fine opinion to have, but it's not fine to assert it as fact with no proof. It's also not improper for individual editors to participate in on-wiki discussions if they are not in violation of WP:CANVASSING. To wit, a solitary GSoW editor participating in an on-wiki discussion is not a violation. Agree or disagree? AlexEng(TALK) 18:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is how can we be sure that people in this discussion are not undeclared members of this organisation? There is history of off-site coordination of efforts to dictate content on Wiki, which has resulted in colossal and continuing damage to the project. How can we be sure that this is not another EEML. A secret group of self-selected "special" editors who are trying to force there own views on the project is just as damaging as spammers or state-sponsored disruption of the project. GSoW should either move completely on-Wiki or be thrown completely off.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad I picked such a scary name for our off-WP group, The Secret Cabal oooooooo you make us sound so ominous. As I have stated in interview after interview (remember I've been running this for over ten years) I first tried WikiProjects and found them to be overly technical, lousy places for conversations, and dead or dying. And BTW many GSoW are on various WikiProjects, just nothing really happens there.
    I created training for people who have no skills in editing any kind of code. Instructions here on Wikipedia are just giant walls of text to my little brain and freak me out when I encounter them. Plus this weird language you all use, imagine what that looks like to new people trying to make their first few edits. And "new" can mean someone editing for a long time if they are attempting something different than they tried before. I have training assignments that are the ones I would have liked to see when I first starting editing and was nearly banned because I didn't know what the heck I was doing. Tears people, you don't understand how scary you are and how frustrating understanding the culture and rules are.
    Before they join the Cabal they are asked to make an account and make a user page, why is that first? Because I'm training them to be you, to be awesome editors, who exist here for years and years. One of the very first instructions my new people are to learn is how to use Ctrl-F Ctrl-C Ctrl-X then they use Hatnote, which is to listen to Wikipedia, so they learn they are in a world of other editors working to create this amazing website. Next it is to learn how to add a photo to a Wikipedia page, (I've written at least two non-Wikipedia articles explaining this) I am always asking people to upload photos to WMC of odd museums, people ect. I keep a spreadsheet with all the photos waiting to upload, and my new people select the photo to add to the Wikipedia page. SCARY - They move on to learning how to hyperlink, to understand what R/S is and is not. How to cite a source and how to use it multiple times in an article, how to write a lede, how to add an info-box, what do the categories mean and what is a talk page. Common terms that you all use all the time so they can understand this language.
    Training can take up to four months, I work with people one-on-one, in person, over zoom and over whatever social media they are most comfortable with. Along the line I have trained some people to be the most amazing editors that have been here for years, you work with them nearly every day, others have moved on, we work in lots of languages. We have lost many new people because they weren't a good fit, sometimes life interferes, we are real people, just like you all are. Babies, elderly parents, sick significant others, job changes and more. They edit when they can, or not at all, some leave the project, but still edit. Some quit because some of the "senior editors" are brisk, curt and downright rude to new people. Many of you have been kind, helpful and wonderful people.
    Some of my people spend their time here on Wikipedia teaching others, answering newbie questions, others work in other areas of WikiMedia, and remember we are in many languages because it's not just about English.
    The very last assignment for one of our new people is to rewrite a stub, usually something that has been abandoned. I prefer biographies because they have a beginning middle and ending, some but not all are BLP, this really puts all they have learned to work, photos, audio, citations, info-boxes, categories, hyperlinks. We discuss all kinds of things in our Secret Cabal, you would be amazed at the nefarious communications between people. OMG we discuss American English vs Australian English, commas before the citation number or after which is one of my pet peeves, looking now ... someone is discussing an article from WP "Verifiability, not truth" another Cabal member is talking about a critical thinking class they are teaching and the use of WP. Here is another scary discussion on the Afrikaans Wikipedia page for Leflunomide which is a treatment for rheumatic and psoriatic arthritis. Scary stuff.
    Some of these conversations I'm reading here on ANI sound straight out of 2013-2014 when Chopra, Gary Null and Rupert Sheldrake were freaked out that the "Guerilla Skeptics" were changing their Wikipedia pages. OH NO! Editors editing, what's the world come to! The majority of the conversations at the Cabal are from new people who are looking for feedback on how best to word something, and get feedback on the page they are currently working on.
    We are a community of people who enjoy joking with each other, talking about our pets, sharing a coffee or beer when we are in their town. The social aspect that is missing from Wikipedia is strong in our community. I can't prove any of this, except from all the interviews, articles and almost daily postings I do on Facebook and even Twitter talking about it. I have long and short interviews with my team members talking about their training and what it is like to be a GSoW editor, they talk about how important Wikipedia is, following the rules and more.
    So lets get this straight, 25 million page views? Seriously you don't have much Google foo do you (hey that rhymed). I have been all over the social webs talking about how incredible the team is, how I want more people to learn to edit, how basic the training is, and how incredible it feels to improve a Wikipedia page. We have written 1,899 pages so far. Over 45% are in languages other than English. I think I see a couple more finished now but I'm over here dealing with this conversation of people who can't bother to ask me questions and instead are coming up with shadow conspiracy's. Those 1,899 pages have been viewed ... checking now ... 101,189,830 times. So that 25 million is a bit wrong.
    Instead of freaking out on what we might, maybe, someday, possibly, kinda could do, maybe try learning from us. What an idea! Learn from other people! Talk to people, ask questions and assume good faith. You know that is a Wikipedia pillar right?
    We can communicate off Wikipedia so just get over it. And guess what you can also as I'm sure some of you are right now. What about it? Transparency, what does that even mean? We could be writing on Wikipedia Projects and then having a email conversation with another editor at the same time, how would you know? We are as transparent as any other editor, we use the same talk pages you do. You want to make lists of who our people are? Spend hours trying to find one maybe something that sort of sounds like canvassing to throw in our face out of the thousands of edits we make? Really you want to do that with your time? Damn people, I have better things to do. Even this wall-of-text is sucking the life out of me trying to explain to editors something that has been discussed over and over again and there are recent off-Wikipedia sources.
    So, seriously people. Look at who is trying to stir up trouble, draw attention away from what they are doing, point at the scary Cabal people. You got a problem with someone editing a page, take it to talk and deal with it there not making wild accusations over a group that you could understand if you really wanted to, that have been working beside you for ten plus years. You want to talk, I'm here, I'm on Facebook, Twitter and here is my email SusanGerbic@yahoo.com we even have a website and t-shirts. Sgerbic (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh, I take back what I said about a laudable group with laudable goals. Levivich 19:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Levivich: I take this comment to be basically in jest, but I thought I would double-check: is there something substantive (rather than stylistic) in Sgerbic's (rather ranty) post that makes you think the goals are not laudable? --JBL (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JayBeeEll: previously I had thought the enemy was POV-pushing fringe/pseudoscience but after reading more, I wonder whether the real enemy is Wikipedia. The elitism was surprising: "my people" and "my team" vs. "you people" and "you all". Asking if we know what Wikipedia is like for newcomers (as if none of us are/were newcomers), acting as if ordinary editors are a different species of person from "my people". In reality, both GSoW editors and non-GSoW editors come from the same pool of internet-connected English-speaking Wikipedia readers. Dividing one group of editors from another--acting as if we need an elite team of editors because the ordinary mob of editors can't be trusted to edit without supervision--that all reminds me of, well, several other wiki-organizations. That's "walled garden WikiProject" stuff, except it's worse because it's off-wiki. If the group is about making a better Wikipedian via secretive off-wiki training, and then deploying the trainees to edit stuff related to the trainer, then that's not really laudable in my eyes. Levivich 21:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said this before, but yeah the parallels to stuff like EEML is obvious. This should be a Wikiproject, there is absolutely no good reason besides evading scrutiny it isn't. Complaining about Discord is valid if you want to keep everything onwiki, but at least Discord has public archives (and from what I've seen the moderators are generally very good at telling people "this needs to go on-wiki". But again, if that's a problem, it should be dealt with too, not used as a smokescreen to avoid scrutiny here. Frankly the fact that Susan Gerbic's own Wikipedia page was, until the late SlimVirgin valiantly cleaned it up, full of ridiculous puffery is a good enough indication that Gerbic is not the person I want teaching others how to use Wikipedia, especially regarding how cavalier they are above about the concerns listed here. It's corrosive to consensus-building, and their contributions thus far are subpar. Bring it out into the open, or shut it down. We absolutely wouldn't tolerate pseudoscience Facebook groups doing the same thing, because we understand innately the problem with the practice, not just the ideological goals. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet another comment here "their contributions thus far are subpar" that implies not only is there a list of GSoW editors, or at least all the pages that the team has written/edited (and additionally, now the claim that some unbiassed panel have judged their work's quality.) Citation please... or withdraw the arrogant, uninformed claim. RobP (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't yet read the wall of text above, but one minor note. @David Fuchs: are you implying that Sgerbic wrote her own page in violation of WP:COI and WP:AUTO? the fact that Susan Gerbic's own Wikipedia page was... full of ridiculous puffery is a good enough indication that Gerbic is not the person I want teaching others how to use Wikipedia AlexEng(TALK) 21:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe David's implication was merely that the leader of an off-wiki group calling itself a "secret cabal", whose membership is undisclosed, came through some unknown process to have an extremely flattering article describing themselves, the group, and the group's activities at great length, cited to unreliable/self-published sources. We, of course, have no way to determine how this occurred, since the group does not say who its members are (for all anybody knows, I could myself be a false flag agent provocateur of the GSoW sent here to foment FUD). jp×g 21:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no Cabal
    Wikipedia is no place for humour.
    Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.
    Ah yes, we must not joke about the secret cabal. It's deadly serious.
    Anyway, we can all suspect each other of nefarious deeds done in the shadows and call each other double agents and triple agents or whatnot, or we could just assume good faith and not let largely evidence-free suspicion of wrongdoing turn this into any greater a time sink than it already is. AlexEng(TALK) 21:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see how what you've said relates to the statement you're formulating it as a response to. Is your claim that some entity having a silly name serves, ipso facto, as proof of whether or not it engages in behavior related to the name? That is to say, if someone's username was "Sloppy Sawbones", would this constitute proof that they are not a surgeon in real life? jp×g 22:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhh... I think you got that backwards. The fact that an entity has a spooky name does not serve as proof of wrongdoing. It's an obvious reference to a long-standing inside joke on Wikipedia. How one could consider that convincing evidence escapes me. Or if you don't consider that part of your argument, then why did you mention it? AlexEng(TALK) 01:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I will make my comment again without referencing the name: I believe David's implication was merely that the leader of an off-wiki group, whose membership is undisclosed, came through some unknown process to have an extremely flattering article describing themselves, the group, and the group's activities at great length, cited to unreliable/self-published sources. We, of course, have no way to determine how this occurred, since the group does not say who its members are. jp×g 03:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, let's address the meat and potatoes. We, of course, have no way to determine how this occurred ...... and therefore, what? Therefore we should assume that Sgerbic did it? Or summoned her minions to do it for her? Where does this argument lead? AlexEng(TALK) 07:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, the argument is that we have no way of knowing whether Sgerbic' team was involved or not, whereas, if they would be operating on-wiki, we would. There are some who argue that not having a way of knowing is a problem. It's unhelpful to keep answering that by "but do you know of any actual evidence of malfeasance?". We don't claim malfeasance. We claim it's a problem that we would have no way to find out. That has nothing to with assuming bad faith, either. It's been said here that this group may be perfectly innocuous. There's just this thing about their not being open to scrutiny as any other wiki editing-team would, and should. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We'd like them to collaborate on-wiki. -> Why? Provide evidence they've done something wrong. -> Here's some articles with problem editing from what seems to be likely members -> You have no proof they're actually members. -> They collaborate off-wiki, so we can't prove membership. That's why we'd like them to collaborate on-wiki. -> Why? Provide evidence they've done something wrong. -> Here's some articles with problem editing from what seems to be likely members -> You have no proof they're actually members. -> They collaborate off-wiki, so we can't prove membership. That's why we'd like them to collaborate on-wiki. -> Why? Provide evidence they've done something wrong. -> Here's some articles with problem editing from what seems to be likely members -> You have no proof they're actually members. -> They collaborate off-wiki, so we can't prove membership. That's why we'd like them to collaborate on-wiki.
    Seems like a productive conversation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You all forget that there is another danger which may equal that of GSoW. It is me. I know people offline, and some of them agree with me about stuff. Theoretically, I could coordinate with them and canvas them to support me in discussions on Wikipedia pages. There is not a shred of evidence that I did do that, but I could! So, the situation is pretty much the same as with GSoW. I clearly need to be restricted.

    To all those who are suspicious of the "cabal" name: I think I know the reason why that name was chosen. It was to make fun of you. They did not know it would be you specifically, but anybody who finds that name ominous is fair game. There was a chair with a whoopie cushion on it, and you saw the chair and the cushion - which was clearly labeled "whoopie cushion" - you willingly sat on it, and made exactly the noise that was expected. And probably did not even notice it was funny. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not aware that anyone has used the "cabal" name other than supporters of this group. I deliberately omitted it from my edit above in order not to get sidetracked into a straw man argument about this irrelevance. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you are unaware of page search function avail in browsers. User Apaugasma referenced cabal as ominous just above. RobP (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You may not yet be familiar with the long history of Cabal jokes on Wikipedia. AlexEng(TALK) 21:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hob Gadling: as I pointed out above, GSoW's labeling themselves a 'cabal' is a deflection precisely because of the sarcastic usage of that term on Wikipedia. Saying that you're a cabal, on Wikipedia, is practically equivalent to confirming you aren't. Except that this group is really being intransparent. I tend to understand it as doubly ironic, which like a double negation points to an affirmative. The fact that you're so quick to make fun of me in order to sidetrack any possible real issue also speak volumes. Assuming anyone who disagrees with you is dumb, because pro-fringe types are typically dumb, and because only pro-fringe types would disagree with you (right?), is unfortunately fairly typical of multiple fringe-busters around here. I would ask you to take it slower with such assumptions. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe it is not just a deflection, but a deflection of a deflection of a deflection! Or maybe there are even more layers! O noes!
    Come on! This exegesis-based speculation will lead nowhere. You are just hopping on the cushion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing. Pro-fringe types are not "dumb". They just lack one specific skill you can learn: they are bad at knowing if a specific way of reasoning is valid, and they offer one bad reason after another. Since there is no valid reasoning supporting their worldviews, they have no other option (except silence). You may be in a similar situation now, but I have no idea if you are a "pro-fringe type". It simply is not relevant. The only relevant thing is that your reasoning is bad. And the strawman fallacy (I would ask you to take it slower with such assumptions when I did not make any such assumptions) is just another piece of bad reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "ominous", but it is certainly funny. I mean, it's obviously possible for anyone who works at a company to steal office supplies, and any person is as suspicious as any other if there are fewer cartons of printer paper and staples than we expected to have. Additionally, coming up short on printer paper and staples is a fairly normal thing that happens all the time: oftentimes they are just misplaced, or there was a big project that printed a lot of stuff, or management inaccurately estimated how much printer paper would be necessary in any given month. However, let's suppose the following situation: we find out a hundred employees working in that building had formed a disc golf team called the "Office Suppliers", refused to associate with any of the company's other disc golf teams, had monthly meetings and "training programs" for otherwise experienced disc golfers to learn "a different mind-set and focus than a normal disc golf team", and (unlike all the other disc golf teams), and conducted all their business on an external mailing list. If, in this situation, it turned out one of the team members' desks was right in the middle of an area where there was a perpetual inexplicable shortage of printer paper and staples, I think it would be reasonable to at least speculate that something might be going on with that team, or maybe ask for a list of its members. And if it turned out that the team had an extra-secret subgroup called "The Printer Paper Bandits", it would not make them seem less suspicious. jp×g 21:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this invalidated by the fact that no office supplies are missing? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess my question here is what would constitute convincing evidence that the group should be looked into further, since nothing that's been mentioned here seems to move the needle at all. jp×g 20:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any reason to try and tackle this at ANI instead of Arbcom? If we tried to do an examination of the diffs provided here and then worked our way to other interactions between those editors and possibly identified other editors along the way... well, that's a two-week evidence phase right there, before we can even come to any conclusion. And it's highly likely to include some off-wiki evidence anyway since we're talking about off-wiki coordination. So it seems like a job for arbcom to me. Levivich 21:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Levivich: I'd be inclined to agree; the issue ought to be addressed by people capable of interpreting large volumes of evidence and rendering a neutral decision. I think the only possible outcomes from an ANI thread this large are "sounds confusing, no action taken" and "sounds bad, everyone involved with the group is dramatically defenestrated". Neither seem terribly good for anyone involved; this seems to be a group of otherwise productive editors who have some issues, not a group of aggressive malefactors who all need to be c-banned etc. jp×g 21:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: I don't see any way this doesn't have to end up at ArbCom, although a lot more legwork is going to have to be done to demonstrate the problem in terms of diffs. Likewise given the whole "we 'train' people off-wiki" even if a bunch of people get sanctioned it's likely only going to be a temporary fix unless they are defanged via other means (like a proper appraisal of whether their favored sources are really RS for our purposes.) I didn't get much useful input at the last RSN post I started. 21:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    Literally the only thing that needs to change here is for them to create a WikiProject so that their discussions occur on-wiki. The absolutely ridiculous amounts of pushback on this, alongside the screed posted above, just make me even more skeptical that this group has the encyclopedia's best interests at heart.
    I'm also pretty appalled at the course of the conversation above regarding User:A. C. Santacruz. Editors kept asserting that there was no evidence, but when someone tried actually collecting some evidence, those editors then attacked that user. I find it especially ironic that User:Alexbrn stated that reviewing the contributions of potentially problematic users is not "blatant offense" or "harassment" but fairly routine, when that seems to be exactly what A. C. Santacruz was attempting to do. Mlb96 (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is something a little confusingly circular about the argument that "no misfeasance can be proven, because nobody can name names, because the group's membership is unknown, because trying to find out who its members are is an act of bad faith, because no misfeasance can be proven, because nobody can name names, because..." et cetera. jp×g 03:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why standard procedure is to focus on problems regarding article content rather than hypotheticals (what if this group did something bad). I asked for examples of related bad content but haven't seen any. This entire discussion is pointless unless some examples can be produced. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It remind me of those endless futile discussions on WP:COIN based on the misunderstanding that a COI is a problem. It isn't, but inappropriate editing rooted in a COI is. Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The idaho example was literally part of the discussion. And y'all are refusing to consider our reasoning of Probatio diabolica as long as members aren't disclosed on-wiki due to OUTING. I don't even know what examples y'all want outside of sgerbic literally saying "yo guys lets canvass right here right now" and 10 people being like "sure boss". A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 07:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Anything skeptics would be interested in" since 2011 is a large area to search. If we had an account and/or topic list it would be a lot easier. But as Black Kite commented above, maybe there isn't much to the story. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As at COIN, the speculations about off-wiki life is futile and possibly self-destructive. It boils down to showing editor A did bad things X,Y and Z with evidence and pursuing action on that basis (the recent ARS thread here also makes an interesting parallel). Wikipedia isn't going to start maintain lists of prohibited organizations or trying to shut down FB groups. Alexbrn (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue I am aware of is editing with a COI without declaring the COI, in particular editing BLPs of people they are actively opposing off-wiki. It is possible that there is coordination of edits on-wiki, but unlike EEMP there's no smoking gun to show this. As with COIN, the reason why I really don't think this is the correct forum is the only way to give examples is to identify the editors as members of GSOW, and that can't be done without outing. Thus I guess the only likely outcomes are that one day they will choose to self-identify and follow COI, so that this becomes moot; it will one day progress to a point where it has to be handled by ArbCom; or we will never be able to tackle this, and we can hope that the practice doesn't expand to other organised groups. (I note, on that score, that I have seen attempts to make similar groups on the other side, based off this model, and at one stage there were ads on Upwork asking to hire WP experts to train Ayurveda practitioners, so I guess that's just a matter of time). - Bilby (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably any such COI would only apply to articles on GSoW and its members, since being properly skeptical ins't a COI, but just an indication of being able to think rationally. Frankly, I give zero fucks if GSoW want to write exposés of fake cancer cures or other kinds of woo, but reviewing some GSoW contributions, something which does concern me is where it the activity crosses over into political hit-pieces. As you know Bilby I am a firm supporter of upholding WP:FRINGE-compliant treatment of fringe matters in BLPs - but it must be done scrupulously and something like this looks like it's gone too far. Since, for maybe understandable reasons, all the political editing traffic from GSoW is one-way (insofar as I understand USA politics, this seems so) - this could also have the effect of bringing Wikipedia into disrepute since the story that a group is organizing to take down certain politicians via Wikipedia could be widely resonant. Alexbrn (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Bilby. What COI do cabal members have exactly? You never said. (Note to cabal members, the brown envelope in the gents at Victoria Sation payment method appears to have beeen rumbled. Suggestions? PayPal anybody?) Remember, Tinc. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 08:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexbrn, yes, I completely agree that simply editing on skeptical topics would not be a COI, and I have no issue with them writing about fake cancer cures or similar. My comment only concerns their "sting" operations which they have run against mediums and articles about direct GSOW members or major friends/supporters of GSOW. I had not specifically considered the Heidi H. Sampson situation, but I agree that you have a point there as well. - Bilby (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I think this needs to go to Arbcom as we do not have the tools to look into this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    All we can do without access to private information is see if there's a consensus that off-wiki organizing that could be done transparently on-wiki should be done on-wiki. If the community is okay with that type of organizing, why even go to Arbcom? Also, is there any indication that anyone has private evidence to be submitted to Arbcom, because they won't do the investigation themselves. I think the best bet, for now, is to monitor the articles for NPOV issues, and seek action against individual editors that are editing poorly. I've pointed out this diff upthread, which is an NPOV hit piece with a HUGE BLP violation that remained in place until I removed it a few months ago. That is the type of NPOV editing in this area we should be focusing on. Just look at the history of that article and see all the NPOV trash that was removed. There's plenty of bad editing in the topic area that we can deal with now, that doesn't involve private evidence or off-wiki sting operations, or clandestinely joining an off-wiki group to discover the membership. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For an NPOV puff piece, consider Peter Gleick, who was a keynote speaker at a conference sponsored by an organization Sgerbic founded (Monterrey County Skeptics). Large amounts of WP:SPS citations and the weird sentence in the lead "In 2014, The Guardian newspaper listed Gleick as one of the world's top 10 'water tweeters.'". There's more I'm working through compiling but this one really shocked me with how much it breached the non-notability concerns raised in the talk page in years prior. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 12:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what this article (which has existed since 2006) has to do with GSoW, but Gleick is easily notable. There appears to have been an issue in the past with the article subject editing his own bio. Alexbrn (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sgerbic runs GSoW, and an organization she founded sponsors a conference he was a keynote speaker at. She participated in the talk page for years before that fact. I'm not saying he isn't notable, but large parts of the article are SPS or vaguely related academic papers (such as the UN part). The list of honors is similarly unnecessary, with many of them seeming completely unnotable (Xylem 25 water heroes, for example). These parts were added after his participation in the Skeptic conference, so some connection with GSoW is quite likely. He is most definitely notable. Many things in his article? Not so. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    'connection with GSoW is quite likely' - see, this is the kind of thing that is weakening your argument. We can't assume that sort of thing without evidence. In this case, the Xylem Water Heroes line was added in 2012, years before this 2019 conference you're concerned about. - MrOllie (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any evidence of recent, problematic edits at Gleick. Here is an example of a GSoW edit I find problematic [36]. It's Gerbic adding (likely with UNDUE emphasis) astronomer David Morrison's co-hosting an episode of Nova, a very high profile PBS program with no connection to the paranormal or skepticism. It's sourced to that astronomer's piece in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, which is published by an organization called the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Morrison and Gerbic are both Fellows of that organization [37]. Are Guerilla Skeptics overusing Skeptical Inquirer magazine articles written by other Fellows of the CSI in other articles to the point of UNDUE, or is this an isolated example? The addition was recently contested on the Nova talk page by a random editor, and here is Gerbic's response [38]. Geogene (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed that section. There's no reason for a single episode review, especially when added by someone with a COI regarding the source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Nova has been around for many decades now, imagine if every episode needed that much detail. Geogene (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    this diff shows all that has been added to Gleick's article since the conference, with the major source of my complaint being done by JohnMashey in these edits, who is a technical consultant for the parent company of Skeptical Inquirer and a colleague of Sgerbic. The sources are overwhelmingly SPS in majority. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that the right diff? Because the sourcing isn't "overwhelmingly SPS in majority" in it. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that account as being a major contributor to the article. [39] I do see a lot of IPs though, and I doubt those are part of GSoW's activities. Geogene (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He has contributed almost 40% of text per the xtools you linked.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how I misread that output, but you're right, he's #1 by authorship. Geogene (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Geogene's question above Are Guerilla Skeptics overusing Skeptical Inquirer magazine articles written by other Fellows of the CSI in other articles to the point of UNDUE, or is this an isolated example? Yes, they absolutely are. It's what Gerbic calls "backwards editing": starting from reading a skeptical source and then finding a WP article in which it could be cited. From an article she wrote about this in the Skeptical Inquirer: This is usually the opposite way a traditional Wikipedia editor would work. Normally an editor will start with a Wikipedia page and look for citations that can be used on it. Backwards editing [...] can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications. I call this preaching beyond the choir. [...] We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists. [...] This style of editing is really just a matter of browsing through notable magazines, podcasts, books, and journals, and then finding a way to add them correctly to an existing Wikipedia page. If you can manage to do as the examples above and insert skepticism onto a page that would normally have no ties to the world of the weird, then even better. Skeptical Inquirer has a potential of hundreds of Wikipedia edits in each issue. It just requires someone to add them in. Of course this might be overwhelming for most people, the GSoW project teaches this skill during training. Basically, Gerbic in this article, and apparently through the GSoW group, is calling for WP:UNDUE WP:SOAPBOX editing on a massive scale. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I call it a possible violation of wp:not, as this seems to say they are using Wikipedia as a means of promotion (and maybe wp:linkspam).Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to both. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Try this one on for size. COI with the source? Check. Poor sourcing for a medical article? Check. Tangentially related to the section it's in? Check. Makes sure to mention the author's name and the publication name? Check. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to raise the possibility this also creates a clear COI as they are adding material they (or those they know) have written to promote themselves or publications they have written for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would lead to it being a COI GSoW to use the source, as she's basically training editors to linkspam for her. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Radford is (was?) the editor of Skeptical Inquirer and so would have had a role in approving Sgerbic's articles and contributions to the site. Ignoring GSoW, should some kind of sanction be proposed towards Sgerbic for this kind of editing behaviour? I don't really know how situations of COI like this one that extend over years are dealt with. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be utter madness. Are you seriously suggesting that if I, for example, insert a source that was written by an editor of a journal in which I've published that I have a conflict of interest? I smell a witch hunt. You are advocating an extremely shameful position, as far as I can tell. jps (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well first off that would be (in effect) an SPS, the editor writing for the magazine they edit. Yes (by the way) A COI is one in which you add material that is by (or about) "yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships".Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets say there's a magazine run by Group A. You're a member of Group A, as is the editor of the magazine. That editor publishes your work in the magazine run by the group you're a part of. You run around Wikipedia inserting links to the magazine that publishes your own work, run by the group you're a member of and edited by a member of the same group, who also is in charge of publishing your work in the magazine. That seems like UTTER MADNESS! (lightning flashes, thunder crashes) Extremely shameful!!! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, let's give you an example. I am a member of the American Astronomical Society. They publish Sky & Telescope, The Astrophysical Journal, and a number of other magazines and jourals. I run around Wikipedia inserting links to these pieces. They have published my own work, they are run by AAS and they are edited by a person who knows me personally (are we friends? Well, we've had dinner). Are you scandalized by that? jps (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends, do you edit to improve the exposure of publications like ApJ? There's also quite a bit of daylight between a peer reviewed academic journal and a magazine published by a skeptic group. I would have to review your edits in relation to those publications to form any real opinion, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly would like to include more ApJ articles in Wikipedia as I think that improves articles. So, yes, I edit to improve the exposure of ApJ. I'm not sure that there is "quite a bit of daylight" here between peer review at ApJ and the review at SI. After all, most of the material SI is interested in is not related to peer-reviewed academic work but rather debunking and popular approaches to topics. So, per WP:PARITY, they tend to be a pretty damn good source in WP:FRINGE articles. The fact that you are even entertaining that this is similar is indicative of how ludicrous this discussion is. It is essentially the cult of the amateur. jps (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you ever say to your students, This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like ApJ as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    jps you can't be seriously accusing me of a witch hunt, are you? Is your comment above serious? Due to neurodivergence I'm bad at understanding sarcasm so I need some clarification here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely am. If that was not your intention, that's understandable. But I see this as the impact especially of the claims above. jps (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a ludicrous and officious reading of COI that has been roundly rejected by the consensus of Wikipedians over the years. A conflict of interest needs to be direct. It does not arise when you simply are writing in a field in which you are an expert, for example. If I write about astronomy, am I hamstrung from adding sources just because I'm friends with many of the authors? That's an outrageous position to take and one that is not even close to being reasonable. Moreover, there is no sense in which a piece published by a journal editor is ever considered "self-published". I cannot even believe I have to write this. C'mon Slatersteven, I thought you were getting better with these competence issues. jps (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be a COI if, just purely hypothetical. You were a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, who's magazine is Skeptical Inquirer, and maybe you also write articles for the Skeptical Inquirer too. And you trained people to "backwards edit" to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer? Would that, maybe, possibly, be a slight COI? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's pretty clear that I do something equivalent to that. It just happens to not be in a topic area that is (right now) particularly controversial on Wikipedia (though there was a time when editing articles like redshift and Big Bang was subject to much controversy and this conversation very much feels like a throwback to those discussions). So I don't know, if you think that improving the encyclopedia in such a fashion is a "slight COI", then I'm duly disgusted by this line of reasoning. It's equivalent to saying that experts are no good at being editors because they get paid to know about the subject they're editing. jps (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think someone can say This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists. and not think that their adding it to articles and training others off-wiki to add it to articles is proof of a conflict of interest, I just don't think we'll see eye to eye on this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find absolutely nothing fucking wrong with promoting reliable sources. It's not a proof of "conflict of interest" to encourage people to consider reliable sources. jps (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • GSoW is no different than a class that meets, discusses Wikipedia editing, and gives assignments to edit Wikipedia. We are not equipped to do anything about that sort of off-wiki action. Unless and until violations of WP:PAGs are actually documented with something like diffs (as they were in the EEML case), this is a nothing-burger. If you suspect canvassing, show where it has happened. If you suspect tagteam editing, show where it has happened. But complaining about the editorial philosophy or off-wiki coaching or facebook groups is eye-rollingly absurd. jps (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      A class that meets, someone who works for a magazine gives out a copy of that magazine, tells people to find articles where they can insert references to it, tells skeptics in the same community that they have their back and will work to edit their Wikipedia articles when they're going to have media attention.
      If someone who worked for any other publication had a class where they handed out copies of their publication and trained people to "reverse edit" and find places to insert cites to their publication it would be utter madness and extremely shameful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This happens all the time as I pointed out above. I tell my students to insert citations to ApJ all the time. Should I be banned? jps (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you a Fellow? Do they pay you? When students edit, do they identify themselves as taking part in a class? Do the students edit the article about you? When one student's edit is reverted, does another student come along and reinstate it? Do students !vote in discussions together without disclosing they're students from the same class? These are key differences. Levivich 15:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I have received fellowship money. Does that make me a fellow? It makes me "paid", I think. No, students do not always identify themselves. I can't control what my students do. Inasmuch as an article may be about research I have done, I suppose they may be editing articles about me. I have no idea if one student's edit is revert if another comes along to reinstate it. Do you have any evidence whatsover that this is what GSoW is doing? I also don't know about !votes. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is happening with GSoW? So I see no key differences here... only mild dissembling. jps (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      See [40] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Seen and scoffed at for being unimpressive. If we were to follow your blinkered vision of COI, then I would be banned from adding content to astronomy articles, I'm sure. Your position that we are talking in circles isn't born out by the fact that I'm presenting myself as the case study. Go ahead. Make the case or explain how it is different at all. jps (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      What is ApJ?A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 15:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That depends, are you also a fellow of the group that owns and publishes APJ, as well as being commonly published by ApJ, and do you tell the students to find articles where they can insert the citations so they can improve the exposure of publications like ApJ? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      ApJ = The Astrophysical Journal. I have received fellowship money from AAS which publishes ApJ. I definitely tell students to prefer articles published by ApJ over many other kinds of sources and have pointed out which articles may benefit from citations to ApJ... in hopes of improving the citations in Wikipedia and, yes, hoping to convince others to use this level of quality citations. Is that bad? jps (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gerbic has been citing Radford often lately. Apparently he's being presented in Wikipedia not just an expert in the epidemiology of anorexia,[41] he's also an expert in explosives detection.[42] And as mentioned, he's also a Fellow of CSI [43] and Sgerbic is #3 in authorship at his article [44]. Other times she's cited him on the same day [45], [46], although those last two are legitimate Fringe/Paranormal domains (evil clowns and psychics). Geogene (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In at least one instance I will deal with here, you are essentially engaging in WP:PROFRINGE WP:ADVOCACY. Pretending that adding a source debunking dowsing is claiming that the source is written by an "expert it explosives detection" is a misleading canard. Radford is an expert in detecting cons and scams like dowsing. You don't need to be an expert in explosives detection to identify the issues there, and the source included in that instances is about as good as it gets when WP:PARITY is concerned. Now, would I necessarily include a quote and phrase it that way? Maybe not. But that is a WP:STYLE question. It is not a substance question. However you seem to have assumed that the only way to know whether dowsing works is whether an "explosive expert" can confirm/deny its efficacy, as your final clause seems to argue that dowsing is not legitimately included in the Fringe/Paranormal domain. jps (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break (GSoW)

    Seriously People - I can't even find the edit on this thread that goes on forever! I just wake up right now to see three messages from Santa Cruz proposing deletion of Wikipedia pages I've worked on, the same Santa Cruz that only yesterday started a hit piece of proposed people who might be or might have been involved in GSoW. This is okay by you all? Really Santa Cruz? What are you all doing? Is this how you act? Who are you people? I wake up to this conversation and it reads like people from some 1950 Gladys Crabiss peeking out the window at your neighbor nightmare. I'm so disappointed in Wikipedia, in you, this is wrong.Sgerbic (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference, the pages are Taner Edis, Dave Thomas (skeptic), and NZ Skeptics. I have also speedy-D tagged Skeptics in the Pub. That work is not part of a discussion on your editing behaviour. I am just tagging pages which do not seem notable as prod under notability criteria. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh REALLY you just happened upon those pages huh? Wow what's the odds of that happening, maybe something paranormal we should alert James Randi? Sgerbic (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is I did not tagged them as PROD because of your editing behaviour but because of their worth as articles in-and-of themselves. They are not cited to non-biased sources as notable. They are filled with partisan sources. I expected thus PROD to be the best way as the deletion criteria are clear. However, Roxy the dog has deleted those tags so I will now go on AfD, where I expect a WP:SNOW close as to their current state.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe Roxy the dog should call in the article rescue squadron to help prevent the articles from being deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @A. C. Santacruz: For clarity, I should point out that I also removed a PROD, as did an administrator, with the edit summary don't use SD for ANI drama. Another admin warning... ——<spanstyle="color:blue">Serial 16:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'm sorry, I thought that when people above said we should instead of discussing here we should deal with articles on a case by case basis that I should do that. I'll wait a bit then. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is twice Santacruz within 24 hours that you have gotten "messages" from this thread about what YOU should do. I think you need to stop listening to your third eye. Obviously you are putting up pages for PROD and AfD in the hopes you will draw out GSoW editors so you can add to your little list. Sgerbic (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times have you gotten "messages" from this thread about what YOU should do? Levivich 17:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I make mistakes, I am called out, I apologize and learn, and move on. I don't believe I've made the same mistake twice and greatly appreciate feedback on my editing. You on the otherhand are immensely dismissive of any feedback or concerns about you and your group's editing to the point of insulting me and others. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 18:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, my name is Santacruz not Santa Cruz. I'd appreciate you calling me properly Sgerbic. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 18:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The last two days has been a non-stop attack on me and GSoW, one of you was talking about how I shouldn't be training, and how we do shoddy work, funny that considering we have written 1,900 pages now and that person seems to have evaluated all that work in such a short time. I opened my heart to you all and explained how we work, how I train, many of these people come from the beginnings of using computers, people who don't know how to use ctrl-f shortcuts, and how text instructions are confusing to people. And I guess that went in one ear and out another with you all. I explained how new editors are run off because of this weird language you use with them, and how your actions can appear to be curt and rude when working with new people. You didn't say anything about that at all, just more and more and more attacks on me and the people I've trained. What is wrong with you people? I can't even get a comment in here without a edit conflict, is this a Twitter thread?Sgerbic (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A few times today I have had edit conflicts, which is part and parcel of cometary here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    If this was a fully peer-reviewed magazine of a widely respected professional body that was only used for information about its area of expertise (written by acknowledged experts, in those fields), we would not be having the conversation. This does not pass WP:MEDRS yet appears to have been used in medical articles (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    One place we do relax sourcing standards a bit is in responding to fringe material from trash journals (WP:PARITY). Of course Skeptical Inquirer should not be cited for medical claims aside from that limited circumstance. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huge section noted. Trying to cut through to twoish key questions:
      1. I've seen many threads above the GSoW, and cannot recall any self-identified members other than sgerbic and the handful identified in articles about the group. I cannot recall any definitive articles improved other than those mentioned in said articles. I cannot recall any evidence about any coordination outside of speculation and insinuation. Could someone summarize what concrete evidence there is not just that the group exists but that there is off-wiki coordination? Any evidence that anything happens off-wiki other than training, conversation, plans to improve articles, etc. (which can be said about absolutely ever Wikimedia chapter and many user groups, by the way)?
      2. Any talk of off-wiki coordination, especially large-scale coordination, and especially in controversial topic areas, is absolutely a legitimate concern. We're a [relatively] small community of volunteers, with ever-decreasing numbers of admins. We're fighting against the odds against outside several things. Other than the influence of money (not an issue here), our most glaring weakness is off-wiki coordination. We wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't investigate any such claim. That the framing and communications around GSoW are provocative doesn't help. Whether or not it was really intended as provocative is sort of beside the point, as it makes a point of being secretive, it has a name drawn from warfare, and at least in this thread its only spokesperson is largely dismissive of concerns expressed. I get that Wikipedia isn't actually a very good platform for new users to communicate on. When I train new users, it's inevitable that they become comfortable editing articles long before they feel comfortable using talk pages and otherwise communicating with others. That said, while I may have missed it, I haven't yet seen what reason there is not to list members' pseudonymous usernames on-wiki. Given how much concern has been expressed, what is lost by encouraging people to preserve their anonymity but to disclose their username/membership? There are enough good contributors active in these topic areas that attempts to smear someone just because they're a listed member would almost certainly fail or backfire, unless there were [again] concrete evidence of coordination to influence a discussion. I suppose I may be too optimistic, but it would probably go a long way towards building trust. There will still be those who think Wikipedia is too hard on crystal healing and telekinesis articles, but that's a hassle all of us get when editing those articles... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Rhododendrites, as for your point no. 1: according to GSoW's FAQ, you can only be a member if you're on facebook, and all communications are strictly on a private facebook group. According to the same FAQ, an experienced WP editor can only become a member if they follow their full training program. Ever heard of a Wikimedia chapter that trains experienced editors? But Wikimedia chapters are also organized locally or geographically, while this group is organized around a certain POV (scientific scepticism). Elsewhere, part of what they insist on training editors in appears to be "backwards editing", i.e., a style of editing that is really just a matter of browsing through notable magazines, podcasts, books, and journals, and then finding a way to add them correctly to an existing Wikipedia page. If you can manage to do as the examples above and insert skepticism onto a page that would normally have no ties to the world of the weird, then even better. Skeptical Inquirer has a potential of hundreds of Wikipedia edits in each issue. It just requires someone to add them in. Of course this might be overwhelming for most people, the GSoW project teaches this skill during training. Naturally, any experienced editor would immediately recognize this as WP:UNDUE WP:SOAPBOX editing, so perhaps that is why the GSoW has found that they do not fit in well?
      But really, what would one expect from an off-wiki group organized around a certain POV? Isn't it natural for them to be at the wrong side of WP:NPOV at times? Why should such a natural expectation be dismissed as speculation and insinuation? Are there other strictly off-wiki groups organized around a certain POV? Would we tolerate them, say a strictly off-wiki group focused at 'improving' articles related to Israel and famous Israelis? Wouldn't some alarm bells go off? That's really all that's happening here: some editors think it obvious that such a group should collaborate on-wiki rather than on facebook, while some others ... do not seem to want to see the point. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Go write on the blackboard 1000 times, "Our community cannot control what people do off-wiki". Then come back. If there are on-wiki problems that are documented, then let's see them. So far, I've seen a lot of noise and concern over off-wiki action and not a lot of diffs presented that are demonstrably problematic. Oh, Sgerbic inserted a reliable source in an article? Great! Oh, someone else didn't think it was a good source and they removed it and she didn't revert war? Great! Evidence needs to show that the encyclopedia is being harmed or else it's not evidence of anything except a vain hope to control what cannot be controlled. jps (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      jps, regarding go write on the blackboard 1000 times: I would like you to stop for a moment and reflect on how you would feel when other editors would address you this way. That's not cool.
      Aside from that, I think in general you may be right that there's something of a vain hope to control what cannot be controlled at play here. But there's a crucial difference: normally, when off-wiki groups on reddit/facebook/et al. (the ones we can't control) are campaigning for something, it is automatically assumed to be a problem, and editors, admins and CU's alike are on the alert for puppets, both meat and sock. It's not because we can't control them that we approve of them: in most cases, we definitely don't. But GSoW is not like that: some of their editors (notably, their leader) have declared themselves on-wiki, and we do generally approve of them. Now we would also like to control them, which should be perfectly possible: they just need to take their collaboration on-wiki. They, or Sgerbic, doesn't want that because she doesn't like the way the wikimedia software works, and because of the toxic atmosphere between editors. Both are valid objections, but the question is whether that weighs up against the problematic nature of editorial anonymity. I think it doesn't, you may think it does. If we could only have had a civil discussion about that, this thread wouldn't have been so long, and we may have actually gotten somewhere. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikimedia chapters are also organized locally or geographically Yes, but they are ALSO organized thematically, such as meta:WikiProjectMed. Being a thematic organization is not evidence of a POV in Wikipedia terms, and has been well established for many years, "believing in science" and "believing in medicine" do not qualify as viewpoints that violate the NPOV policy. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TL:DR An editor on Havana Syndrome wants to keep mass psychogenic illness from the lede of the article, felt that I and others have a COI and after a lot of drama on that talk page, eventually made its way to ANI where it has become a hell of attack on myself and the GSoW. Editors hearing about it for the first time are freaking out, though we have been working alongside as normal editors for over ten years. A new English account heard that she was responsible for investigating who is a part of GSoW and made up a list of people, dragging in a lot of names that have nothing to do with anything other than lots of editors have the same interest in pages. Now that same editor is attempting to out GSoW editors to add to the (now hidden) list by PROD and AfD articles she thinks are associated with GSoW. Other editors are upset because they don’t understand humor and think we really are a cabal. There is a lot of nastiness and attacks on the quality of my editing and how I train new people and the work GSoW does, but they know this somehow without knowing what pages GSoW has edited. All the while the first editor from Havana Syndrome is hopping around having the best day of their lives seeing this happen and no one is paying attention to their edits. And it has so many posts that even you can’t read through it, I can’t find the edit button quickly as we are on page three and we have edit conflicts and misunderstandings every few paragraphs. That about sums it up. Sgerbic (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutrality has been an active contributor to Havana syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) so I hope they don't mind this ping to ask them if they want to chime in with any thoughts about whether there's anything happening at that article worth discussing at ANI. Levivich 17:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the recent action by Santa Cruz in the last few hours explains why GSoW isn’t going to be providing them or anyone else with a list of who is on or not on the GSoW team. This isn’t the first time we have been hounded, right Bilby? Why make it easy for someone unhappy with people who edit pseudoscience pages trying to make sure they reflect the scientific consensus? We list our names and we will just be further attacked as has happened today. No thank you. Sgerbic (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to reconsider. Moving the group on-wiki to a WikiProject (where editors could still be pseudonymous) would be better than having an arbcom case opened about COI editing by editors who have already identified themselves on-wiki as GSoW members. Better for Wikipedia, better for GSoW, better for everyone. Levivich 17:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously haven't been reading my posts here Levivich. Wikipedia is a horrible place for training, no socializing, no fun, and just attacks by other editors. Plus then if there is a list of us, then we will be attacked further. Editor Santacruz just in the last 24-hours has tried to list us, drawing in other editors who would have to disprove that they are GSoW (proving a negative) and now this new move. WE are normal Wikipedia editors and are also listed on many different WikiProjects, they are text heavy, require a lot of editing skills that new people don't have yet, and they are almost all dead. All we do is what Rhododendrites just stated in their first paragraph. I'm not going to ask my new people to claim GSoW when they are going to be attacked. What planet are you on? Sgerbic (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had half an eye on this ever-increasing thread. Can I just say that my experience has been very different from your own, in terms of the training/socialising side of things? I've been through a number of training courses here on-wiki. When I was a newb, I did the WP:CVUA course, and starting training other people. I then did WP:NPP school. I became an WP:SPI clerk, and was trained in that, and since I was given WP:Checkuser privileges, I have received training in that too. Some of the actual training for the latter two was conducted off-wiki, for reasons that should be obvious, but they were coordinated through relationships I'd built up with people on-wiki - partly through training, partly through collaborating on articles, and partly through friendly talk-page discussions. As for the social side, I've forged real-life friendships with people I've met here. I've been to social events formally organised on-wiki, and less formal ones where two or three of us just email each other and go to the pub. One editor I met here has even stayed in my house, while on a visit to my town. There's a lot more to this site than ANI drama, if you start talking to people. Girth Summit (blether) 18:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sgerbic, I've been reading your posts. I was surprised to read Transparency, what does that even mean? coming from a skeptic. Transparency means accountability. For example, knowing whether anyone editing a BLP has any personal connection to the subject. Or knowing whether two editors !voting in the same discussion have a connection to each other. What I'm trying to convey to you is that a page like WP:Women in Red is a far better option for GSoW than a page like WP:EEML. Levivich 18:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sgerbic, re: edit conflicts/replying: turn on the "Discussion tools" beta feature (Preferences>Beta features>Discussion tools), which adds a [reply] link to each signed comment. You won't have to scroll up to find the section header to edit, and usually won't run into edit conflicts. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My involvement in various pseudoscience articles (Ayurveda, COVID-19 lab leak, Shiva Ayyadurai, etc.) should speak to where I stand on these issues. I'm not particularly perturbed by the existence of an off-wiki group aimed at improving fringe articles, per se. If the edits are consistent with PAGs, what's the problem? However, the segment Apaugasma cites regarding tactics—We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.–is completely at odds with our COI guidelines, e.g., WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:SELFCITE, and seriously runs the risk of introducing WP:UNDUE content. I think addressing this major concern is essential. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Girth – I adore socializing. I also adore Scotland and loved York, would go back today if I could, I have great friendships in the area. Wikipedia frankly does not make socializing easy. You have had great experiences editing and learning here. You also are an engineer. I have trained a lot of those, and they pick up the coding very quickly but a lot of the nuances not so quickly. I specialize in training people who can use a computer somewhat, but have never attempted to do anything as big as edit Wikipedia. This is a very scary place for a lot of people. You don’t run into them often because … they aren’t here because learning to edit Wikipedia is a scary task. When you open your second eye to read this nightmare of drama thread, you will probably notice that I keep making this point. Who wants to be threatened and attacked if found to be on an editing team?

    Sgerbic, I think it's great that you enjoy spending your time teaching people how to edit, and that you've been doing it for so long. When I skim through this thread though, if I filter out some of the more extreme positions a few people have taken, I get a general sense that quite a few people are... unsettled by the fact that there's no way of seeing who you're training, or how you're training them, and they feel that it would be better for some at least of that activity to be coordinated on-wiki. Now, I can completely understand why a complete newb, who can't write wiki-markup at all, would need to start out off-wiki. I've spent time with total newbs off-wiki doing that exact same thing - this is how to go into edit mode, this is how to make a change, this is a talk page, etc. That's all good. Since you are in effect though running an off-wiki WikiProject, it really might be worth considering setting up an actual WikiProject, where people can register an interest, your objectives are spelled out, articles of interest are listed, etc. You say "Who would want to join that?", and I'm thinking "Well, me, for one." I'd love to help enthusiastic people, with an interest in keeping our articles grounded in reality. If it was on-wiki, all out in the open and above board, I'm not seeing what anyone would have to complain about, and you might find that some experienced editors would be willing to join in and lend a hand. There'd be no reason why you couldn't start out your training off-wiki, but once people were up to speed, they could start communicating on-wiki, and take part in the rich and enjoyable social world that I promise you really does exist here - you just need to engage, and find your niche. Maybe it doesn't need a whole Wikiproject to itself; there's already WP:WikiProject Skepticism, so it might be better to become a subsection of that: I don't know, I'm just spit-balling. Something to think about though? Girth Summit (blether) 19:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) I don't have time to reply to everything now, but just to take one point: "Other editors are upset because they don’t understand humor and think we really are a cabal". What is your evidence for that? I see none at all, which is a bit strange when the statement comes from someone who, like me, claims to act on evidence rather than supposition. And please don't imply that your opponents are to blame for edit conflicts: everyone suffers from the antediluvian system that Wikipedia uses. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't think that you are being threatened or attacked, people are simply concerned about your group's activities because we don't have enough information about it. Wikipedia is susceptible to off-wiki coordination by POV pushers because there is no way for us to know whether or not it is occurring, so editors are instinctively wary of all off-wiki coordination. It's entirely possible that the POV pushers on the Havana syndrome page have no connection with GSoW and are not engaged in canvassing or meatpuppetry, but the problem is that we simply don't know. That's why I, and other editors, suggested that you make a WikiProject so that we have no reason to be concerned anymore. Mlb96 (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not being threatened? What is this about topic banning me conversation that just started? You don't topic ban people for "we simply don't know" concerns. I've explained over and over why a WikiProject isn't going to work and why having a list of editors is only going to draw people to attack us. PROVE meatpuppetry and then maybe we have something to deal with, four pages and growing and there isn't anything but "concerns". Sgerbic (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, the topic ban is independent of the GSoW issue. You're engaging in clear COI editing, as a fellow of the Center for Skeptical Inquiry and a columnist for Skeptical Inquiry you should not be adding these as sources all over the encyclopedia. Especially as you've written This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.[47] Any editor describing their motivations as such should be topic banned from the area of their COI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agree with Girth Summit. I'd also join such a community! JoelleJay (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Levivich, thanks for the ping. I am indeed rather concerned about some of the activity at Havana syndrome, especially attempts by some users to give "equal time" to the best available sources (a JAMA study about injury and a National Academies of Sciences study about both injury and cause) and to very weak sources (older reports, podcasts, blogs, websites, non-peer-reviewed sources). There is a fundamental misunderstanding by some folks about due weight, which is really unfortunate. The fact that this activity is (at least in part) the outcome of a coordinated, off-wiki campaign involving possible aspects of self-promotion is even more disturbing. Neutralitytalk 18:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have said multiple times here, many of us are already using WikiProjects, including WikiProject Skepticism. You might consider joining us, I personally have been there for years as you can see my name is on the list. ALSO as I have said many times, we post everything we work on, on our Website, Facebook, my open Facebook page and sometimes even Twitter. And many of the team, more senior editors also post on their Wikipedia user pages what they have written, their to-do list and other activities. Some even have GSoW clearly written on their user pages and they have done so for years. Just because a few of you have just learned of GSoW for the first time, does not mean we have not been transparent for years. I’m not going to provide a list of editors just so they can be attacked in the manner I have for the last two days. People are talking out of two sides of their mouths, it’s okay for me to train new people outside of Wikipedia, but it’s not okay to talk with them after they have finished training. And I just explained my training methods, waaaaaay up above in one of these threads, if I showed you our training then there would be some people who would challenge me and say where is the rest of it? I can’t win this. You want to abuse me (sorry if from your reading it does not sound abusive, it is, I am under attack) and so what do you think my next move is going to be? Stop editing Wikipedia? I hardly edit at all these days, mostly I train. So should I tell everyone to go under cover and remove any mention of their involvement in GSoW. Remove ourselves from the WikiProjects? Stop posting on social media or our website of the pages we write? Really is that what you are telling me? Cause it sounds like that is my only alternative, hide. Because the only other alternatives are to quit or to set my team up for abuse. And we believe strongly in the mission of Wikipedia, and you all are showing me how even more Important it is. This is just impossible, I can’t keep up with these conversations and attacks. I am here by myself and you are coming at me from multiple sides and threads. I don’t even know who most of you are, and you don’t know me, also keep in mind that people here seem to have an opinion and then in the other breath say they haven’t read the threads because it is too big. How do you think I feel? Sgerbic (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed that @ScottishFinnishRadish: is not only at war with GSoW, but is actively supporting Fringe. They removed pertinent criticism info from the BLP of "medium" Thomas John Flanagan, including the summary of his felony conviction from the lead. ("Single issue over a decade ago.") I suppose they will next remove the similar info from the lead of skeptic Brian Dunning? Want to bet on this? And I will note that, although Dunning is a high profile figure in scientific skepticism, no one on Susan's team has done that in teh almost decade it has been there. RobP (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Find a source for the felony conviction. I removed it on BLP grounds, as it was not mentioned in any of the sources that had been there since the articles creation. I'm not "at war" with anyone, nor am I "actively supporting fringe." I'm actively supporting WP:BLP, since we really shouldn't be calling someone a felon with no sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I already added it back... I reused the citation from the main text where this was reported (which was left intact). RobP (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which doesn't mention being convicted of a felony. So you restored a BLPvio that you were told about here, AND was clear from edit summaries, AND mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Good call. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You gave the edit reason that it didn't belong in the lead, not that the citation of the material it was summarizing in the article's main text was insufficient. Good call. I copied one of the two citation from the main text to use in the lead, and maybe that was the wrong one? I will investigate that now. Either the info should be removed from the article entirely, or not from anywhere, RobP (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The source you cited in your edit does not support the claim you made. jp×g 21:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes... as mentioned above I will check that... and the other ref. RobP (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected - I think. RobP (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A proposal, for now

    Premature, unlikely to productively move discussion forward. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tbanning Sgerbic from editing Skeptic and Pseudoscience articles Center for Skeptical Inquiry and Monterey County Skeptics.
    • Starting a discussion on Skeptical Inquirer and other Center for Skeptical Inquiry publications on RS

    A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 18:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (GSoW)

    I am unsure about a TBAN right now Support TBAN for COI areas, per amended option.. I think rather they should be told to do all this in the open, and not in secret. I agree however we need to discuss if these are RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I do think they should be banned from adding any (as indeed should any member of guerilla skeptics) from adding Center for Skeptical Inquiry publications as sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, I'm also unsure about the TBAN, and if there is a TBAN I'd rather see it more narrowly confined to writing about Center for Skeptical Inquiry, it's fellows, and Skeptical Inquiry. That would address my concerns about COI without greatly reducing her editing in her primary topic of choice. I think any discussion about them as RS should also break down their use in woo woo big foot getting acupuncture on a ufo articles, BLP articles and more or less unrelated articles, like anorexia or explosives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with above. Appending proposal accordingly. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 18:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather you had just stuck it and started again, as now I have to change my choice.Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a TBAN for A._C._Santacruz from administrative boards may be more helpful. Sure, there are issues here but they are complicated. An editor who seems to have got yen to be witchfinder general without the necessary experience/competence, is a hindrance, and is amplifying the drama unnecessarily. Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest possible oppose and possibly boomerang This is like banning an expert in a subject from editing on a subject for being an expert. jps (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      How are they an expert, an expert in what?Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      She is certainly an expert in skepticism and pseudoscience having been duly published in reliable sources discussing these subjects. jps (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This is part of a wider problem in the fringe area: that opinionated skeptics publishing in skeptic magazines edited by equally opinionated skeptics are being presented as if they were dispassionate expert scholars publishing in blind-peer-reviewed academic journals. Yes, if there's truly no better source then WP:PARITY applies, but WP:PARITY does not somehow 'upgrade' opinionated activists to independent experts. Whatever you make of Sgerbic, she's not an academic, scholarly expert on anything she ever published about, and both her publications and the sources these are published in broadly fail WP:INDEPENDENT. Given the opinionated and activist nature of her work, she definitely has a COI problem when editing anything on WP related to the subjects she publishes about (by which I do not mean to say that a COI problem automatically merits a tban, just that ... there is a COI). This applies to someone like her and not to scholars because scholars work in a disinterested way and do not engage in activism on the subject of their expertise. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't matter whether someone is an activist or not for our purposes. All that matters is that the person in question is doing good work on Wikipedia. I have not yet seen a diff that indicates that her work is particularly problematic in any way, and whining about WP:INDEPENDENT seems bizarre as SI is often one of the bellwether WP:FRIND sources we avail ourselves of for good reason. The work that someone does outside of Wikipedia is irrelevant. All that matters is what the effects on Wikipedia are. And to claim that an identity as an activist activates the WP:COI policy is a kind of hellish position I can only hope you are arguing for as an object lesson. Should we declare that COI applies to every religious activist just because they are activists? I would hope you would say "no" to that one. jps (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from COI areas per their own words on how to edit Wikipedia. This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well. If the Wikipedia edit is well written, the reader will be curious and want to continue reading about the topic, follow the citation, and learn about our people and publications... We need to do a better job getting our publications, our podcasts, and our spokespeople mentioned in places that people are visiting and hopefully curious to learn more. Wikipedia is the perfect venue; we just need to make sure the edit exists.[48] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk • contribs)
      • MY STARS -- imagine editing Wikipedia to encourage people to consider reliable sources like the Skeptical Inquirer! What will be next? Encouraging people to read other reliable sources? Improving the exposure to such horrible sources as Scientific American? If this is a "bad thing", I fear we have totally lost the plot. WP:ENC refutes it completely. jps (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Imagine editing Wikipedia to improve the exposure of the publication that you work for and is run by a group you're a fellow of, hoping to drive traffic to your site so readers can learn about your people, publications and podcasts. Just because you like the source doesn't mean the behavior is good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow! I think I actually do that myself as I encourage students to cite ApJ when they edit WP. Maybe I should be banned. After all, even though I like ApJ doesn't mean my behavior is good, right? jps (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you have a direct connection with Apj?Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I know how to contact the editor in ways that are not available to many others. I am a member of the organization that publishes it. I've received funds from said organization. What constitutes a direct connection? jps (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Working for it, being its head. And again SI is not in the same league as APJ. We are not talking about a major professional journal. But yes if your worked for the APJ, or you edited it or you owned it and you encouraged its use that would be COI.19:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
                  • What does "working for it" mean? Getting money from the organization? Sgerbic is certainly not the "head" of SI. And saying that it is "not in the same league as ApJ" can be interpreted weird value judgement. The two publications have markedly different mission statements and epistemic communities. But they both work as WP:RS in context. Did Sgerbic work for SI? Did she edit it? Did she own it? If not, then she and I share the same level of COI with respect to the two publications. And I find that such "conflictedness" would be enough of a motivation to warrant consideration of a topic ban to be an outrageous perspective. jps (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This seems very premature - I confess that I haven't read through the entirety of this ballooning thread, but before we talk about TBanning somebody, I want to see evidence that someone has had the chance to discuss the potential COI edits in a non-adversarial way. Like, a conversation where we talk about COI guidelines, look at their connection to the subjects at hand, determine what the COI is and discuss ways that they could be editing in-line with the guidelines. I don't think this has happened here - we have a drama thread where someone is coming in for a load of criticism, reacts (perhaps understandably) defensively, and we're straight to TBan? In a case like this, I'd like to hope that we'd at least attempt to deal with any issues without reaching for sanctions. Girth Summit (blether) 19:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose A. C. Santacruz has a personal grudge against Susan Gerbic and GSoW. On A. C.'s talk-page is a section "Collaboration on a case regarding the Guerrilla Skeptics" where this user is obviously canvassing to unite people who dislike GSoW [49]. This user has commented on their talk-page "I think that the loosest thread to pull on to untie this knot is activity related to Skeptic Inquirer-associated BLPs". She pinged ScottishFinnishRadish who has now joined her crusade against GSoW. Please note this user is now removing Susan Gerbic and the Skeptical Inquirer as a source from various BLPS such as Matt Fraser [50] and at Loren Coleman [51]. I do not approve of this anti-skeptic agenda removing reliable sources just because they are skeptical from Wikipedia. A. C. mouths off like she runs this website, she forgets that Gerbic and GSoW have improved hundreds of articles. These new users criticizing Susan Gerbic have been on Wikipedia less than a year and have hardly any page creations between them. This is definitely an oppose for me. I do not agree with banning experienced productive Wikipedia users who do good work on this website and have fixed hundreds of articles. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My account was created in 2014, I've made over 46,000 edits, and eighteen of the 157 pages I've created are GAs. I do not think these aspersions are relevant to the discussion, am confused about why you have brought them up, and would appreciate if you struck them. jp×g 20:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You aren't mentioned in Psychologist Guy's diffs. I think you can presume that he is not talking about you. He mentions precisely who he is talking about. jps (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, I was not referring to JPxG who is an impressive editor. The only two accounts I was referring to were A. C. Santacruz and ScottishFinnishRadish. I will even retract my comment about ScottishFinnishRadish as the user seems have made decent edits. I believe this user has been mislead by A. C. Santacruz. If you want my blunt and honest opinion A. C. Santacruz is a troll account merely trying to cause disruption - you only need to read some of the nonsense they have been claiming about Susan Gerbic they are loving all this drama. For me, this whole thing is a time stink and waste of productivity. It's sad people have been sucked in by this even an arb case is a waste of time and will no got anywhere. I will not further respond here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and boomerang. We don't topic ban people on the basis of insinuation. Gamaliel (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Request an arb case. I really think this should be settled by the Arbitration Committee rather than an AN/I thread (which is currently an unreadably massive 26,000 words). The fact of off-wiki collaboration by multiple hitherto-unknown editors means that it's best addressed by an actual investigative process over the course of weeks, rather than a repeatedly-branching argument on an extremely active noticeboard over the course of days. I mean, maybe the group will be totally vindicated by a thorough analysis -- we're unlikely to learn anything new from continuing this clusterfuck AN/I thread. jp×g 20:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey no problem, we can discuss how best to take Gerbic to ARBCOM over on the page you have started with the list of all the people who oppose Gerbic. I'm really looking forward to the discussions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._C._Santacruz?fbclid=IwAR0JLqdnKDtQCL84oFi51DNTPhMEGm-HM7CDm0tZcnPHNqCPw5lnrpqT5oc#Collaboration_on_a_case_regarding_the_Guerrilla_Skeptics Sgerbic (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Close this embarrassment of a discussion

    The biggest problem I have with this discussion is that people are talking cross-purposes. On the one side, we have people whoare afraid of any organization that does not work entirely on-wiki because of fears over EEML. Of course, EEML had diffs and evidence of tagteaming and !vote-stacking which I have seen not any evidence of.

    And we further have paltry evidence of any bad faith actions on the part of GSoW or Sgerbic. In fact, taken at face value, the "smoking gun" quotes some of the accounts above are tut-tutting about are in reality some excellent agenda items to have with respect to WP:PAG. We should be encouraging people to spam Wikipedia with reliable sources. We should be celebrating that a group of people are interested in putting content in that shows what is accurate/based on empirical data and what is not. Occasionally, do I disagree with GSoW or Sgerbic? You better believe it. Sometimes they seem to be interested in including some content that may not rise to the WP:NFRINGE level. You know what we do? We have a discussion. Sometimes there is an AfD. Sometimes I am on a different side. Sometimes articles are deleted. Sometimes they are kept. WHAT THE HELL IS SO PROBLEMATIC HERE?

    I am reminded of [52]

    jps (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe the issue at hand here is a person who runs an off-wiki group explicitly devoted to advancing a specific POV, which mysteriously -- perhaps through astral projection, since its leader refuses to disclose its members' pseudonyms -- results in extremely flattering articles being written about its leader, who jokingly threatens that "my team would have descended on anyone making changes like rabid space monkeys". Meanwhile, the same mysterious paranormal coincidences -- through the use of a Ouija board, perhaps -- result in heavy editors of that leader's page also writing BLPs about people who have had personal disputes with the leader that unsourced accusations of felonies in the lead. Even the current version of that article features a whopping 896-word blow-by-blow of the man's personal disputes with Gerbic, in an 1852-word-long article (which is over half of its content!) Again, it's possible that this is occurring through supernatural mechanisms beyond our understanding. However, much like James Randi, I suspect that there is no such paranormal influence here, and the edits can instead be explained by a perfectly straightforward sequence of mundane events. jp×g 20:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Totally agree, this has gotten way out of hand, I'm exhausted dealing with it. Comments I have made are being cherry picked to make me look bad with a flippant attitude which sometimes happens. I speak frankly and appreciate it when others do as well. But before this thread or any thread goes anywhere, I want to know what you all are going to do about this group that has gathered to attack me over on Santacruz's talk page? This is the third time within 24 hours she has done something like this, each time saying that this is what she thought people wanted her to do. Each time she says she will do it later. What does that mean, I have to wait for her and her growing list of conspirators to come after me? I would use my ouija board but at the moment my cat is sleeping on it. I'm being attacked, and what is ANI going to do about it? I think you might want to reread Good faith and remember that I'm here alone trying to deal with these escalating attacks. And over on a editor's talk page she is gathering a group to take me on. It's confusing and frustrating. Sgerbic (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems more and more that we are dealing with a totally irrational personality cult here. Can't people just drop this (and Susan drop her extreme narcissism) and get back to thinking clearly about things? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh Gee thanks for the compliment "extreme narcissism" you aren't the one who have been piled on for two days. Sgerbic (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      So just make some sort of rational reply. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If you have specific issues with specific articles, have at them. But making insinuating accusations that somehow Wikipedia is irreparably skewed and damaged by this *gasp* "off-wiki group explicitly devoted to advancing a specific POV" (which I, myself, have been accused of doing) is heat and not light. It's just a stubborn argument over whether one article is too flattering and another article on a con artist psychic has his debunking too lovingly documented seems a question of WP:STYLE rather than one of the substance of the accusations being leveled here (both overtly personal and absurdly conspiratorial). I have yet to find an instance where I've tried to fix something and found any problems with GSoW or Sgerbic. Have you? jps (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support closing - I agree that if this matter is to be settled, it will not happen here, or at least not now, so we should close this discussion. However, I'm skeptical about taking it to WP:ARBCOM (as has been proposed multiple times above). I'm pretty sure that if this was anything other than a scientific skepticism-focused group, the demands to take their activities on-wiki would receive almost univocal support. But there are just too many editors here who like GSoW so much that not only are they willing to make an exception for them, they won't even admit that it's an exception. Apart from the fact that the defense they put up makes these editors prickly and at times tending to personal attacks [53], the view that GSoW should get a free pass is a respectable view to hold, and there seems to be enough of that to say that there's no consensus on the matter. One would need to go on a veritable diff-digging crusade to make the connections between editors whose anonymity is so fiercely being defended here, and I think such crusades are a really bad idea. If GSoW is allowed to edit as an anonymous team, so be it: that will be what the community has decided for now. Probably a more fruitful way to go about this would be to craft an RfC to put up at WP:VP with regard to how the community should deal with strictly off-wiki editorial teams in general. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or... or... NOW HEAR ME OUT? We just go back to writing the encyclopedia? I kinda feel like there really is a lot of nothing burger here. There's a bunch of people who want to, I don't know, pass judgment on GSoW. The topic ban discussion went nowhere. But one thing we can all do is work to improve articles. A few people have claimed that a few articles are problems, but diffs of them trying and failing to fix those problems are not something I've seen. So try and fail to fix the problems and then our cup will overfloweth and the diffs will be as manna from heaven! jps (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Policy-skirting inflammatory userbox

    Junglecat had the userbox removed and is warned not to add it back per MfD. Black Kite also removed the same or similar userbox from some other userpages. Editors who believe the userbox should be allowed are welcome to open a new discussion at WP:DRV. No point in rehashing the same talking points here. (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🔔 00:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:Junglecat has an anti- same-sex marriage userbox on his userpage. It’s hand-coded (i.e. without a template) so I can’t exactly nominate it for deletion, but since there’s a clear precedent that such userboxes are considered homophobic, inflammatory, and inappropriate for Wikipedia (see: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination - Wikipedia) I think it should be removed as an attempt at gaming the system. Dronebogus (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors shouldn't be so restricted, in what userboxes they can have on their userpages or user-talkpages. PS - Yes, I'm aware of the community-enforced restrictions, on certain userboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    GoodDay the last time you tried to defend this type of userbox you were informed the correct venue is WP:DRV. Though I highly doubt that the community has changed its mind on the matter. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 14:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:POLEMIC is still Wikipedia policy, and GoodDay is going to first have to get that policy revised or overturned before anything else. --Jayron32 16:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll consider (someday) going to WP:DRV & WP:POLEMIC. Just blew off steam here, that's all. The userbox-in-question has been deleted, per current community consensus. PS - I appreciate the civility being shown me, here'. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Gihan Jayaweera and promotional work at Wiki

    Articles Chandimal Jayasinghe, CameraLK, Piumi Hansamali were hardly secure place in Wikipedia. However, they looks like paid work or advertisement or POV, and many deleted articles (please see the log) were part of this work! You may notice how this user hardly talked keep the articles and invite other users to keep what he started. (Eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piumi Hansamali, help). I request wiki community to intervene and delete those POV articles which is promotion, not encylopedia. I have some photos which he poses with those figures. I am not going to publish since it is personal. --JusticeForce101 (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Extremely unethical comments about myself and my wiki edits. He is saying that theyare promotional. Definitely wrong. I am a Wikipedian for more than 8 years now. It is my love to contribute to Wiki and keep it flying high. Nothing promotional. This person is re-admitting my works to delete. May be a personal conflict or anger with myself and my work. Piumi, Chandimal and Cameralk works have been inspected by other proud Wikipedians and admins. That is why they are in the mainspace. This newly registered user has a personal rift I guess. Also, if you have any photos, post them. He is lying. Purely incorrect. I dont have any personal link with those persons. GihanJayaweeraTALK 17:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to accuse a longstanding editor of promotional, paid, and POV editing, you're definitely going to have to provide diffs. The help diff you provided is certainly WP:CANVASSING, but this seems more like a matter for AfD to me. Curbon7 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    check here is one of WP:CANVASSINGs. There are more if you check here during january 2021, you could see →‎Piumi Hansamali article requests. --JusticeForce101 (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    see the log --JusticeForce101 (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Really you have some kind of anger on me. Why I am saying like that, because that incident happened way back in January. Also, after that canvassing or whatever, those user told me not to do like that. So I accepted that and finally Piumi's article got deleted. But, the article was accepted again to mainspace by admins. Not by me. So why you are keep telling me that, I did many canvassing. It was over and dusted. You are uprooting previous faults against me. That means, you have something on me. I am not the one that included them again to mainspace. You better ask that one from those accepted ADMINs...This is clearly insulting me and my work. check this one. One admin informed me about that canvassing. After that message from him, I did not made canvassing. If you say so, then tell me. GihanJayaweeraTALK 13:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. It does seem AntanO warned Gihan Jayaweera about Canvassing, and he stopped while letting the mainspace article be deleted. I guess there was another copy in Jayaweera's userspace which got moved to draftspace and finally accepted in July by Theroadislong.
    While it was a year ago, I do think it is important to point out that Gihan Jayaweera originally voted to delete the article in 2020. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive & Offensive comments

    SOLVED
    PGillBallinamuck blocked as WP:NOTHERE by Bbb23; edition summaries rev-del'ed by C.Fred. Isabelle 🔔 20:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I wish to report abusive comments made in comments in the View History and in the Talk section of the Longford Senior Football Championship page in recent days which make unfounded allegations against my user profile, allegations relating to changes made on 2nd November which are not related to my user account and includes a personal attack on me and my character. The comments were added on 29th October and 2nd November and are deeply offensive and abusive. On 29th November, my user profile undone changes that had been made by another user on 22nd October, because the reason they had cited for that change was unsourced and unverified. The user then undone my action later on 29th October and inserted an abusive and offensive comment with their change. Other changes took place on 2nd November but not by my profile, and the response to that was abuse and allegations against my user profile when those changes were undone on 2nd November. This was then coupled with addition of new text in the 'Talk' section which continued this abusive theme. The user did not cite a source for their fundamental change to the records on on 22nd October, and the comments they have made in both the 'View History' and 'Talks' section are abusive, hurtful and completely unnecessary. Please remove these comments from those locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcadialongford (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Do be careful here: when you lean so heavily on the language of "defamation," you risk running afoul of the policy against legal threats. Just a word to the wise. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do need to ask though, what is your connection to the club? Canterbury Tail talk 14:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Dumuzid I appreciate that advice and have revised my input accordingly. Canterbury Tail I don't hold any position or role within the organisation which is subject of that page nor do I hold any position or role within any of the clubs which are referenced within that page. I am a team supporter originally from that county who voluntarily researched some of the stats which appeared on that page.

    Now that the user responsible for the comments has been blocked, can I please request revision deletion of the items which included abusive and offensive 'edit summary' comments, namely the following revisions... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longford_Senior_Football_Championship&oldid=1052461395 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longford_Senior_Football_Championship&oldid=1053268203 ... so that those unsavory comments can be removed from the History tab completely and removal of the last entry in the 'Talk' tab by that same author on 2nd November, for the same reasons. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcadialongford (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit summaries were revdel'ed as purely disruptive material. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Marcorubiocali

    blocked per WP:NPA. TPA revoked. --Jayron32 16:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Marcorubiocali (talk · contribs) seems to have a monomania for George Cervantes and has dedicated their entire Wikipedia career to seeing his article in mainspace, hideously poor sourcing be damned. His first attempt - which bypassed AfC due to him moving the article into mainspace from draft, against the advice of another editor - was stymied at AfD, with the sources specifically cited as a concern. Another attempt was made in draftspace, but the sourcing, again, is poor. When I explained to him, yet again, why all his sources were poor, a bit of a back-and-forth ensued. Once I countered his last argument, he responded with "I'm starting to believe there is racism going on here... I know what you go by here which will be plenty to share with the news".

    Given the accusation of racism, his threat to pursue off-wiki action, and the complete refusal to listen to any form of criticism other than to find loopholes in them, I am seeking a indefinite block for Marcorubiocali as WP:NOTHERE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In need of a WP:NOTHERE block, indeed: the disclosed COI shows the basis the editor is here on, but they are unable to understand either that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (not a collection of adverts) and that Wikipedia is a community (and not somewhere you can scream and shout your way into getting what you want). I have a longstanding disagreement about the seriousness with which we treat "accusations of racism" as if they're akin to being called Hitler. However, here the accusation is unfounded and a textbook case of an empty threat (I see people threaten to go to the press all the time, and let me tell you the press are not interested), and it's part of a pattern of very obviously unconstructive behaviour. (Comment edited a bit from its initial incarnation.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't matter if you block me or not. The evidence that I have is already saved. I have the screenshots of the conversations and EVERYTHING is saved as proof. I stand behind the fact that I believe that the editor has racist intents. I will expose and if he had problems related to racism in the past, thne that will come out too. This isn't an attack or an empty treat. This is what I believe is going on. The fact that you want to block me instead of getting to the bottom of the issue speaks for itself and further strengthes my point that there is racism going on here. Marcorubiocali (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Treats to go to the media could be empty for regular people, but not for someome who works at a church organization where a lot of media people volunteer on Sundays. I will share my opinion with them and see what can be done. Marcorubiocali (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC) You don't have to praise Hitler to be racist. Making belittle remarks is enough to be considered racism and he has been putting me down since day one. Marcorubiocali (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Blocking me instead of investigating the issue will be the cherry on top. Marcorubiocali (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indeffed. Well, at least that rant made the decision a lot easier. Also, since you refuse to stop casting aspersions, I am removing your talk page access. Black Kite (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence that I have is already saved. I have the screenshots of the conversations and EVERYTHING is saved as proof. – Not so impressive on a website where every edit to every page is public by default... You don't have to praise Hitler to be racist. – Literally a repetition of my point. — Bilorv (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User on successive Jakartan IPs engaging in year-long disruptive editing of the same articles

    Since at least March 2021, a supposedly single user on successive IPs out of Jakarta, Java, Indonesia, has been engaging in edit warring and disruptive editing on articles mostly related to the politics of post-Soviet states, such as elections and presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Armenia. They are reverted, warned, contacted for resolution and even blocked, but they never respond and continue on their next IP.

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441#139.192.151.122 reported by User:ZaniGiovanni_(Result: Blocked).

    Whilst it was an edit war on Serzh Sargsyan that started that noticeboard discussion, one persistent edit they have been making is Russifying non-Russian names of Tajik politicians, and I was going to start an edit war noticeboard discussion on this before I decided this issue was beyond a simple edit war.

    This is one example of the user's edit warring on Tajik president Emomali Rahmon, repeatedly Russifying his name despite being reverted every time:

    Edit-warring diffs on Emomali Rahmon
    Page: Emomali Rahmon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Previous version reverted to: 03:42, 4 April 2021

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 05:42, 21 April 2021
    2. 04:16, 27 April 2021
    3. 06:15, 5 May 2021
    4. 07:33, 6 May 2021
    5. 14:21, 6 May 2021
    6. 13:17, 7 May 2021
    7. 03:19, 27 June 2021
    8. 00:42, 29 June 2021
    9. 01:32, 9 July 2021
    10. 02:38, 4 August 2021
    11. 12:58, 5 August 2021
    12. 09:50, 23 August 2021
    13. 04:41, 14 September 2021
    14. 13:27, 15 September 2021
    15. 04:33, 23 September 2021
    16. 04:51, 29 September 2021
    17. 09:23, 11 October 2021
    18. 03:13, 3 November 2021‎ (edit summary was copied from that of someone who had reverted them)

    The following table contains a list of suspected IPs of the user (the IPs that made the above edits) followed by their ISP, location, mostly successive edit histories and block history. All of the IPs resolve to Jakarta, Indonesia, about half on the First Media ISP, half on Telkom Indonesia (presumably, according to the table, the user's proxy for block-evasion) and one on LinkNet:

    IP Location ISP Edit history Block history
    139.193.13.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia First Media 11:52, 31 March 2021 –
    07:41, 9 May 2021     		29 April 2021 –
    31 April 2021,
    1 May 2021 –
    8 May 2021
    36.70.36.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia Telkom Indonesia 03:42, 4 April 2021 –
    00:26, 7 April 2021
    114.124.149.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia Telkom Indonesia 06:05, 5 May 2021 –
    06:15, 5 May 2021
    180.251.239.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia Telkom Indonesia 08:31, 5 May 2021 –
    08:16, 6 May 2021
    114.124.178.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia Telkom Indonesia 14:21, 6 May 2021 –
    14:26, 6 May 2021
    182.2.171.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia Telkom Indonesia 13:14, 7 May 2021 –
    13:17, 7 May 2021     		182.2.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) rangeblocked:
    11 January 2021 –
    11 April 2021,
    8 September 2021 –
    8 December 2021
    139.192.136.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia First Media 04:04, 10 May 2021 –
    07:46, 27 June 2021     		19 June 2021 –
    26 June 2021,
    27 June 2021 –
    27 September 2021
    114.124.174.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia Telkom Indonesia 00:42, 29 June 2021 –
    01:30, 29 June 2021
    180.251.220.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia Telkom Indonesia 01:29, 9 July 2021 –
    01:32, 9 July 2021
    139.192.226.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia First Media 08:29, 10 July 2021 –
    13:04, 5 August 2021
    149.110.68.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia LinkNet 03:53, 7 August 2021 –
    15:13, 17 September 2021
    111.95.5.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia First Media 02:38, 20 September 2021 –
    07:56, 5 October 2021
    139.192.151.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jakarta, Indonesia First Media 08:17, 6 October 2021 –
    00:43, 4 November 2021

    I don't know how this is to be solved. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked for a week, since they have been already blocked earlier for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Large unexplained addition and subsequent removal in article

    Both accounts indeffed after CU performed by Materialscientist (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 15:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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



    Resolved

    I really can't go through all of the edits' content because there's so much of it here. The first user edited the article 6 times, 3 of them added ~48 thousand bytes each, with the last edit a removal of ~16 thousand bytes. The second user shortly came in and removed content tens of times, many of them removing thousands of bytes. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 04:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I attempted to revert, but there appears to be a technical issue...?-KH-1 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The second user has now blanked the article entirely. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 04:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried the same thing as KH-1. No dice. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a link on the blacklist that was preventing a restoration of the article text. I’ve reverted to this revision of the article minus the blacklisted reference ([55]). I don’t know what either user was trying to do, but if I wiped out any constructive changes, they can try adding them again, preferably without duplicating the entire article multiple times. clpo13(talk) 04:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two editors are likely the same person. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefblocked both accounts. Materialscientist (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Philip Cross and his topic ban

    The editor Philip Cross is indefinitely banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. Yet he has admitted to making 184 edits to the David Miller page, all of which appears to be after his ban was implemented. The article is strongly related to contemporary British Politics because of the following reasons:

    Miller held the position of Professor of Political Sociology at Bristol University, and was recently dismissed from this post, and before that the Labour Party. This was due to pressure from UK parliamentarians and organisations with close ties to Israel for his work attempting to expose Zionist power structures (a political ideology). This is a major political event, widely covered by political journalists in mainstream political publications and media. It has significant consequences for freedom of speech, and is part of the sustained purge of anti-Zionists from positions of political influence in the UK. Zionism is a political ideology.

    I have discussed this with Philip Cross on his user page and the David Miller talk page, and asked him to refrain from editing the main article. However, he seems content to keep editing the page because in his own words, he hasn't had any warnings from administrators despite 184 edits.

    However, WP:BMB states

    'If there is any doubt whether a limited ban prohibits any specific edit, the banned editor should assume that it does, unless whoever imposed the ban expressly clarifies that it does not. If clarification is not sought before making the edit, the banned editor assumes the risk that an administrator takes a broader view of the scope of the ban and enforces it with a block or other sanction.'

    Philip Cross is a highly experience editor who will be fully aware of these rules, but has continued to breach them even after my request to stop editing the David Miller page.

    --Andromedean (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh, even within "broadly construed" so far as I'm aware the Miller controversy was about academic freedom of expression and concerned such issues as global antisemitism and the role of the UN. As for "attempting to expose Zionist power structures" - such concepts speaks more of a problem with the poster here than with Philip Cross. (Full disclosure: I wouldn't normally comment on such a topic but notice this at ANI and am aware of the Miller controversy because my wife got listed[56] in Miller's "Powerbase"). Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, the diff for the currently applicable ARCA is here. Reading the article, it mentions subjects like: Israel, Palestine, Noam Chomsky, Judith Butler, allegations of political censorship, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, et cetera. These seem to me like not only political subjects, but highly contentious ones. jp×g 09:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the page, it is not obvious to me that this page falls into what is meant by broadly construed. This person was a philsophy professor, and while sometimes things they say are used in politics that doesn't mean that their page on a whole is covered by the topic ban. This doesn't mean that there aren't parts of the page that would be covered by the ban, but we need a dif of them editing that specific portion. --76.113.153.79 (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Miller was a Professor of Political Sociology and almost every portion of that BLP is drenched with contemporary British politics. This editing is a clear violation of the topic ban. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example, this edit is about two UK NGOs being accused of Islamist connections. Hard to see how that’s not “post-1978 British politics”. DeCausa (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Miller is also caught up with the ongoing Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, it's very difficult to see how any editing of his article isn't "politics broadly construed". not quite being ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What initially raised my concern wasn't a technical infringement, but the removal of quotes from several letters, and a lack of reply to my points regarding their reliability (in the David Miller article) detailed above. Additionally, I've searched through Philip Cross' history just for 2 weeks and found these politically related edits.
    [Hedges&diff=prev&oldid=1052839774| A change on the 31st October] 'Dore asked [the political journalist Chris] Hedges if Bernie Sanders had rolled over'. This was removed for being a YouTube source. There were also 6 more changes on this topic around that time.
    [11 changes] within the topic ban period, on the Editing Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, the latest being the 28th October about the Camera Campaign. The stated purpose of the group was "help[ing] us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors.
    [5 changes] on the Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, within the topic ban period, the latest being on the 28th October.
    [Holocaust Industry&diff=prev&oldid=1051554106| Removal] of a Noam Chomsky quote about the book 'The Holocaust Industry' due to him having 'a dubious record in his field'. --Andromedean (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference between being banned from "politics" generally and being banned from "British politics". Philip Cross is banned from the latter and edits to "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America" don't seem relevant. I'd say it's pretty clear this is "British politics" just from reading the article and the topic ban applies here to Philip Cross. The diffs linked of Philip Cross' edits about UK NGOs is quite clearly "British politics".
    Alexbrn hit on something interesting though about your behaviour. You've mostly edited Wikipedia in the past few years to add information of sometimes questionable sourcing that portray Zionists in a negative light or including information on anti-Semitism in the UK that advances the position that it isn't that bad. You shouldn't interpret a consensus here as taking "your side" in the underlying content dispute. The editors here aren't agreeing with you that David Miller's speech is "exposing Zionist power structures" and that David Miller's position is anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic. Given that you've made a point of emphasizing your beliefs about the underlying situation to the AN/I thread I believe this is relevant. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 13:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of motivation, David Miller is certainly well within the area of British Politics post-1978. The only way you could argue it wasnt is if any editing was solely related to his activities prior to 1978. AND if you are doing that, you probably shouldnt be editing the article anyway, as someone can make a good case that the subject of the article is broadly within current politics regardless of their past actions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    PC's topic ban should be expanded from post-1978 UK politics to include politics in general, based on items detailed above and a BLP violation that put his talk page on my watchlist:

    "The Anti-Defamation League described Escobar as a "anti-Israeli journalist". Escobar was among those attending the New Horizon Conference in Tehran, Iran in Fall 2014 along with others the ADL described as antisemites and Holocaust deniers."

    The only reference PC gave for this contentious SYNTH material was a press release whose title was "Iranian Hatefest Promotes Anti-Semitism, Draws Holocaust Deniers and U.S. Anti-Israel Activists." (He was quite unrepentant when I approached him.) HouseOfChange (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We appear to have several violations here, and Philip Cross has been repeatedly editing Richard Desmond today, who is in the news today but very much a figure in post-1978 British politics (broadly construed or otherwise). As such, I've blocked him for a month given that these are quite flagrant violations and he has a previous block for violating the topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is why such limited-scope topic bans dont work when it comes to people - as by their nature they span a wide number of years. Either Cross needs to be banned from politics outright (per HouseOfChange) and/or additionally he needs to be banned from BLP's. Richard Desmond for the vast majority of his life is unrelated to British Politics (post 1978 or otherwise) - except for recently the shenanigans involving Jenrick (and then thats more Jenrick's fault). Essentially you put Cross in the position where he has to argue every edit is unrelated to the topic of post-1978 politics (Desmond's property dealings would be, Desmond being upset because he still gets called a Pornographer wouldnt). Either give him clear boundaries or lift the ban (my option is for the former). Anything else is just making more work in the future for other editors to have to deal with. Its disrespectful of their, and Cross' time. Its certainly not going to be healthy for Phillip Cross wellbeing in the long term. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Philipp Cross's edits are for the most part very positive. His opponents, such as the infrequently Andromedean, are far worse than he is, and seek to promote fringe viewpoints. I think the topic ban should be lifted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see that there can be any serious dispute that the article of political sociologist David Miller falls within the area of Philips t-ban. I'd like to add that, in addition to the t-ban, Philip was warned to "avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest." Various BLP's & articles were flagged up during the ArbCom case as being problematic in this regard, including numerous members of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media. Miller is also a member of this small group. I raised this with Philip (along with other concerns about his editing of Miller's article) and you can see how that panned out here. Imo Philips t-ban should be extended to cover politics in general. I also believe it should cover BLP's, bar those of actors/musicians where his contributions are overwhelmingly positive. --DSQ (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    JusticeForce101

    JohnWiki159 (talk · contribs) remove edits. See here. I invite to talk, but he sensor my edits. --JusticeForce101 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume you mean another user, not JusticeForce101 (yourself), but please read WP:BRD if you make a change that multiple other editors disagree with; you should discuss it on the talk page. Rather than throwing around words like 'censorship', you should try to find a consensus with the other editors JeffUK (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm actually going to throw around a boomerang here. JusticeForce101 can I ask under what accounts you've edited before as your editing patterns suggest some familiarity with Wikipedia procedures? I find it odd that they found ANI on their 9th edit. It seems to me like JusticeForce101 is an SPA who is acting in bad faith towards other users. They keep trying to add them same content in repeatedly, and appear to be nominating articles in bad faith. They have started two active sections on this board right now, and it all seems connected. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    JeffUK, I changed. I try to talk. but people just ignore and they do what they like to keep in wikipedia. User:Canterbury Tail do you want me to guess on me or the issues that i rose? Why don't to look at those articles and issues in neutral point of view? --JusticeForce101 (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you just tried to push your edit again in violation of WP:BLP policies, pushing a WP:POV to create "criticism" by dragging guilt by association to the limit. - UmdP 17:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review : Raquel Baranow

    Raquel Baranow is hereby site banned.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked by Cullen328 just over a year ago. A request to unblock has since been declined by Yamla and more recently by myself. As well as the justification given by Cullen328 and Yamla, I have seen evidence that Raquel is an open advocate of Holocaust denial, and I believe people with those beliefs cannot edit Wikipedia in a neutral and responsible manner, per the justification set out in WP:NONAZIS. I am also unimpressed with the full-frontal nude self-portrait on her user page, and question what message that sends out to the general readership.

    In response, Raquel Baranow has complained that I have posted on Wikipediocracy to canvass support for the ban and am engaging in cyber-bullying. It is true that I wrote a procedural remark on Wikipediocracy's forums : "Just declined another unblock request from Raquel." and posted a follow-up comment to a user who thought I was being unnecessarily draconian : "The diff (plus edit summary) says "My opinion, which led to this block, was not asked for". So she still thought the block was unfair. Plus "I stated my opinion on Jimbo’s talk page about the WP: NONAZIS essay." - no, she peddled right-wing Holocaust denial conspiracy theory weirdness. Are we quite sure she's not a sock of Marjorie Taylor Greene?"

    I admit that ranting about a particularly disruptive (and indefinitely blocked) user, particularly in an off-wiki forum, is not acceptable conduct for an administrator, and that I have a real problem with Holocaust deniers, and so I apologise for venting and sarcastically comparing her to a well-known conspiracy theory advocate. However, I take accusations of cyber-bullying seriously, as it is something I would never do.

    So, I would like to ask the community at large to review Raquel's block, confirm that the block was justified, and address the accusations of canvassing and cyber-bullying in a non-partisan manner. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was actually considering moving for a community ban on Raquel Baranow, given their behaviour. But, to the topic at hand. While I can't tell what is in people's minds, I do not believe Baranow would be unblocked without a topic ban, given their prior behaviour. With the additional information here, I think that's doubly true. I'll refrain for now from commenting on the nudity or the off-wiki comments on Wikipediocracy, but may post more once I've got my thoughts in order. --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Menacing intro: I, Raquel Baranow am a Grad Student of Holocaust Denial. And then... Hitler sought to remove irrational Jews from German living-space who did not want to assimilate much like Thomas Jefferson and many politicians today want to remove Negro's and Mexicans from America or Muslims (another irrational religion) from Europe. Yikes. BTW, I'm no fuckin' prude and I agree that nudity and sexual content ought not be censored in articles. That said, many of our editors are minors, so for them to interact with an adult woman who displays herself in full frontal nudity on her userpage... Some bad WP:CHILDPROTECT vibes from that scenario. I don't like it. El_C 11:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The photo needs to be removed. While we aren't censored, there's not a place for that on a user's talk page. Also, that intro, nope. We are MUCH better off without her here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Doug for removing it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to ban Raquel Baranow for the reasons expressed above, appealable no sooner than 1 year from the date the ban is enacted. Their behaviour, including but not certainly limited to antisemitism, is incompatible with Wikipedia. Let's make this official. --Yamla (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Support fully. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ban-and-forget. El_C 13:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Support. There's no room here for that. Tiderolls 13:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Support - I fundamentally think that holocaust denialism is incompatible with collaborative editing. Ideologies and stances that dehumanize other editors make it impossible for the user to edit collaboratively. Nor can we trust them to edit neutrally on any topic related. Still, I don't think even a topic ban would be enough, as the fundamental issue stretches deeper then just the topic area. Magisch talk to me 13:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No commentary on the NSFW pictures by the way, the holocaust denialism on its own is plenty to convince me to vote to support a cban. Magisch talk to me 13:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ban Any user who introduces themselves with the quotes that El_C lists above has no place at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Support RB has long been a civil POV pusher, whose POV is completely at odds with Wikipedia's purpose, and they have removed all doubt about their intentions with the plain bigotry quoted above. Without going into a meta-discussion of gender in depictions of naked people, do we seriously think that a man who put such an image of themselves on their userpage would not be insta-blocked? Acroterion (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Endorse block - its one thing to be a holocaust denier on your own spaces, its another thing to bring that nonsense onto WP, causing obvious disruption. Not to mention the appalling poor taste putting full frontal nudes of yourself on your user page with no encyclopedic value, the apparent unwillingness to listen to editors, and a mess of other disruptive activities. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 16:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Support I was in the midst of declining the appeal yesterday afternoon but was running short on time and didn't want to rush my decline rationale. I had intended to finalize the decline this morning if the appeal was still open; a formalized ban works just as well as far as I'm concerned.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the blocking administrator, I will refrain from supporting an additional sanction. I will express my opinion that Raquel Baranow seems to be a nice person who has beliefs and engages in behaviors that are incompatible with editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the block, but for expressing views such as Holocaust denial and other conspiracy theories. I guess that there are national differences in the acceptability of nude images, but I see nothing at all objectionable about the image in question, in which she was not engaging in any sexual activity and just happened not to be wearing any clothes. I would have no problem with any child or grandchild of mine seeing that image, and the same would go if it was an image of a man who wasn't visibly sexually excited. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      RE: the naked pic — what's objectionable here is context-dependent, Phil Bridger. That image wouldn't be viewed in isolation on some article for educational purposes (which I support). And if someone wants to upload nude pics of themselves, I really could not care less. But to have such an image displayed at the top of their user page as, basically, its centre piece — that is not the same thing. Thus, as mentioned, to minors who might end up interacting with her in the course of normal editing, at the very least it'd be weird. I'm not so much interested in an ideal type as I am in the here and now. El_C 19:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban: Holocaust denial is not compatible with editing Wikipedia. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban It seems highly unlikely that this user will edit in a non-biased manner in the future. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 12:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban Realistically, the editor is never going to be a productive member of this community. (see also: previous indef a decade ago). To be clear, it seems the editor linked to that offwiki blog post in the OP themselves. A skim through their user talk page in the years after their 2012 unblock makes me surprised it took until 2020 for them to be indeffed again. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per everyone else. This editor is unlikely to be capable of contributing here anytime soon, and any unblock should have to be approved by the community. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Pajfarmor makes poor edits and has never communicated with anyone

    IP blocked for one week as WP:BKFIP.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Pajfarmor makes edits which are very often harmful to the articles concerned. They rarely leave an edit summary, and rarely provide a reliable source for their changes (eg: [57]). Often, they mark significant changes as minor (eg: [58]). When they do provide a source, I have observed that their edit is often actually contradicted by the source, or the source contains nothing of relevance (eg: [59]). Quite often, they add text that is convoluted, ungrammatical, and even nonsensical (eg: [60])

    The user has been editing Wikipedia for 15 years, but in that time has responded to a talk page message one single time only, 11 years ago (see [61]). When their edits are reverted, I have never seen any response or recognition of any issue. They just keep on making poor quality edits to other articles. It is thus impossible to understand what their motives are, and whether their contributions are really made in good faith or not.

    Communication is required, but this user refuses to communicate. I see plenty of precedent for users being blocked until they acknowledge the need to communicate with other editors, so I wonder if this remedy is required here too. 46.208.236.206 (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment A user User:Andesitic was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Both User:Andesitic [[62]] and OP (User:46.208.236.206) [[63]] made almost identical additions to User:Pajfarmor's talk page. JeffUK (talk) 12:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So your only thought, on reading my report, was to assume bad faith and try to undermine it? 46.208.236.206 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:FOLLOWING by User talk:49.180.171.190

    The editing record shows that the ip user is following my edits across multiple pages and systematically reverting them. Details in the edit summaries indicate that the user has intimate knowledge of the encyclopedia’s policies and is most likely operating either other registered, sockpuppet accounts or along an ip range. Administrator intervention would be greatly welcomed.Estnot (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of one week for harassment (WP:HOUNDING), though you are pretty new yourself, Estnot seeing as you joined on Sept 2. I didn't understand the basis for you claiming this person is operating either other registered, sockpuppet accounts or along an ip range. I also upgraded the protection (my own) from pc to one year semi for Meng Wanzhou, not because of this dispute so much, though. El_C 13:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:El_C I made those comments on the basis of similar edits from other ip addresses on the relevant articles and also, as I pointed out, details in the user’s edit summaries which indicate he is most likely not a new user. (Like his citation of wp:blp in reverting my edits on the Meng Wenzhou page which is a policy that I did not even know even existed until now.)
    on a separate note I am unsure how to proceed as this is my first time encountering this type of situation. Am I allowed to revert those hounding edits? I feel like I can and should but there might be a risk that I might unnecessarily escalate things especially if the user gets off the unblock list and decides to edit war on those pages. would it might be better if you reverted those edits? Estnot (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Estnot, what I'm saying is that if all the IPs are of that range, then that would not be a basis. Sorry, I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of the material to do anything else right now. Unless there are pressing WP:BLP concerns, in which case, please spell those out. Even though these were hounding edits, please don't revert them for that reason alone (i.e. without citing an explanation tied to the contested content itself). About the future: just report any further hounding from that IP to admins again, which will carry more severe action. El_C 14:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Estnot as an aside, I noticed you do like to use reverts a lot, could you please bear in mind the suggestions in WP:ONLYREVERT when you do in the future? I'm not saying any particular revert you have made was inappropriate, but reverting good-faith edits entirely is often not the right course of action, and may lead to more hostility, at the very least be gentle when doing so. JeffUK (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 76.69.87.247: Severe incivility

    TEMPORARY BLOCK
    76.69.87.247 blocked for 1 week for making personal attacks by The Blade of the Northern Lights. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The IP 76.69.87.247 is attacking other editors, mainly Ahunt, and calling them "Nazis," particularly at the page Harsha Walia. I heard it was ANI tradition to provide "diffs" for proof,[Humor] so here they are.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarsha_Walia&type=revision&diff=1053477622&oldid=1032293624
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harsha_Walia&type=revision&diff=1053551358&oldid=1053518670
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harsha_Walia&diff=next&oldid=1053551655
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAhunt&type=revision&diff=1053550321&oldid=1053462760

    If I forgot any part of the ANI process, let me know! /gen Minkai(rawr!)(see where I screwed up) 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Wtyuy WP:NOTHERE

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

    Account's edit history consists of politically motivated section blanking [64][65], unexplained content removal [66][67][68] and the requisite nasty comment about CNN [69]. They're only here to disrupt. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely by Bbb23. clpo13(talk) 06:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    JesseRafe

    OP blocked as a sock, nothing to see here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This editor has crossed the 3RR line here. Don't they get blocked?--Wikitikitengo2 (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikitikitengo2, JesseRafe seems to have asked you to discuss this on the article talk page. Why haven't you done this? And can you explain what you were trying to achieve with this edit? [70] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Filer was blocked by Bbb23 as being a sock; unblock request pending. Curbon7 (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this be administratively closed? 1. 3RR is on its face a false claim as my 3 edits were over 4 days, 2. After looking at the ref (needed Wayback so didn't bother initially) there's literally nothing to support the claim which the location of is the dispute (entire para pasted in last edit summary, 3. This editor turned out to be a sock of an account blocked for abuse and attacks directed at me (and others) and this is nothing more than a poor revenge ploy to goad me. JesseRafe (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello, I’d like to make an article but it is black listed (notify me if this isn’t the correct noticeboard

    I’d like to make an article about the web series ‘Battle for Dream Island’ but it is blacklisted. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coco the Dawg (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This article was deleted by the community due to not meeting our inclusion criteria.. See: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about the one that is blacklisted, but Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two has been unfinished since January. The draft's creator ChannelSpider is currently an active editor. — Maile (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BFDI is correctly salted, there's no reliable coverage whatsoever, yet people keep recreating it. I could see an article for the creator, Kary Huang in the future of he gets more coverage, as he has done other notable things like Scale of the Universe Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Battle for Dream Island is currently salted, and the Draft:Battle for Dream Island: The Power of Two is clearly just a salt evasion. It should be salted as well if the original salting was the consensus. --Kbabej (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, someone is trying really, really hard to get this show on WP. Draft:Battle for Dream Island is salted, as is Battle for Dream Island. Then there's the twice-declined Draft:Battle_for_BFB. Then there's the Draft:Object show, which is clearly just a coatrack for Battle for Dream Island. There are also the drafts Draft:List of BFDI:TPOT episodes, Draft:List of Battle for BFDI episodes, and Draft:List_of_BFDIA_episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbabej (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits on Myanmar National Airlines

    This IP user User:103.144.225.75 (talk) (contributions) has been seriously disruptive edit behavior at the page of Myanmar National Airlines with this contributions are all unsourced [71]. I tried to warn this IP but it also get repeatedly adding an unsourced edits. I hope this IP user will ban for like 1 day and the Myanmar National Airlines will also be protected. Thank you! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    I've blocked them for 2 weeks along with a warning that if they continue after the block they'll be blocked completely from the Myanmar National Airlines article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hdepayns

    User:Hdepayns has made persistent copyright violations and made an attempted disclosure of others' personal information. - since deleted.

    On 28 October, Hdepayns uploaded and added a copyrighted image to Donhead Preparatory School. That day, Hdepayns was warned and the image deleted. As per the user's commons talk page.

    Much later that day, 12 hours later, Hdepayns added text from the website of Donhead Preparatory School to the article. The next day, admin deleted and warned that those who persist in copyright violations must be blocked. This is on User talk:Hdepayns.

    On 3 November, Hdepayns uploaded a Google Street View image onto Collingham College. The next day, it was deleted and Hdepayns was warned again. Again, it's on the talk pages.

    The user responded by an attempted outing, since deleted by oversight, and after this outing was deleted, Hdepayns threatened Wikipedia sanctions on User talk:Hdepayns and my talk page.

    Efforts (on the talk page) were made by myself and admin not to bite the newcomer after the first and second copyright violations respectively. However after the third copyvio, and now the latest message, and to deter the continuation of this and get to something less disruptive, can Hdepayns be put on timeout or something? Cardofk (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You're welcome. I blocked from ground control and sprotected the page. El_C 15:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Love the Bowie reference, cheers! Cardofk (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Both now CU blocked. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential sock creation of article

    An IP created an article on Simple Wikipedia about the person above (simple:Jean-François Ott) which Elijahgraham26 contributed to and uploaded a portrait of the person, adding it to that article. They had been blocked about 6 months earlier on this Wikipedia for promotion and suspected sockpuppetry. And just recently, Valentina Bussi created the article above on this Wikipedia after contributing to the simple Wikipedia article 3 months earlier. You can see that the article is both an exact copy of the simple Wikpiedia one and also originally doesn't have a proper title; the now-proper title had been previously deleted as G11 and later G12. There may have been some rampant interwiki sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on here. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 12:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User Zedzedz123 Making legal Threats

    User Zedzedz123 has made legal threats with their edit summary here and here, he was warned here and still the another threat.--VVikingTalkEdits 13:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that that sort of language seems intended to have a chilling effect, but I'm not sure those comments quite cross the line into direct legal threats. I've asked that they make stop doing that though, and make a statement to the effect that they do not intend to pursue any such action themselves.
    As ever, this isn't the place to discuss content, but what the hell: I'm not sure that the content and source belong in a BLP. The text you reinstated was 'He is one of several top military officers implicated in the $2.1 billion arms scam involving the former National Security Adviser...'. What the source actually says that an estate he owns was raided. There's a bit more coverage of it here, which suggest that he was earmarked for investigation, and I assume the raid was part of that, but I'm not seeing anything to say that charges were ever brought, or any evidence presented that would 'implicate' him in the scandal. Certainly, he seems still to be active in public life in Nigeria, so I'm guessing there was never a prosecution. A better phrasing might be something along the lines of '...an estate owned by him was raided as part of investigations into...', but if there is no source suggesting that charges were ever brought, one might make the argument that any mention of it is undue. Something to thrash out on talk, without any legal threats, of course. Girth Summit (blether) 15:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have have a few issues but I put them as 2 issues.

     – –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue one: I was improving the page below with reliable sources from another link from Wikipedia.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(given_name)

    My edits were reverted. I changed it back and wrote on the article’s talk page. They reverted it back and added a link on the article’s talk page. that only support me. I then reverted it back but improved what it said with links from reliable sources on the article’s talk page as the one Wikipedia guide said. They did not look and came to my talk page to give me a warning about original research and nothing I put was original research. It was real facts. I think my links were overlooked. They did not talk to me or even trying to discuss this. This was almost 3 reverts in 24 hours from them. It was 3 in like 48 hours. I think this matter needs to be looked into.

    My solution: Maybe you can look at the page and maybe lock it. Maybe look into that user which can be found on that page and my talk page. It has stop now because I have not reverted it back. I am now asking on those animated shows for information and looking into Wikipedia articles for guidance. Can I remove the unnecessary and misused warning from my page?

    Issue 2: I approached someone I have talked to in the past for advice but the conversation went to a personal attack on me. They even brought in past editors I had arguments with in the conversation which was unwarranted and bizarre but they did that about me and their misunderstanding on those topics and nothing to do with why I came to them. Now they are deleting anything I post to standing up to the false accusations they are telling. I tried to do what is best for Wikipedia and tried to follow the guides. There is so much it is overwhelming. I am a new user. I just don’t like it when I follow the guidelines on reliable sources and editors telling me different but when I showed them I am wrong and it is turned into a person attack insulting me. I would restore my comment because it is not only to them and it is standing you for myself but it would be only removed again.

    My solution: Maybe this user needs to be looked into which can be found in my contributions and they did make an edit to the link above. I am already avoiding this user because they were trying to intimidated me and insult me instead of having a real conversation with me. I just wished they would leave my comment that stands up for myself there instead of removing it. Which brings me to my next question. I have looked but found nothing on the subject. Can I remove my topic thread I started on that users page? It is not a topic thread to improve Wikipedia as I hoped but just a thread to bash me on for standing up what I believe in and my good reliable edits from following Wikipedia guidelines. I feel uncomfortable with it being there and especially if I can’t defend my self to the attacks. They may not did anything to violate the person attacks policy but they are close. I feel threatened and feel personally attacked over me asking for guidance. This user instead of saying they shared their opinion and i can go here if I want to fight it, they wanted to insult me and criticize all my past actions in the wrong interpretation. I feel uncomfortable on Wikipedia. FedualJapan (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @FedualJapan: This is mostly a content dispute. I'll explain more on the article's talk page. However, JesseRafe, try to maybe be less WP:BITE-y?[72][73] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I notified this user for you as is required. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:JesseRafe has shown FeudalJapan as much good faith as they deserve. I note in FJ's compliant here they singularly fail to mention how they basically trolled Drmies—to the extent that FJ was effectively dismissed from Drmies' talk. Provoking this from one of the mildest mannered admins we have is certainly an achievement, and one that FJ is doubtless leery of publicizing here. Boomerang may apply. ——Serial 15:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      User:MJL Thank you for looking into the first matter. I wished User:JesseRafe would had talked to me about this more on the talk page of the article as Wikipedia has requested. It would had made things better. There needs to be good faith on here. About the matter with Drmies I didn’t troll Drmies. If anything they trolled me. I was trying to have a real conversation while they only could personally attack me and bring in others to attack me which had no reason to be there. I tried sharing what I have been using from Wikipedia but they could only blame, criticize, and insult me. Now when I stand up to the bullying Drmies removes the comment. I have NOT trying to provoke anything just standing up to personal attacks on me. I only went to them in seeking advice but it was handled wrong. It needed to be about the subject not attacks on me. I will only state the truth and I am sorry there are lies being told to you. There really needs to be more good faith here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FedualJapan (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      So, on the one hand, you're calling editors liars and trolls, but on the other hand, there needs to be more good faith? An interesting approach. ——Serial 15:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, well, then this really might just be a WP:CIR issue and WP:IDHT. I didn't see that talk discussion.
      A lot of editorial time seems to have been spent on this user. I have explained one last time what FJ needs to do in order to add a character to the list. If FJ follows that advice and stops trying to add the Maya's from Sailor Moon, then I have at least some hope.
      WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a well regarded policy, and FedualJapan needs to understand that if they want to continue editing here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That seems an excellent summary of the situation... ——Serial 16:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:MJL I had already did some of that about 24 hours and will continue to go forward. I am editing in good faith and proactive. Yesterday, I took the right actions and not adding them back unless they are added to Wikipedia. I already posted the on talk page and I wished I received a reply like yours instead. I went to someone with more experience to ask but I wished I went to you or someone like you instead because you actually explained it. Thank you. Also, I have not talk to this other editor called Serial at all but to the warning they issue me. I have not called anyone lairs or trolls. I will reread the comments but I felt bullied and just stood up for myself. If I remember correctly I only asked and I said there are lies which is not calling them lairs. I only used trolled because Serial said I was trolling Drmies but I feel it is the other way around and I feel my words are twisted around. I am easily to get along with but I will defend myself when mistreated. Can you issue the same warning to Serial as he gave me? He did assume bad faith with me with his first reply in saying I was trolling Drmies when I wasn’t. I went to Drmies for advice but it stop being about advice. I wanted a real conversation with Drmies. And I feel Serial continues to do by his actions. I am trying to solve issues not be disruptive. His warning to me: “Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at (link to here), you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Thank you so much if he said I trolled Drmies that is assuming I am here to harm rather to improve. I was not trolling. I am sorry they have that view. I am not here to troll, harass, or to be disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FedualJapan (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    JustANameInUse repeated block evasion

    JustANameInUse who was indef blocked on Wikipedia returns to Wikipedia every 5 or 6 months after his blocks expire. He is now using the IP [74]. His agenda is to always push a POV related to the carnivore diet, saturated fat, Atkins diet and now Ancel Keys. One of the last IPs he was blocked on was in July [75]. The same user also has a history of leaving homophobic comments [76]

    If you check the history of the Atkins diet talk-page you can see his disruption in the past [77]. This user uses the IP range 93.141 and always leaves long edit summaries. There is no doubt it is him. He has been reported several times to this board in the past.

    Previous discussions at ANI about his user and his IPs [78] and [79], there have been others about his disruption. The consensus has been to block his IPs per WP:EVADE. CaptainEek who has blocked this users IPs before said he will extend the block if any new ones are found. Can an admin please extend the block on his latest IP 93.141.114.41? Thanks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Honest-Critique adding non-WP:RS/WP:FRINGE, edit warring and insults, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith.

    User:Honest-Critique (their personal Talk page here: [[80]]) initially removed sourced information from the Ashkenazi Jews page and changed a direct quote from a scientific source (initially here [[81]]) seemingly to fit their personal opinion regarding the topic. I explained that it was a quote from the study and quoted it for them in an edit note. They then added material to the article from a non-expert with a fringe position to two places in the article. I reverted them with explanations in the edit notes (one of them here: [[82]]). They then reverted me, reinstating their additions, this time with several edit messages containing extremely personal comments with insulting accusations and assumptions of bad faith.

    Here they reinstated their material, having ignored my explanations, and simply accused me of having removed it because it hurt me (writing: "That's the genetic study, like it or not (and be Ashkenazi or not - which the various studies doubt), u r not entitled to remove sources because they "hurt" u.") [[83]]

    Here in another edit note accused me of having "an obsession with falsehoods" with other personal comments, wroting: "Let's take a DNA test together, and see who between us is a direct descendant of the Ashkenazim? I bet that's the only way ur obsession with falsehoods will end." [[84]]

    And another inappropriate and unsulting comment here: [[85]]

    I reverted them again, again explaining my reasons were based on policies, asked them not to make accusations and personal attacks, and warned that I would report them if they continued to edit war. But given, their extremely inapropriate an personal comments and disregard for policy, it seems likely that they will continue, as they do not seem to be willing to discuss or be responsive to explanations.

    I believe that this is the same person as a user who recently made similar POV edits (and also edit warred) on the Hebrew-language Wikipedia and was blocked, here [[86]], and whose name (which is in English there also) is the same as that of the present user ("Honest-Critique"). On the Hebrew Wikipedia, this user edit warred on the Ashkenazi Jews page while making innapropriately personal and uncivil comments in the edit notes (as can be seen using Google Translate. It translates automatically on some mobile devices). The user's name, as mentioned, is in English not Hebrew, and seems to be the same user as the subject of this report. See [[87]] And here [[88]]

    (This user also reminds me of IP users who have made edits to this page in the past, pushing a similar POV and then resorting to flippant personal attacks when engaged with, challenged, or reverted and I suspect they may be the same person as well.) Here is the Ashkenazi Jews page's edit history for referrence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Ashkenazi_Jews

    Any attention is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned and indef partial blocked from Ashkenazi Jews. OMG, I hate mobile diffs so much! 😾 Anyway, Skllagyook, maybe worth having the regulars at WP:RSN or possibly WP:FTN review those sources...? I'm afraid this isn't an area with which I am especially familiar. The shenanigans at .he (whose links I overlooked on the first read) do not inspire confidence unfortunately that this is heading anywhere but a sitewide indef. El_C 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the user as a sock of Wolfman12405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The behavior fits, and I believe the block at he.wiki was for that reason, and that the use of Wolfman1245 was a typo (there is no user named Wolfman1245).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic editing from Chinese account

    INDEFINITE BLOCK
    羊瑞克 has been indefinitely blocked by El_C because they are not here to build an encyclopedia, and instead promoting Chinese ultranationalism. (Non-admin closure) -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 04:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I recently encountered a Chinese account by the name of 羊瑞克, which has made questionable edits. The first questionable edit made was to the List of massacres in China article, which the user edited to remove mention of the 1959 Tibetan uprising without explanation. The second questionable edit was made to the Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party article, which the user edited to seemingly whitewash the CCP's Stance on Chinese traditions by changing The CCP is historically notorious for attempting to destroy aspects of Chinese culture, mainly folk Confucianism in the form of Four Olds under Mao. to The CCP was accused of attempting to destroy aspects of Chinese culture, mainly folk Confucianism in the form of Four Olds under Mao., again without explanation. The third and fourth questionable edits made were to the International reactions to the 2021 United States Capitol attack article, which the user edited to remove any mention of the Taiwanese response to the attack, once again without explanation. This looks like a pro-CCP account attempting to whitewash and even entirely remove certain information about China and Taiwan. Thoughts? X-Editor (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTHERE indef. Maybe a bit Stale, but might as well nip this in the bud. El_C 22:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Thanks for taking care of it! X-Editor (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Tepkunset

    I apologize if this is not in the right forum, but I have concerns regarding recent edits made by Tepkunset. This editor has gone through dozens of articles removing links. Most of these links are to countries. In all of the instances that I have seen, these countries have not previously been mentioned in the articles and they are relevant to the articles and should be linked. I am willing to assume that the edits are in good faith, and I don't support any sanctions, but I do believe that they should most likely be reverted and that the editor should be asked to cease such4 behavior in the future. Display name 99 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to me like he's just applying WP:OLINK. If you have examples where the user is going overboard, please provide diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [89] This diff from an article about a language spoken in a part of France. Because France is so closely related to the language, it should clearly be linked. He removed the links of some countries but left others behind here, here, and here which in my view is totally nonsensical. In an article entitled "Economy of Botswana," he removed a link to the country of Botswana. [90] In an article entitled "Geography of Kuwait", he removed a link to the country of Kuwait, as well as to neighboring countries, which for obvious reasons are of high importance to the article. [91] Does this meet your definition of going overboard? Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those look reasonable to me as they are all well-known geographical terms. Generally, countries do not need to be wikilinked. I certainly don't see any misbehavior in this area on the part of the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Botswana is not especially well-known. Countries should definitely linked in articles about those countries. It's inconceivable to me to have an article about the geography of Kuwait and not link to the articles about countries that surround it, and most especially to Kuwait itself. When countries are mentioned in passing, true, they generally do not need to be linked. But when discussing something that is relevant and connected specifically to one particular country, it is important to link to it just as it is to anything else. Display name 99 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Can you identify Botswana on a map of the world? (2) What was its name before it gained independence, and when did it do so? (3) Who was the colonial power, and why did that power take it over? (The reason was unusual, and possibly unique.) Answer those questions, and I might begin to be persuaded that linking Botswana is WP:OVERLINKing. (I sometimes despair at the unnecessary links to countries and cities everyone knows about.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OL asks "does reading the article you're about to link to help someone understand the article you are linking from?" I would think anyone reading Economy of Botswana already knows enough about Botswana to understand the article. Regardless, I know editors disagree on this but it is clearly a content dispute to be discussed elsewhere. MB 23:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Zamuel2000m

    Zamuel2000m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    It seems that Zamuel2000m user is on mission to Azerbaijanify articles rather than improve them here in Wikipedia. This is obviously not constructive and screams WP:NOTHERE. I did already report him/her back in August but to no avail [92]. Some examples;

    23 August 2021 - Why is it not written Shaki Khanate in Azerbaijani Turkic

    23 August 2021 - Added 'Azerbaijani' without a source

    23 August 2021 - Added 'Azerbaijani' without a source

    28 August 2021 - Aq qoyunlu and qara qoyunlu are Azerbaijani Turks

    5 November 2021 - He is not persian but Azeri turkic

    5 November 2021 - this dynasty is of Azeri origin

    5 November 2021 - The army language and the dynastic language of the Safavid dynasty were Turkic (Azerbaijani), but why was it not specified?

    Blocked indef. Fairly routine ethno-national fare. El_C 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE editing by IP 86.27.177.114

    1. Added an extensive list of non-Pashtun kings of the Ghurid dynasty to the List of Pashtun empires and dynasties in order to press them as Pashtuns. No edit summary/source.[93]
    2. Re-added the same extensive list. No source. Edit summary: "Ghurid dynasty is not Tajik or Persian khar". With "khar" being the Persian word for donkey.[94]]
    3. Swapped a map at the Hotak dynasty page that had been created through WP:CON[95] with a map that shows supposedly greater territorial extent of a historically Pashtun Empire. No proper explanation, nor (counter)source against the original map, nor consensus.[96]
    4. Tried to reinstate the same map by reverting an editor. No edit summary/explanation nor source.[97]
    5. Tried to change, at the History of Iran page, the sentence "Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations, with historical and urban settlements dating back to 7000 BC." into "Iran is home to one of the world's oldest continuous major civilizations which majority of it was looted from other countries"[98] Edit summary: "content". No source.

    Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this IP is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I looked at the history of both articles and this case could be block evasion and long-term POV-pushing. Disabling anonymous editing for 86.27.177.114 (if it's a shared/dynamic address) and semi-protection would be helpful. Mann Mann (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 6 months. Ethno-national nonsense about sums it up. El_C 15:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mr. Punk Pirate

    User is constantly making disruptive edits at Don't Change; edit violates WP:SONGCOVER which was also done previously by anonymous IPs (which I am inclined to believe were used by the same user) which prompted the page to be put into semi-protection. Still doing so after protection was enabled and responded with vulgar language when their edit was reverted.[99][100][101] Magatta (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor has made contributions for some time and I don't think one dust-up should lead to an indefinite block. I think that requires a pattern of misconduct that I don't see. Let's see if this block changes his approach before levying an indefinite block on an editor. Everyone should be allowed to have one bad night. Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense. I checked for prior good edits, and while these comments were definitely warranting a block, their editing has been sensible in the past with no prior blocks, so I'm happy with the 31 hours. - Bilby (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I suggest a deeper look? For example, this still-existing edit summary which in my view also merits a RevDel? And as OP Magatta points out, several other highly similar IP edits were made, the origin and nature of which have yet to be addressed. I submit that an indef block will require an unblock request that indicates Punk Pirate fully understands the issues, renounces these disgusting accusatory actions against other editors, and makes clear that they, Punk Pirate, will not repeat them, before they are brought back into the community. Jusdafax (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My thanks for the speedy RevDel, and as a preventive measure I'd suggest a block on the IP. To return to the question of strikingly similar edits, the first was made by User:MrAnderson5 on October 30, followed by five different IP editors making the same or highly similar edits in the next four days, the latest being the IP just RevDeled. Since the same type of wording attack was made by Mr. Punk Pirate, it seems likely that this editor is using tactics of a questionable type. Jusdafax (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may be correct on your reading, but to be safe I'll go on the principal of enough rope - I'll keep an eye on the relevant pages for a few days and see if things start up again. If they get a message this time around it would be nice, if not I'll have to go for indef. - Bilby (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the IP, whose egregious and identical attack was also deleted, remains unblocked and not even warned, despite his edit being RevDeled. Given the highly similar edits to Mr. Punk Pirate's by one account and five IP's, would you be okay with a case being filed at WP:SPI? In my view this matter warrants further action. Jusdafax (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BeingRealMan

    On Dharmendra, BeingRealMan has been repeatedly inserting that the article subject was "the most handsome man in the world" over a twenty year period in the 20th century. These edits have been occurring since at least October 31 (1, 2, 3). In addition, the user has uploaded several pictures of the Indian actor without providing a source or license for the materials (File 1 and File 2). The individual had been warned multiple times about this.

    The individual has also been adding the unsourced and unlicensed images to Dharmendra filmography, as well as unsourced text material praising Dharmendra's works. I don't think this is a clear case of WP:AIV at this point, so I'm taking it here, but I believe that some preventative action could be taken to help protect Wikipedia from future fancruft would be a good thing. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed as NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Adammoore1982

    Adammoore1982 is a COI Wikipedia:Single-purpose account who used this platform for 11 years to edit articles related to the Hillsong Church, and most of the edits are focused around defending the church's reputation. 119.193.23.15 (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 119, why did you try to alter the IP address in your above post, per this? Also, as required by the big red notice at the top of this page, you should have notified Adammoore1982 of this thread. I’ve done it for you. DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa: Can you block the IP? I think this is some class of trolling, along with, as you point out, personation of another IP. ——Serial 10:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not an admin. I noticed when posting the ANI notice that User:Damien Linnane had left a similar COI query with Adammoore1982 so it may be a legitimate issue. I don’t know. DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa: Apologies! How soon can you stand? ——Serial 10:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, about then… DeCausa (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Number 54129 You are old enough for this platform and yet you have mistaken him as an admin? My man is losing some brain cells. 119.193.23.15 (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    did you really just attempt to take a shot at Serial Number 54129? well, apparently the joke is on you. Celestina007 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    119.193.23.15 (re-)blocked as a proxy. Incidentally, the IP they tried to imitate has previously been CheckUser blocked. Favonian (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For the life of me I can't understand what's going on with whoever is running the IP address that started this thread, but irrespective of that, yes, the complaint itself is very valid. Adammoore1982 is a SPA who for 11 years has solely edited articles related to Hillsong, and often violates guidelines in doing so. As early as 2012, he was making false statements to defend Hillsong, such as with this edit: [102] In this edit, Adammoore1982 removes a source that confirms Hillsong paid their staff with grant money, then instead claims they did not. He then falsely states there is proof they did not pay their staff with grant money in a letter hosted on the Hillsong webpage, but if you read the letter he cited, it makes no such claims. As per his talk page, he has been warned about adding unreferenced info to a Hillsong-related article in 2013, and warned again in 2016 for removing content from the Hillsong page without explanation. I'm sure if you go through his edits manually, you will find many more instances of this behaviour, and if requested I would be happy to do so myself if there isn't enough evidence already to take any form of action. As per the comment I left on his talk page, I wasn't going to escalate this myself, but now that it has been by someone else (and a third-party has also pinged me here) I feel like I should comment. Also on websites outside Wikipedia I've also uncovered strong evidence Adammoore1982 has a conflict of interest with Hillsong Church (if that wasn't obvious already from his editing history), though I'm hesitant to post that information here as it's my understanding it would constitute as WP:OUTING. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Such evidence is very easy to find. Narky Blert (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Adammoore1982 from editing Hillsong Church for one year. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD WAR with Ten Pound Hammer

    Bob's war on hammer ended with boomerang. Levivich 03:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    user user:TenPoundHammer removed my AFD from the article Vito Trause and closed it. I added it again after I left a message on his talk page and nominated again this article for deletion . TenPound Hammer needs to be disciplined. I am waiting for him to be disciplined and then it can be nominated again. No need for AFD war. Thanks Bobbybob2021 (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The Vito was from metro nyc. He is not in any normal publication of the area, Bobbybob2021 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A significant number of the citations used (more than enough to pass GNG, for what it's worth) are from the New Jersey area he was from (The Passaic Herald-News, Bergen Record, Asbury Park News). How are those not "normal publications"? There genuinely does not seem to be any clear policy grounds for deletion here and I would suggest dropping the stick. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 03:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Boomerang bans on Bobbybob2021

    OP is an account that seems to have one purpose: to delete the Vito Trause article. The editor has engaged in tendentious editing in this regard, made personal attacks, and has otherwise shown that they are unable to be productive in this area. A set of boomerang sanctions seems in order. I propose that the editor be topic banned from Vito Trause and topic banned from deletion, broadly construed, indefinitely. Additionally, I propose that they be given a two-month one-way interaction ban prohibiting the editor from interacting with TenPoundHammer, so as to stop personal attacks against TenPoundHammer in the near future. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. I believe that this is more narrowly tailored than an indef block (the editor hasn't been disrupting other areas of the project) and, if the editor has been editing mostly on IPs until now, then we need to have an enforceable mechanism for any future sanctions relating to block/ban evasion. A community ban can be appealed to the community at a later date should the editor prove that they are here to build an encyclopedia, which they could do by continuing to make productive edits from their account. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as target. The user got extremely aggressive out of nowhere, automatically assuming bad faith in my closure of an AFD. Other editors have already determined my actions to be in good faith, and Bobbybob2021's actions suggest nothing but a tendentious attempt to get their way. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The OP has been indeffed by Bbb23. Nothing more to see here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It has not stopped me! IP editing still works! I think you guys are being unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4B00:2F40:CDDF:90CB:DFA9:1F7E (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for letting us know you're evading your block & can't be trusted. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Heavy OWN, TENDENTIOUS and PA behaviour by The Pollster

    So, The Pollster has engaged in a fairly egregious uncollaborative behaviour at Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election. TP made a series of edits that were contested by myself and another user, Jeppiz, who went on to point this fact in the article's talk page. I then reverted the article to the version previous to such edits until a consensus could be reached, as per WP:BRD. From there, TP has gone into an ownership-like behaviour over the article's contents, coupled with tendentious editing and personal attacks on both myself and Jeppiz, with claims such as:

    The Pollster is unwilling to come to terms to the fact that their edits are contested, and has gone to reinstate their own preferred version without re-engaging into the discussion (this despite having been warned earlier on to adopt a much calmer demeanor and to stop the edit warring) with this edit summary: "vandalism by people with no knowledge of the situation".

    So far, consensus-building attempts have utterly failed since this user is basically prohibiting anyone aside of themselves from contesting their edits and seems unwilling to work collaboratively at all. Thus, a solution of another kind is required.

    PS. Note that while I was writing this report, TP has made a further comment in the talk page, claiming that "There are not many people editing this page. It’s mostly me (who does the most in making this look modern, while a few others only added the fraudulent RA polls in the past. Then there are you 2 (impru and jeppiz) who only serve as querulants and who do nothing to contribute to this article and only come once a year to complain, without actually being from Austria" and "My version is correct and hopefully a few other members come here to say so". I have added WP:PA to the list of spotted policy violations as a result. Impru20talk 12:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • This edit, which says in Wikipedia's voice (and in a somewhat informal tone) that Research Affairs is under investigation, with no sourcing, is unacceptable. I'm surprised that there's disagreement about that. Revert-warring to keep it in place, while making aspersions about the nationality of other editors, is unimpressive at best. It may well be that including Research Affairs polling is inappropriate, but this is not how to go about excluding them. Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have long contributed to the polling sections of Austrian polls and know what I am doing. I was only advising the 2 writers to mind their own business by editing Spanish or Swedish polls, but not Austrian ones where they have no clue what is going on here. Besides, the dubious Research Affairs polls are not removed in my edits - just collapsed and hidden in „old polls“ sections. This is used and done so on the German Wikipedia too without any complaint. Why there should be a massive table of old polling is beyond my comprehension. There should only be visible polling of the last quarter or so, every older poll archived under old collapsed polling. Also, I included a recent poll chart that was missing, using main polling instead of alternative polling incl. MFG. This would be removed if my edits are removed. I advocate that my edits (modernized !) remain in place. --The Pollster (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firstly, you have no right nor power to unilaterally exclude anyone from editing any article. Arguing that what you did was "advising the 2 writers to mind their own business by editing Spanish or Swedish polls" is basically a reiteration of the behavioural issues reported above. If your edits are contested, you must accept that you are not the holder of the universal truth and that you must work collaboratively to reach a compromise. Secondly, you may be well aware and/or more experienced in the knowledge of a country's politics than other users, but that does not waive the verifiability, be bold nor civility policies for you, which btw happen to be three of Wikipedia's five pillars. Thirdly, this discussion is not on the merits of the content added/removed, but on your behaviour. This notwithstanding, it should be mentioned that this issue was already discussed several weeks ago with no final reply on your part, then you waited a couple weeks to game the system by applying your version of how to "remove" or "hide" those polls, despite knowing there was not a consensus for it. You had ample opportunity to press and source the claims for your edits at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election, and what you did was to demonstrate that you cannot work collabotively in a Wikipedia as of currently. Impru20talk 13:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have now removed the controversial disclaimer notice, as it is no longer needed (the Research Affairs polls who were faked are hidden in the older polls sections which are collapsed, but still visible for those who want to see them). I also added a source from the official Austria broadcaster ORF about the OGM controversy in the quality criteria on top of the article. Every major concern is now removed and the article is modernized. --The Pollster (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • You still fail to get the point at all. Article content was not the motivator of this thread. Plus, edits like this in which you again insist on the whole "fake poll" issue without any source, while vindicating previous edits that you leave no one to contest, only serve as further evidence of the problem at hand. Impru20talk
              • I have now included 2 additional (!) sources in the VdMI section on top of the article, which explains how Research Affairs polls were deliberately faked between 2016 and 2021 (emphasis until this year ! - not just their old polls) - therefore making the article even more up to date. I know that this evaluation here is about my controversy about „mind your Spanish or Swedish business“. Ok I apologize, it wasn’t a personal attack, just a reminder to let me edit this article because I know what’s best. And it now looks pretty modernized and reflects all sources needed. --The Pollster (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet / IP hopper engaging in disruptive edits

    Artaxius58 34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    ArtaXerxes58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Mihrdat21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

    As for proof of the sockpuppetry, please see [103]. 46.2.90.73 is obviously the same person, as they attempted to reinstate the edit of one of the other IPs [104] [105].

    Majority of this persons edits have been disruptive or simply not an improvement, and as a result have been reverted. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE. I hope this will be taken seriously, here are some examples;

    Changed Turks and Türkler to 'T*rks' and 'T*rkler' Adding * in the name of a ethnic group is something you do on the internet when you want to be xenophobic or hostile towards a certain ethnic group. Or memeing for that matter.

    Randomly replaced the map of the infobox with a worse one and removed its caption, no edit summary whatsoever¨

    Replaced the English map of the article with a Spanish one, no edit summary

    Added unsourced flag in the infobox, no edit summary and then proceeded to edit war

    Randomly added Armenia as part of this rulers dominion, even though he never ruled it. Again no edit summary

    Replaced Iranian with Talysh. No edit summary

    Removed Iranian

    Altered sourced quote, replacing a dynasty with another

    [106] [107] Messed up the infobox of the article with two of his different accounts

    Replaced formatted cited citations in a GA article with a bunch of non-formatted random citations, proceeded to edit war on his different accounts

    [108] [109] Attempted to add unsourced flag twice in one of his accounts, no edit summary. Attempted to do the same on another account, once again no edit summary [110]

    Randomly removed useful link, no edit summary

    Removed the symbols shown in the infobox, replacing them with a fictional flag. No edit summary

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat

    Francis1864 has made a legal threat at WP:Articles for deletion/Augean software; see the last sentence of [111]. It may be considered ambiguous but given the "Please be formally advised", the intent is clearly to scare people. Danstronger (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1054007011"